Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins)
Kafka’s Metamorphosis is called a major work of literature. Why? If it’s SF it’s bad SF. If, like Animal Farm, it’s an allegory, an allegory of what? Scholarly answers range from pretentious Freudian to far-fetched feminist. I don’t get it. Where are the Emperor’s clothes?
Fuck this guy sucks so bad now. I remember telling someone I am an atheist, and they were like “oh like that Richard Dawkins guy?”
And I had to explain, no definitely not at all like that Richard Dawkins guy.
I’m also an atheist. And if clarity is needed online I write “I’m just an atheist. I’m not a New Atheist asshole like Richard Dawkins.”
Like why is Dawkins like this? The absolute breaking point for me was when he wore a shit that said “we are all Africans” and refused to take criticism on it. Like yes, technically on a surface level he’s right, the human race originated in Africa. But given the historical context of colonialism, racism, slavery, etc, does Dawkins not realise how inflammatory and straight up offensive it is for himself, a white British guy, to wear a shirt like that? Like come on
My question is: How long as he been an asshole? 10 years? 20 years? A lot longer? His entire adult life?
One reason Dawkins is the way he is - must be that he’s one of those old people who gets worse with age and he’s 80 years old.
He had a huge feud with the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. Gould died in 2001. I know hardly anything about the feud other than they really hated each other. It was more than an argument about ideas. It was personal. I also don’t know how religious Gould was. That might have had something to do with it too.
Ninja edit
I stumbled upon this a minute ago…
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest is a book about the differing views of biologists Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould by philosopher of biology Kim Sterelny. When first published in 2001 it became an international best-seller.
The page is way too long for me to scan easily so I said the hell with it. I hate it when a Wikipedia page is exactly on the subject I’m interested in but the page is probably of little value. I’m interested in the vituperation not the science.
He’s had moments of being good. Back when everyone took Selfish Gene and misconstrued it for the agenda the right wing uses it for he made the documentary Nice Guys Finish Last which while slightly lib is still genuinely a good argument for communism and completely undercuts the entire narrative the right puts on “survival of the fittest”. I still use it as something people should watch whenever the topic comes up, it makes the argument that cooperation is literally the better outcome for everybody in the longterm.
Lol, I started saying I was agnostic in High School just to avoid association with the weird New Aethist kids.
“This classic text actually sucks” is probably the lowest form of literary criticism, especially when it doesn’t engage with any of the discussion surrounding the book.
That said, some classic texts aren’t all they’re worked up to be.
I feel like a lot of that sentiment stems from being forced to read them in High School without an instructor guiding you along to contextualize the piece and explain/help appreciate essentially why it is considered a classic.
Imagine tweeting “i I have no empathy” and taking 46 words to do it
I can imagine Dawkins walking down an isolated country road. He gets started when he turns a corner and a woman in hijab runs up to him. She pleads with with him…
“My husband has had a heart attack. I have no phone. Please call 999!”
“If you admit God does not exist - I shall…”
This man is a goldmine of bad tweets
