Not everyone is board, but we knew that.
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
Not everyone is board, but we knew that.
[…] who are motivated to be assholes will use motivated reasoning to justify continued assholery. Some already are dismissing this statement as Dawkins being duped, others undoubtedly will argue that what […]
Some people just have to prove that they’re assholes.
So, you’re going to talk Dawkins into trying to kick feminism and then pull it away at the last moment?
Stupid. Not in the least funny. Nowhere close to appropriate. Ashcan the entire concept. Unworthy of any of us. Sad that some people simply cannot imagine adults behaving like adults instead of like callow children. Why should anyone have to put up with being described as devious and manipulative or as naively trusting, stupid, and unable to learn from experience, for the “crime” of working together to make the world a better place?
I don’t get these stupid fucking photoshops. It’s not that I think it’s mean humor. It’s that I look at that and my brain doesn’t even recognize it as something that is supposed to be humorous. I look at this and I don’t even see potential humor.
Is it because I never thought Peanuts were funny so there’s some Peanuts reference I’m missing?
I could at least see humor in Peanuts cartoons even if they didn’t make me laugh. This though? What the fuck is that even supposed mean that might be funny to someone, somewhere?
I still don’t get it.
leni,
If I remember correctly the character holding the ball always pulls it away right before Charlie Brown is about to kick it.
leni,
So the gist is supposed to be Ophelia/Lucy is a bully, causing harm for the lulz while Dawkins/Charlie Brown is at best overly optimistic, more like so gullible as to be dumb as a box of rocks. I don’t think it’s meant to be funny as much as clever. (Of course I don’t find it either one.)
Does “Shermertron” spell his name with an “M” in other venues?
@ leni
As others have said, it’s a recurring theme throughout the Peanuts comics. Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick and always pulls it away at the last minute. To my knowledge, at no point does Charlie Brown ever not fall for it.
To me this is just another example of how few people are more misandrist than anti-feminists. They’re apparently totally OK with characterizing men as stupid, inherently violent and lacking self control as long as they can characterize feminists as the root of all evil in the process.
Heh. Way I see it, two people are being satirised, but only one comes off as a sap.
This depicts—in a way that supposedly skirts the statement’s intent—Dawkins as a sap no less than Ophelia as a cruel trickster.
So: puerile, but informative.
The interesting thing about this “satire” is that the joke only works if Dawkins is actually giving up something by making this statement. If it’s really “obvious” and “unnecessary” for Dawkins to say that he doesn’t condone threats and harassment — as Miranda Celeste Hale and others wasted no time in claiming — then how does Dawkins have anything to lose here?
(Just so we’re clear — *I* don’t think Dawkins ever meant to encourage threats or harassment, though I think at a minimum he was guilty of poor leadership in not making that clearer sooner. But I do think that some of his “supporters” were under the impression that they were being good little soldiers by going forward and harassing The Enemy on his behalf.)
The suggestion (here and elsewhere) that Richard Dawkins has been ‘played’ is astounding, and more than a little insulting*. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if people started drawing Anthony Flew comparisons, because either he’s been bamboozled by Ophelia’s wiles or he’s out of his head with senility. It couldn’t possibly be that he actually, genuinely believes that relentless harassment and rape jokes have a legitimate place in the atheist movement.
*Yes,it is also insulting for Ophelia to be cast as the duplicitous trickster, but not at all surprising given the level of abuse she’s had to endure from the Freeze Peach brigade for lo these past three years. Casting Dawkins–Oxford icon Dawkins–as the putz in this scenario is a fresh new insult.
There’s a number of people in my life I rely upon to give me advice… if indirectly…
In the sense that: I tend to worry if they’re not opposed to something I’m doing. Yea, their opposition can generally be taken as assurance I’m on the right track…
… it’s particularly reassuring when enough of them are vehemently opposed together. It’s a bit like the shadow cabinet equivalent of a unanimous vote in favour…
(/… not that I bring this up for any particular reason, right now, or nothin’.)
So instead of taking the statement to heart, they’re turning on Dawkins. That could make for an interesting own goal, if he’s made aware of it.
One problem with “no photoshopping people into demeaning images” is that I guess it’s anyone’s call what kind of image is “demeaning”. For what it’s worth, I do not consider that image sufficiently “demeaning” as to be covered by what I would expect to be the intent of the joint statement.
And I do think it’s funny – though only on the basis of a premiss which I don’t expect actually to be the case. That is, it’s an amusing (to me) way of presenting an expectation that I do not share (namely that Ophelia will suddenly do something to undermine Richard’s willingness to participate in this partial reconciliation).
The thing that gets me is… who has the TIME for this shit?
I mean, I have more free time than anyone I know. Virtually nothing is going on in my life… and yet I wouldn’t have time to bother with this kind of thing even if I were inclined to do it.
There are so many hundreds of thousands of better ways to waste time.
In political humor, there should be a grain of truth or it’s not funny.
Read Mallard Fillmore to see political humor done wrong. This photoshop reminds me of a typical Mallard Fillmore “joke.”
alqpr @ 15
Nonsense. When people’s faces get ‘shopped into images, the message is rarely, if ever, ambiguous. Anyone who thinks it’s a practice worth defending in the grand scheme of things is not someone who should be taken seriously, IMO.
Yet more divisive rage-blogging from the FTBullies. Why can’t they follow Shermertron’s example of nuanced and respectful criticism?
Don’t worry, you have many more supporters than detractors in this action. At least that’s my hope.
Using a metaphor from popular culture, Ophelia Benson demonstrates to Richard Dawkins how he has been repeatedly tricked by haters into lashing out against a bogus target, feminists, thus completely missing his actual goal of fighting injustice. This is a good cartoon.
I actually thought that cartoon was kinda funny, heh… Part of my problem with the slympitters and such is that not only is their shit tasteless, but it’s uncreative and juvenile and stupid. This one was actually a bit clever.
I am much more likely to give offensive stuff a pass if it’s actually amusing. Maybe I shouldn’t, but there it is…
So now people believe Dawkins is gullible and naive? If this continues , it might be interesting to see how Dawkins reacts – his statement was quite mild.
I would guess you’re probably much more likely to give offensive stuff a pass if it’s actually amusing and not about you and not part of a long long chain of such stuff directed at you.
Fair enough. That is probably true. I may also have a different perspective because I just haven’t looked at the vast majority of the crap coming from that side — what little I have looked at was simultaneously tasteless, unfunny, stupid, and wrong (leaving absolutely no point whatsoever, does it?), so I have pretty much avoided looking at any of it that wasn’t featured on e.g. your blog.
Anyway, sorry. I don’t mean to be insensitive.
No it’s ok. I know you’re not. It just is an unpleasant fact.
carlie @ 14:
It’s interesting that the response to Dawkins’s half-assed “either give up the misogyny or stop claiming to support me” was to choose the latter. I wonder if there was ever a point when it would have been the former.
Honestly? Doubt it. Even if Richard Dawkins had, from day one, loudly proclaimed, “I’m not cool with misogyny and threats,” they’d have just found another celebrity atheist who they could project their beliefs onto.