Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Um, um, "not so nice people" at the gates!

Poor, poor Richard Dawkins. He can't do anything right anymore! How he must long for the good old days when he was dukin’ it out with the likes of Bill Dembski and Ted Haggard. The world was so young, and the battle lines were drawn so clearly. He was everyone's hero. Man of the hour. The atheist's atheist. Sigh, no longer. Now he is constantly under attack from a former friendly flank.

Dawkins, as an opponent to Christianity, was a lightweight compared to the previous generation of atheists. He could not hold a candle to the likes of Bertrand Russell, for example. But at least he made some sort of sense. But now Dawkins’s time is past, and God help me, I miss him. Unfortunately though he cannot stay lockstep with the new gnu aka A+ atheists.

Case in point, Poor Clueless Dawkins tweeted:

Ruh roh. He said a bad word. Barbarians. O Richard, time to retire to a small cottage in Wales, with a nice little garden. You are soooo last millennium.

Don't know why? Here is an analysis that explains why. Trigger Warning: the link will take you so some of the most atrocious writing ever penned in what I think is supposed to be the English language. You will have to read most paragraphs more than once if you hope to discern what message the, um, "writer" is trying to convey. This may offend you if you have received any formal education at any level.

If you don't want to read (and trust me, you'll miss nothing by not clicking the link) here is a thumbnail: Barbarian is racist word. No excuses. Intent is irrelevant. The dictionary definition is irrelevant. It is racist via proof by assertion and incoherent ranting and raving ad nauseum that it is, in fact, racist.

Note to self: tell the hawt Asian wife that she needs to stop referring to white people (like her own husband, dammit!) as western barbarians, because, well, this is insulting to Africans.

There should be a certain measure of schadenfreude that the intellectual spawn of Dawkins has turned on him. But patricide is always ugly. This new wave of semi-illiterate postmodern jackasses are impossible to cheer for, even as they eat their own.

I wonder, though, if this use of barbarian is racist?

 They must change and the barbarians must back down.


  1. Speaking of bad writing, I had to read this blog entry 3 times before I could figure out what you were trying to say.

  2. Oh Jeffrey, you are reliable for nothing if not tu quoque.

  3. And you're reliable for misrepresenting me. I didn't say your argument was wrong because your writing was bad. In fact, I could barely discern an argument in your post. I do agree with you that the post by "crommunist" that you linked to represents bad writing.

  4. Jeffrey,

    "I didn't say your argument was wrong because your writing was bad."

    You don't have to claim an argument was wrong for a tu quoque. You just have to try to discredit the person. It is an ad hominem. No matter--we can leave it that you find my writing impenetrable. I can live with that.

  5. Oh, I think you discredit yourself pretty well without my help. Nevertheless, I appreciate the compliment.

  6. Sometimes an insult is just an insult.