Your Sadly All-Too-Often Dose Of Dawkins-Related Douchebaggery

Normally the whole skeptic-atheist-terrible-dude thing isn’t our beat because it is ably covered elsewhere with both more and less swearing, giving you a wide range of swear options, but given that Richard Dawkins has taken to being terrible on an almost-constant basis, we figured we should jump into the fray. This terribleness is a bit more attenuated, as it is only the bad behavior of a conference Dawkins is attending, but we’re gonna go out on a limb and say that like meets like:

An all-white, all-male Very Important London science talk — Richard Dawkins is one of the headliners — preemptively told nutty super-sensitive “feminists” (their quotes, not ours) to go on Facebook and Twitter if they wanted to “drone on about the lack of women” in the line-up. When they did, the site crashed and the hosts deleted the “joke.”


BWAHAHAHAHAH — wait. Not even the least bit funny, actually. Can’t figure out for the life of me why ladyparted or ladyidentified or nonladyhating people wouldn’t just super have loved your invite, bro-scientists. You seem so warm and welcoming.

Closed-circuit pro-tip to dudebros: this is not the way to get ladies or any non-jerkwad people of any flavor to your event or, well, anywhere. BE LESS TERRIBLE.

You may also like...

  • $73376667

    Hasn’t Dawkins had issues with “the Ladies” since at least the Rebecca Watson “elevator incident?”

    • SullivanSt

      Yes, at least since then.ETA: And longer.

    • I thought he stayed out of that whole clusterfuck of dumb. Then again, the fact that I don’t know shows just how much I don’t give a damn about the fedora-brigade that is the YouTube atheist community.

      • $73376667

        Ironically, the only reason I’d heard about the fracas at all was from a religion blog I follow.

      • SullivanSt

        No, he pretty much blew the thing up by wading in against Watson with his absurd and offensive “Dear Muslima” letter.

  • Jim Howland

    “Very smart guy with no capacity for or interest in pleasant human interaction”: Dawkins defines the sterotype.

  • Guest

    Huh? Does HNTP not allow comments?

    • $73376667

      I am not impressed with the so-called “delete” functionality in Disqus…

  • natl_[redacted]_cmdr

    I come here for just the right fucking amount of swearing.

  • HRD

    Someone needs to have a come to Jesus with this guy.

    • discus_sucks_ass

      “organisers” was pretty much a a giveaway that the OP was no stranger to mis-spelt (!) and abusive twitering, so the reply was very appropriate

      • HRD

        What the actual fuck are you responding to, here? My post was a joke. You know: Dawkins is a famous Atheist. I was playing off the idiom “come to Jesus,” meaning a heart-to-heart talk.

      • Ron Zoscak

        “organisers” is is the British spelling. Colour me surprised that you didn’t know that, or the correct spelling of “Twittering”.

  • $7275685

    See how bad people are w/o Jesus?

  • Allie Mustache Bojingles

    Dawkins is often embarassing to other athiests, including myself. He has obvious disdain for religious people, but worse, he doesn’t even care about the atheist community or how he makes them look. He doesn’t care about anything but stroking his own dong in a perpetual grudge match.

    • discus_sucks_ass

      where does it state that DAWKINS HIMSELF wrote that? for that matter who the fuck cares who wrote this reply to a “professional” twit? he/she/it made a demand that no matter the qualifications or status of acceptance of an invitation (since it is pretty clear the twit simply looked at a list of attendees, jumped to a conclusion and did not even try to research and twitted it out) that women be paraded across the stage as some kind of “balance”, and it was a pretty fucking stupid demand to make IMHO. and taking stupid seriously is a step toward tea partyism

      • Arcturus

        Thank you.

      • You appear to have missed the presence or failed to understand the meaning of “pre-emptive” in the OP – there was never any “twit” who asked that question as it is written on the organisation’s FAQ page, they organisers wrote that themselves as a “humorous” attempt to disarm criticism that hadn’t even happened yet. If they’d just written a serious response to the question they *anticipated* but had not yet received (e.g. Q: Why are there no women speakers? A: The event was put together at short notice and none of the women we asked were available for the day.) then there would have been no meltdown at all. There may still have been some curiosity/criticism regarding just exactly how diligently they’d tried to find women speakers, but it would have been much muted in comparison to what they’ve brought upon themselves by stereotyping any and all feminists in the way that they did.

  • x111e7thst

    Has this asshole ever talked to actual women? Without getting slapped?