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’m actually surprised Dawkins is still considered relevant. He’s veering into cranky, “Hey you critics, get off my lawn!” territory.
Wait – he can’t think of a rational argument against cannibalism?
Two words: Prion disease.
Ugh.
You know, that actually is a concern for me. I was in Europe during the 1980’s, and the American Red Cross won’t take my blood, because of the danger of prion disease. It has a looooonnnnngggggg incubation period, there’s no way to test for it, and no way to screen it, and no way to prevent it from happening. We don’t know for sure who was actually exposed to it, but if you were there, and you ate beef, there’s a chance that you were exposed, and it’s just wait and see, now.
So, yeah, if anyone eats me, or any member of my family, they are at risk. Cooking and irradiating don’t kill the stuff, either.
Anyway, why roadkill? Why not murder victims? Or suicides? Why specify road-kill?
This guy is too weird for words.
@Xanthe
What? Quotes, please, because I can’t wrap my brain around how the presence of a penis can possibly have any *rational* effect on the argument that comes out of a person’s mouth.
@sugarvonmurdertits:
The problem with drumming up controversy is that sometimes you get it. And sometimes you’re on the wrong side.
@kitteh
I think it’s because of the “Obvious, but…” at the end. “But” pretty much negates everything that came directly before.
If anyone wants context behind the now long history of Richard Dawkins meltdowns, I’m finding this one to be pretty good.
It’s really disappointing to see that apparently his righteous indignation about atheism was really just indignation over what he thought was right.
Michelle, I hear you! I grew up on a farm, and we hunted or grew most of our meat. I have seen many animals slaughtered for food since I was a small child. I have also, as an adult, seen a couple of autopsies and been in a few morgues. I’m not skeeved out by dead humans, but I sure don’t look at them and think, “yummy! That would make a tasty burger!”. And that’s leaving aside your very rational concern about prions and other contagions!
And, I have never looked at road kill of any kind and thought “yummy!”.
If you really can’t see the difference between an abattoir and a morgue, I rather suspect you might be missing something essential, empathy-wise. It’s not even that I believe that killing a human is automatically worse than killing any other kind of animal, or that survival cannibalism in very extreme circumstances is an automatic ticket to Hell. It’s just more like, why would you bring this up just out of the blue? How does this add to philosophical discourse in any meaningful way?
malcolm: Did your parents manage to raise any decent human beings, or did they just stop trying after failing so badly with you?
sugarvonmurdertits: Hm… Yes, “Fuck off, you disingenuous dumbfuck” does pretty much cover it. If only your self-awareness could measure up to your prescience.
Dick Dawkins Tile suggestions:
Worst Thing In The World Fallacy
Spineless attempt to reference an opponent without naming them.
Pretending there is no context.
@Bina – checking a bag can cost $25-50. Mail it. It’s cheaper, even if you send it certified.
Seriously, next time I go on a vacation, I’m mailing my stuff ahead of me, and taking only a carry-on with my gotta-have-right-now stuff.
Also, ALWAYS back a change of underwear, at minimum, in your carry-on luggage, even if it’s just a pair of panties stuffed in your pocket, because if your bags are lost, you will want clean underwear. Undies and prescriptions. All else is easily replaceable, or you can wait for it. But if you land at 2 o’clock in the morning, you’re not getting replacements for undies and prescriptions.
Honey? Not a carry-on item.
I’m nearly positive that the “Obvious, but…” means “Obvious, but apparently it isn’t obvious to my critics, who are dismissing my opinions on things because I’m a dude.” There have been a number of tweets insinuating his critics are not thoughtful, not rational, emotional, click-baiting, or otherwise not valid. He basically knows he’s right, so everyone calling him wrong are just “Feedingfrenzy Thoughtpolice Bullies” (actual term from an actual tweet, referencing FreeThoughtBlogs where many of his big-name critics are blogging).
Oh. I was wondering myself what was so bad about the tweet. I don’t follow his twitter… or anybody on twitter, for that matter, so I only get these kinda stories second hand. But that context kinda does change the meaning, yes, no doubt about that. Sounds just like the typical anti-feminist “but it’s men who are persecuted!” BS.
I think what is implied is “but some people still don’t get it”. With above mentioned context, ‘some people’ probably translates to as critics of his rape apologetics.
There’s places to have conversations about weird ethical issues and rethinking base assumptions and all that. Your dorm room, at three AM, during your sophomore year, for instance. Using a discussion about cannibalism to launch a broader question of how we form ethical mores is actually a potentially fertile territory.
But Twitter is the worst place in the world for this sort of thing. It doesn’t lend itself to easy back-and-forth, thoughtful analysis is almost impossible, and it exists in a strange place where people wander in halfway through the conversation with no idea of the context at all.
Watching the allegedly erudite and articulate Prof. Dick use Twitter for philosophical discussions is like watching an allegedly talented mechanic try to change a tire with a jackhammer. After the first few spectacular failures, one begins to re-evaluate the basic mental competence of the individual in question.
@leftwingfox – re: witch hunts.
I remember, as a kid, I found out about two things in history at about the same time. 1 – I found out about witch hunts. 2 – I found out about the “extermination order” against Mormons, in Missouri, which was only removed from the law books in 1976, in honor of the USA bicentennial. Basically, it said that the Mormons were to be treated as enemies, and were to be expelled from the state, or else executed. In short, until 1976, it was perfectly legal to murder a Mormon in Missouri.
This made me sad, because my Mom is from Missouri, and I have lots of relatives there. In my kid-brain, I thought “DANGER!” every time I visited them, what with my family being Mormon, and all.
So, I remember thinking that should I ever see anyone doing a witch-hunt, I would side with the witches, because they have just as much right to life, and to their own beliefs, as we Mormons do. Just because I don’t share those beliefs is no reason to kill them. So long as they aren’t harming people, they’re harmless.
Then, when I became an earnest teenager, I actually daydreamed about seeing a witch-hunt, just so that I could heroically stand with the witches! Yeah, I was a bit… Well, I was an earnest teenager. What can I say?
Now, I’m well-aware that there are real witch-hunts, and about all I can do really, is speak out against them, within my own little sphere. I’m no hero.
I am, however, really against using the term “witch hunt” to describe simple criticism. Hyperbole has its time and place”: Mostly, 1 o’clock in the morning, on hyperboleandahalf.com. It is not so good in “rational arguments” about atheism, science, religion, or anything of that nature.
In my view, mis-using the term “witch hunt” is as painful, hurtful, and harmful as mis-using term “nazi.” Grammar-nazis? Feminazis? No, thank you. They are not nazis. They are simply more strident than you would like. Neo-Nazi? Yeah, that one’s real.
@Grumpyoldnurse
The next sim I create will be named Ebil Ladybrainz, in your honor.
I haven’t (and am not going to) followed Dawkins, at all, and am completely unaware of the context of his latest thing, or this tweet. I just saw the statement, followed by “but,” and thought, “Oh, no. He’s going to say that in THIS case, the man’s right.”
Re: Roadkill
If you’re poor, or frugal, I can see the appeal in eating roadkill, provided it is fresh, and not too dirty/greasy from the road. After all, I have no problem with hunting for food. Hunting for sport? HEINOUS! Do the animal the honor of eating it, I say. And road kill animals – just pre-hunted food that require some cleaning.
I have no problem with that.
However, I don’t look at a dead animal on the road and think, “yummy!” I merely don’t get grossed out at the thought of roadkill stew. I also don’t get grossed out at the thought of eating squirrel, possum, or any other “unusual” meat, such as the type that is usually associated with roadkill, and with “hicks” who will eat “whatever.”
I have seen that used in comedy shows, where the “normal” (read – white, rich or middle-class) people get suckered into eating a the home of the “hicks” and are forced to consume possum stew, and get grossed out, while the laugh track rolls. I never really found it funny, because it just seemed to me that they were eating good food, and enjoying the hospitality of people who had to really sacrifice in order to show that hospitality. I mean, if you’re living off of possum and roadkill, it’s generally because you can’t afford to go buy beef at the grocery store, right? And laughing at poverty isn’t good.
So, while I don’t think it’s “yummy,” it doesn’t squick me, either. I’ve eaten lots of different things in my life, thanks to travels to different countries, and learning to appreciate different cultures. So long as consuming it is not dangerous (puffer fish! AAAHHH!), I’m fine with it.
Lately, my stomach rebels at more close-to-home fare, but that’s just me, and probably a reaction to my medication. The fact remains that most animals are really fine to eat, and it’s just a “first world problem” to say that they aren’t. I do know, though, not to eat the organ-meats of carnivores. My father taught me that when I was a kid.
Eating humans, on the other hand, is just asking for trouble.
Psh, honey. My biggest “oh god please no” inconvenience in the airport was the time my hormones got investigated. You know, the things I needed to take everyday, and were in a special bottle that meant they couldn’t be removed unless I pumped all of it into ANOTHER pump bottle, which had the exact same size of pumps to regulate my dose.
(Thankfully, I got them back. I would’ve been SO TANKED had they confiscated them. That shit be EXPENSIVE, I would’ve gotten withdrawal symptoms within a couple days, and my insurance may not have covered it outside the state. Your body totally reversing its hormonal dominance? Not fun.)
RE: malcolm johnston
What’s offensive about that, never mind “grossly” offensive”?
Are you in the habit of showing your genitals to everyone you’re talking to? I’m not. It’s a stupid, pointlessly sensational thing to say, as though someone just needs to drop their pants and they instantly win an argument. It’s a ridiculous, sensational thing to say.
Context does exist, but when feminists don’t want to explore it they call it “victim blaming” and it can’t be spoken about.
Gee, mister, I wonder what context for THIS remark is! You’re just so subtle and sneaky, I totally didn’t catch it! You better lay it out in detail for all us here, just so we can be totally sure of what you mean and can’t misread you.
@malcolm johnston:
See, here’s the context that can be inferred from your recent, disgusting posts on this little feminist blog:
You want to speak about context regarding something that involves victim-blaming. Victim-blaming, as a term, refers to putting a part of the responsibility on the victim for being in a situation where abuse and/or rape happens. From here, I can conclude that you want to seriously discuss how much blame should be put on the victim of rape and/or abuse, but those pesky feminists with their feelings and lack of a logical, objective mind such as yours refuse to discuss this subject neutrally. Instead, they call you a victim-blamer, and you think that is stupid. You’re not blaming victims for what happened to them, though you then go on to list all the ways in which the victim failed to behave in a way that would have prevented her* victimization. You probably think lacking empathy for the victim and discussing absolving the rapist/abuser from at least some of the responsibility makes you a logical and objective thinker, somehow.
(*I say her because in the context of victim-blaming, women are frequently the target, and men are frequently the victim-blamers. I doubt MRAs and other victim-blamers care about gender nonbinary folks at all. Note that men get victimized as well, often by other men, but who cares about those p**sies if you can’t use them as weapons against feminists amirite fellas high five)
The scare-quotes around victim-blaming in your post are a clear sign that you do not take the concept seriously. You may think there is no such thing, just “helpful advice” at best, “taking responsibility for your actions” at worst. You may think that rape and abuse just happen to “bad” women; that rape and abuse are forces of nature that “good” women should know how to shield themselves from, not conscious actions taken by entitled, misogynistic men who very likely share most, if not all of your worldview. A woman being victimized is, by extension, always a bad woman, because a good woman would not have become a victim because the world is a just place and bad things only happen to bad people, apparently. This line of thinking absolves rapists and abusers from a part of the blame, and increases the victim’s punishment for… being a woman.
Yes, I say “for being a woman”, because there is no situation, no circumstance, in which a woman is abused and/or raped that a victim-blamer can’t twist into being at least partially the woman’s fault. Even if that wasn’t the case with you, you’d still want to discuss seriously how women should restrict their lives to avoid being victimized, instead of discussing how we could stop men from victimizing women. But the latter is clearly not an option to you. You do not think women should have the same options in life as men. You defend a society in which women must always spend a lot of time and energy into staying wary and cautious. If something bad happens to her, she’s clearly not tried hard enough.
You do not hate “bad” women; you hate all women. In your mind, a man is never completely at fault for hurting a woman. By explicitly insisting on context when discussing rape and/or abuse, you’re saying that we should always, always consider that maybe the victimized woman is at least partially to blame, and the rapist/abuser is not wholly at fault.
You are a victim-blamer. By extension, you are a rape and abuse apologist. You are most certainly a misogynist. You likely do not care about making society a good place to live for everyone. You wish to excuse abusers and blame their victims for not living up to some arbitrary standards.
See? I got all this context from the posts you’ve made recently, your stated allegiance to the MRM in another thread, and the latest, very revealing post by you. Aren’t implications wonderful?
In concluson, fuck off. You’re not here for any other reason than to stir up shit. Your gender “movement” does not “move” anything; it wants to stop all progress made in gender issues and return to some medieval time that only exists in the minds of misogynists. You’re a mess. Go away and seriously rethink your life. Or, alternatively, step on all the legos.
OK, that’s a valid definition of a McCarthy-style witch hunt. But read the definition more closely. The purpose of a witch hunt to root out disloyalty and subversion. That is, it’s a method for the community leadership to put down dissenting voices.
When the dissenting voices are trying to put down the leadership, that’s not a witch hunt. When they’re successful, it’s frequently called a “coup”, but you could also call it an “insurrection” or even a “peasant’s revolt”.
In fact, I think “peasant’s revolt” is remarkably apt and I’d encourage Dawkins to start saying that instead of “witch hunt’. Frankly, every time I read about him lately, I find myself thinking of Louis XVI. Obviously Dawkins isn’t literally going to get his head chopped off…But at the rate he’s going, he needs to start thinking about either getting a real job or else adjust his budget so that he can live off his savings.
Estimated net worth: 135 million.
I’m not particularly worried about his budget.
Michelle C Young,
LOL. The rationalist emperor (unclothed) beaten on his own playing field.
(Not that it would matter, because a person really should know he’s being offensive with that kind of argument against such a strong taboo. Also, the way he brushes away relatives’ concerns? Good sign of a man who thinks of himself as the Sun of the heliocentric universe.)
When a man and a woman are talking about things like, say, the things women experience… well, it’s not the penis, Richard, it’s the fact that you’ve been insulated from directly experiencing all those things.
And, in fact, that does pretty much mean unless you have some pretty strong evidence that the woman is wrong about her own life experiences, yeah, you’re wrong by default here.
Woman recieved rape threats, death threats aimed at her home address, bomb scares sent to multiple people “It’s normal”
Group of people disgree with the statements of a guy and pointout exactly why. “WITCH HUNT!!! CRUSADE!!!! MRCY MERCY MERCY.”
You’re a thin-skinned little peach.
Oh… Happy dance! I’m so tired of having a pope of atheism, I could scream (but that would indicate the presence of emotions, and that would be illogical :P). He doesn’t represent me, he doesn’t represent me, he doesn’t represent me!
(Sorry… done now…)
“You want to speak about context regarding something that involves victim-blaming.”
No.
The rest of your screed based upon your faulty initial reasoning is therefore incorrect and pretty much irrelevant. I am flattered that you spent so much time responding though. Thanks for that.
RE: malcolm johnston
So, good to know you aren’t actually going to explain, so we don’t have to listen to you then.
Since the guy has admitted to being totally pointless, can we give him a challenge or something? He bores me.