With Richard Dawkins rapidly accelerating his schedule of Twitter meltdowns recently, it’s clearly time for some RICHARD DAWKINS TWITTER MELTDOWN BINGO!
The rules are simple:
- Follow Richard Dawkins on Twitter.
- Make sure you’re following the correct Richard Dawkins. This one. While this other Richard Dawkins might seem indistinguishable from the real thing, don’t be fooled! He is merely a stunningly convincing Dawkins impersonator.
- As soon as you notice Dawkins — the real Dawkins — saying something, you know, really really Dawkinsish, pop over here to generate your own randomized DAWKINS TWITTER MELTDOWN BINGO card, because, I guarantee you, a meltdown is immi
nent. - Sit back and wait for the BINGOS to roll in.
- Profit?
Oh, and just so you know, I can edit the list used to generate the cards, so if you have any ideas for new squares, or if you think I might have gone a little overboard with the roadkill cannibalism thing, or you think it needs more “dundridges,” post your thoughts in the comments below.
All the items in my DAWKINS TWITTER MELTDOWN BINGO list — even the roadkill cannibalism thing — are based at least loosely on things he’s actually said on Twitter, or in the little essays he’s written defending his behavior on Twitter.
Oh, so you don’t believe me about the roadkill cannibalism thing? Here he is talking about it with his actual mouth.
And that honeypot thing? Here you go.
Bin Laden has won, in airports of the world every day. I had a little jar of honey, now thrown away by rule-bound dundridges. STUPID waste.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) November 3, 2013
I told you never to doubt me.
EDIT: For more context about his meltdowns, this piece is a good intro. And thanks for the suggestions! I’ll be adding some more squares about Christina Hoff Sommers and his now-deleted penis Tweet.
WIN, David! I’mma linking this on the latest Dawkins Humanity Fail thread on Pharyngula. What a disgusting piece of shit he is.
Thanks kittehserf!
David, if you want some more squares, I left a link (courtesy of Icthyic from the Pharyngula Thunderdome) in the Gamergate Bingo thread…
His most recent Twitter comment is about the relevance of a penis to determining the merits of an argument. Dundridge score: goes all the way to eleven.
We need more positive atheist role models.
My pleasure, Xanthë!
wat
I’d never heard of Richard H Dawkins before but he’d be much more fun to follow than that other Dawkins. The one about Romana I being better than Romana II was priceless.
Ikanreed – Or just more positive role models for humanity in general.
Richard H Dawkins is great.
The REAL Richard Dawkins has deleted the tweet in question, as he did the other day with his tweet about “The REAL Rape Culture”. Fortunately once again I had the tweet in my iPhone’s Twitter cache:
https://twitter.com/xanthe_cat/status/512598073894137857
“And that honeypot thing?”
Well… He is right about the terrorists having won. In response to terrorism, we’ve destroyed our freedoms for no increase in safety.
Granted, the honey example is a minor inconvenience, but in the big picture he is actually correct here.
::snort:: With a lot of people, you’d be able to think that tweet meant “Penis doesn’t make you right, dude.”
Dawkins? I wouldn’t swear he meant exactly the opposite, these days.
I’ve never been embarrassed to have actually met anyone before, so kudos to Dawkins for being the first of the douchebags I’m ashamed to have shared a room with.
I’m curious about what he said on that “penis leads to good argument” tweet. Anyone got a screenshot?
Xanthë and kittehserf:
Wasn’t he just saying that penis ownership is no way to decide who is right or wrong in an argument? Sure, that’s a weird and crass way to put things, but what’s the problem with the sentiment?
“when 2 people disagree, the fact that one has a penis and the other doesn’t is not a good basis for deciding who is wrong. Obvious but…”
What’s offensive about that, never mind “grossly” offensive”?
Should we decide who is more trustworthy based on their genitalia?
That’s the screenshot above, sorceressensorcelled. It was a twit (or he is) so would there be much more to it than that?
Memo to Dickie: Next time, stick the honey jar in your checked luggage, not your carry-on. Problem solved!
@kittehserf: My computer must be glitching out, because I can’t see it. Oh well.
(braces for getting ninja’d)
@Malcolm: In light of previous tweets, this one implies that Dawkins thinks men are getting their opinions on rape routinely dismissed, just because they are men. It smells of ignoring privilege and defending rape apologists.
Context, Malcolm. Dawkins has been tweeting a load of rape apologetics this week and deleting some of the most egregious examples, that is what I am referencing.
Dawkins was nearly inconvenienced at the airport. Clearly this means that Osama isn’t dead and the American Empire is one of lies and deceit, right?
Kerrrist, you’re stupid, troll. Does the word “context” mean nothing to you?
So Richard Dawkins is wrong for saying that people’s arguments shouldn’t be judged on their genitalia?
@malcolm, You apparently missed the “but”.
Yes he’s wrong. Is tart the answer you were baiting for?
It’s his comparison to criticism as a “witch hunt” that infuriates me.
Literal witch hunts are a classic example of religious bigotry and magical thinking resulting in torture, exile and murder of innocent people. They aren’t “just” historical, there are LITERAL witch hunts which still happen regularly in Nigeria and neighbouring countries; people, atheists like Leo Igwe have been doing important work trying to bring the plight of those assaulted, exiled and murdered for “sorcery”.
He’s an atheist. He should fucking know better.
He’s a scientist, he should doubly fucking know better than to call widespread criticism a “witch hunt”.
He’s an abrasive spokesperson for atheism, he is the last fucking person on earth to be whining about “tone” over content!
Rebecca Watson has him dead to rights here: http://skepchick.org/2014/09/dear-innocent-people-murdered-in-witch-hunts/
@Malcolm: That statement, on its own, is factual. But the context in which it was spoken was, at best tasteless, and at worst defending rape apologists.
Like, “Studies show tat redheads are more sensitive to pain” is a fact. But you do not state it as your redheaded friend is begging you to take them to the ER, because in that context, it sounds like you are shrugging off their pain.
People’s arguments *shouldn’t* be judged on the basis of their gender. But when a lot of women are calling out certain men for saying hurtful, demeaning, and ignorant things about rape, that statement sure sounds like saying “These guys are right and anyone who opposes them is sexist.”
You’re right, I did miss the “but”. It doesn’t change the “context” of the tweet.
It should be obvious, “but” it isn’t obvious.
Take note, people: this Malcolm Johnston is just another MRA troll, there’s no need to be patient with him. He’s not here in good faith.