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.
I believe the last few comments say why that is wrong, mainly dealing with context and past tweets.
Dawkins has been peddling rape apologetics all week in defence of a skeevy fellow atheist, when the vast majority of rapes involve perpetrators with penises committing those assaults people who don’t have them. (That’s what we call a fact.)
Now would you like to address the context of that tweet? Because it’s the context that makes this “just sayin…” argument grossly offensive. Just sounds like more rape apology that the Dawkins has been churning out for about five or six days now. And if you don’t understand that, that says nothing too good about you.
Also, redhead here! We are superior!
@malcolm, read the comments above. Dick Dawkins is not wrong in what he says, he is wrong in what he implies by saying it in the context in which he is saying it.
He is implying that feminists are deciding that men are wrong simply because they have a penis. Who knew he was transphobic as well as a rape apologist? (Rhetorical question, in case it’s not obvious).
The offensive part is that he’s disingenuously pretending that his opponents are doing this. Instead of addressing their arguments; he’s saying that they don’t have any arguments and are just reflexively siding with women over men.
The “grossly” offensive part is that the tweet might have been a reference to the Michael Shermer rape allegations that have been in the news again lately and which he’s been alluding to in other tweets. It’s too vague to say for sure, but the fact that he apparently had second thoughts and deleted the tweet is revealing.
The implication people are offended by what he’s saying because he has a penis is what’s disingenuous. People are telling him what he’s saying is horrible because it’s horrible. We respond the same way when Sommers says it.
Seconded.
And they’re out there, but Dawkins and ilk are a serious noise machine that makes them harder to hear.
While we’re at it: shut up, Pat Condell.
Cassie’s Major Domo – just Googled Pat Condell.
Ewww.
Oh christ, is Pat Condell still talking?
The second I saw Dawkins’ penis tweet, I knew some disingenous dumbfuck would show up and pretend His Assholiness wasn’t defending his penis-having self from people criticizing his many, many hateful tweets, but was just making an innocent, truthful remark with no context, just like that, out of the blue. Suuuuuure he was.
Note: I do get that MRAs have serious trouble understanding context and the fact that history is not just a string of random occurences with no precedences whatsoever. I really do. How else could they believe that the very real oppression and hatred of women by men (misogyny) that has gone on for ages untold is equivalent to women not always catering to the whims of men (“misandry”)?
But, Anarchonist, context doesn’t exist! It’s just something teh Feminazis made up with our ebil ladybrainz!! Context is irrelevant!
Totally unrelated, dontcha just hate it when Feminazis cherry pick quotes?
And talking and talking and talking and talking…. few video bloggers drone worse than him.
Michael Shermer.
Oh Pat Condell, he and some of his fans are actually why I turned away from atheism and began examining religion again to eventually find my faith.
Oh dearz. I see SOMEONE here isn’t aware of a little thing called CONTEXT. You know, that thing where Dickie Donkins has a history of judging men more trustworthy, because PENIS?
I take issue with his flaming fucking racism, not his atheism. He just sounds like a confused, kooky old man that everyone is afraid to set off so they don’t dare call him out.
I honestly don’t see why the context of the penis tweet makes it offensive. I think that a careful reading of Dawkins’ recent comments doesn’t support the accusation of ‘rape apology’ I think the worst you can say about him is that he lacks empathy and likes stirring up controversy and getting people annoyed with him, maybe to draw attention to issues he considers important, maybe to drive traffic to his website. I don’t know his motives, but I do know that you really have to twist his words around to get them to mean what many people here are saying they mean.
I previously criticised Dawkins on this very blog, but since then I have revised my opinion on the matter and I’ve come to believe that he’s being unjustly vilified by many feminists who are looking to read offense where none existed.
This means I will likely be told to ‘fuck off’ and probably called names like ‘disingenous dumbfuck’. Oh well.
‘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”. ‘
I believed he has blogged about these literal witch hunts, so I think he does know the difference. He is clearly using the term ‘witch hunt’ in the widely used figurative sense: ‘an intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.’
Which in my view this anti-Dawins crusade is starting to resemble.
When I read the tweet I thought he was trying to suggest that cocks should be tie breakers or something.
@sugarvonmurderertits
While I’d be the first to believe that divisive public figures get blown out of proportion at every turn, I also read “dear muslima”, and see little reason to give any benefit of a doubt after that particularly spurious dismissal of a real concern.
“But, Anarchonist, context doesn’t exist! It’s just something teh Feminazis made up with our ebil ladybrainz!! Context is irrelevant!”
Context does exist, but when feminists don’t want to explore it they call it “victim blaming” and it can’t be spoken about.
malcolm, have you once referenced any context outside of the single tweet? You’re the one not willing to explore context.
@sugarvonmurdertits:
Fuck off, you disingenuous dumbfuck.
I’ll bet you thought his tweet about bloggers (“Can it be true, some bloggers are paid by the click, and consequently fake outrage, or play the bully, in order to attract clicks? Hope not.”) was just a harmless little tweet, and totally not insinuating that his critics were just trying to drum up controversy for that sweet sweet click cash.
@ malcolm johnston – you forgot the rest of my sarcasm, about how us feminazis cherry pick.
Dear muslima? That sounds like a sixteenth century term for a Muslim woman, like Jewess.
@marinerache
This a million times. I’m an atheist, which means I lack theism. That is all that Dawkins and I have in common, and when he topples over into privileged old white dude racism and misogyny, I say, “goodbye.”