Tweety Dawk Reduced to Virtue Signaling

Given Dawkins dwindling status as a player in the public arena, I suppose we should not be surprised that he has turned to Virtue Signaling:

The “bullseye” article Dawkins’ links to makes the following claims:

What Thursday’s hearing drove home, however, was that white male rage isn’t restricted to blue-collar guys in diners. 

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

But it’s privilege under siege. An increasingly diverse society no longer accepts the God-given right of white males from the right families to run things,

Instead, it’s about the rage of white men, upper class as well as working class, who perceive a threat to their privileged position.

So Richard Dawkins is finally moving toward PZ Myer’s position and has become a vocal opponent of “white male privilege.” 

It is hilariously ironic to watch Dawkins posture like this given the man is a multimillionaire who is descended from slave owners. 

This entry was posted in Richard Dawkins, social justice atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Tweety Dawk Reduced to Virtue Signaling

  1. unclesporkums says:

    Not only that, he’s no stranger to rage himself. Coincidentally, I just happened to finish Dan Rhodes’ “When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow” which quite nicely lampooned his psychotic temper tantrums, obfuscation-laden argument patterns, as well as being a funny little adventure story in and of itself.

  2. TFBW says:

    I hesitate to call this virtue signalling on Dawkins’ part. He seems to be an elitist first and foremost (his anti-Brexit screed spelled that out fairly explicitly), so anything which rags on a populist like Trump will meet with his approval, regardless of the basis of the criticism. The fact that the basis in this case is the Politically Correct form of racism seems merely incidental. I expect that the part of the quote which really appealed to him was the part about Obama having “all the grace and poise Trump lacks.” Trump lacks the aristocratic qualities that an elitist like Dawkins expects in holders of high office.

  3. Michael says:

    It’s hard to believe that shite was written by a professor and advocated by Dawkins. It’s hard to believe that America still hasn’t moved beyond racism, and that racism has become a way of justifying the disgraceful way Kavanaugh is being treated. It’s hard to believe that the ‘left’ in America has regressed to shameful persecution and witch hunting without due process, the presumption of innocence or any standard of evidence.

  4. Dhay says:

    That Tweet is being subjected to a barrage of contempt in its replies; many replies show contempt for Richard Dawkins himself.

    The linked NYT article’s bottom line tells us what it’s all about:

    … it’s about the rage of white men, upper class as well as working class, who perceive a threat to their privileged position.

    Ah yes, the near-half of voters who voted for Donald Trump voted thus for just two variants of the same one reason. Er, didn’t JRR Tolkien almost have something to say about that: “One Reason to rule them all, One Reason to find them, One Reason to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Opinion Piece where the Shadows lie.”

    According to Paul Krugman its author poor White people voted Trump to protect their status against Blacks, while the rich white elite — those who in Britain would be called The Establishment — voted Trump to protect The Establishment.

    Why those in between voted Trump is anybody’s guess, but not, apparently, Krugman’s; he also seems not to know, but I bet if he did it would involve the same One Reason of protecting their status.

    Is Krugman a facile lightweight?


    This caught my eye:

    I very much ran with the nerds during my own time at Yale, but I did encounter people like Kavanaugh — hard-partying sons of privilege who counted on their connections to insulate them from any consequences from their actions, up to and including abusive behavior toward women. And that kind of elite privilege still exists.

    It put me in mind of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford University, of some in the Tory Party, and especially of Boris Johnson.

    I’m almost surprised that Dawkins didn’t make the leading Brexiteer and potential Tory Party leadership challenger Johnson his Tweet target rather than Trump. I guess he hates Trump even more than Johnson.

  5. Michael says:

    From the Krugman article:

    I’ve spent my whole adult life in rarefied academic circles, where everyone has a good income and excellent working conditions. Yet I know many people in that world who are seething with resentment because they aren’t at Harvard or Yale, or who actually are at Harvard or Yale but are seething all the same because they haven’t received a Nobel Prize. And this sort of high-end resentment, the anger of highly privileged people who nonetheless feel that they aren’t privileged enough or that their privileges might be eroded by social change, suffuses the modern conservative movement.

    Krugman loses all contact with reality here. The “modern conservative movement” essentially does not exist in those academic circles. 96 percent of faculty donations over the last three years went to Democrats. On the contrary, the dominant force in those academic circles in the modern social justice movement. So what Krugman is doing here is a classic example of projection. He is admitting that people like himself and Dawkins are seething with resentment. And clearly, they are. Look, it’s their position of privilege that is eroding if a trash person like Trump can be President.

    As for Trump voters, there were plenty of reasons many voted for Trump that had nothing to do with race. Perhaps the most popular reason was this – he was not Hillary. Another popular reason – he was not the Establishment.

  6. Kevin says:

    If the word “privilege” shows up, you can guarantee it’s going to be garbage.

  7. TFBW says:

    Krugman loses all contact with reality here. The “modern conservative movement” essentially does not exist in those academic circles.

    No kidding. When I reached the second-last word of that quotation, my incredulity meter maxed out. Conservative? In the ivory towers of academia? How far left is this guy that he thinks anything can be known about conservatism by looking at academia? Sheesh, man, find me an actual Trump voter in your sample audience, then let’s talk.

  8. Dhay says:

    Odd, that One Reason of Paul Krugman’s “… it’s about the rage of white men, upper class as well as working class, who perceive a threat to their privileged position.” Hemant Mehta, bewailing that of those who fit the “Solidly Secular” type in the latest Pew Poll and hence are his “Young, Rich, White, Educated, and Male” privileged elite, 26% of them are Republicans, says:

    That one’s surprising to me. How any atheist who cares about science, church/state separation, reason-based analysis, civil rights, etc. could vote for the modern Republican Party still makes no sense to me.

    Which incomprehension tells me Mehta is out of touch with reality. ‘True Atheists’ — those who have zero belief in God or the supernatural — should be 0% Republican, that’s Mehta’s claim, whereas they are self-declared 71% Democrats and 26% Republicans.

    Why the 26% Republicans? According to Mehta it’s because 26% of ‘True Atheists’ either despise immigrants, or want tax cuts, or … no, it’s just these two reasons, a step up from Krugman’s One Reason:

    Imagine how much you’d have to despise immigrants and really want rich people to get more tax cuts to put all those other values aside and vote for people like Paul Ryan and Donald Trump.

    I’m not going to spend time puzzling whether Krugman is right or Mehta; each has made such a reduction of the complex to the absurdly over-simplifiied, reaching such different ‘it’s obvious, innit’ public bar closing time conclusions, it is evident both must be advertising their common prejudice against Republican voters rather than displaying knowledge and expertise.


    There’s a type of atheist blogger — which Mehta exemplifies, see the first quote above — who evidently view atheism as a virtual synonym for Democrat. Tough luck guys, fully a quarter of the people you want onside voting for your favourite issues as atheist-Democrats are atheist-Republicans who presumably won’t vote for your favourite issues.

    And on the assumption that recent voting patterns mean the US population is split roughly 50%:50% between Democrats and Republicans, making more atheists will make not a difference but (71%:26%) not even half a difference.

    Indeed, assuming the low-hanging atheist-Democrat fruit has plausibly already been picked, newcomers to atheism and the Nones won’t be more of the same, they are increasingly likely to be Republican in their outlook. Suck at a semi-separated mix long enough, what you’ll eventually suck will be predominantly the portion you like less.

    Mehta & Co will no doubt keep seeking to convert the religious US population to Mehta-approved Democrat voters, but sooner or later he and they will have face the fact that the correlation between atheism and voting Democrat — a correlation much weaker than Mehta likes, a weakness of correlation he evidently cannot get his head around — that correlation is not causation.

  9. Ilíon says:

    One of the the things that is mordantly funny about this is that leftists *love* rage — when it’s leftists *actually* acting out rage.

  10. Dhay says:

    ‘Tweety Dawk’ is also reduced to singleton. I don’t know how I missed it at the time — in July 2016 “Britain’s highest profile atheist Richard Dawkins announces end of his 24-year marriage to Dr Who actress Lalla Ward”.

    The two became legally separated — a legal fiction involving living separately within the same house, which doesn’t necessarily involve lawyers or signed agreements, it could be de facto; it’s normally a prelude to a no-fault-claimed (“amicable”) divorce after one year of actual or legal separation, when either party can obtain a divorce provided the other does not object; or if one party does object (not “amicable”), the other can simply wait a second year, whereupon divorce will be granted on request despite any objections.

    The sometimes quicker way — or sometimes much longer, if very acrimonious and/or the truth of the charges is contested — is for one party to obtain a divorce by presenting a court with a list of sufficient reasons why the other is intolerable to live with, eg adultery, cruelty, controlling behaviour … there’s a few possible such, and I imagine the US equivalents will be similar. It tends to be acrimonious because it lays blame upon a guilty party.

    In Dawkins’ case:

    ‘Our marriage, like everyone’s, is a private matter and we are not prepared to share any details. Suffice to say it is true that we recently separated entirely amicably. Obviously, this remains a difficult time, one which we simply will not discuss any further publicly.’

    That keeps it simple, it avoids the reasons why the separation and the divorce** was sought: it avoids blame, avoids public shame and condemnation (of what, I wonder?), avoids fights over sharing money and property.

    ( ** There’s been no media report that the divorce was finalised, but as there has been no media report of a reconciliation either, I can reasonably assume that the process concluded, as is normal, in divorce.)


    At about the time of the legal separation Dawkins was “insanely” tweeting — here a 2015 The Telegraph article:

    Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of “erotic videos” to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that Islamists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.

    After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.

    And Dawkins was post-invitation deplatformed from both a major atheist conference and from a radio show — the subtler way of deplatforming someone is not to invite them in the first place, but of course this leaves no traces of whether or how often it has happened.

    And Dawkins suffered a mild stroke.

    Whether the marital breakdown caused or contributed towards any of these — or some of these or, perhaps Elevatorgate, caused or contributed towards the marital breakdown — is anybody’s guess.

  11. Dhay says:

    > It is hilariously ironic to watch Dawkins posture like this given the man is a multimillionaire who is descended from slave owners.

    … And who married into the British aristocracy; Lalla Ward, his (now former, see response above) wife of 24 years, is:

    … the daughter of Edward Ward, 7th Viscount Bangor, …


    How odd that Richard Dawkins’ marriage to Lalla Ward should end after 24 years; on the other hand Dawkins’ very public November 2007 Washington Post article entitled “Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster”, replicated on his own website for his fans worldwide to read, looks very like a declaration that he’s been detected philandering, he’s totally unapologetic about it, the article’s a defense of philandering, which he wholly approves of and admires, “why don’t we all admire”, so it’s not at all wrong — in his eyes; and it’s a very offensive defense, indeed he’s on the offensive with a very public humiliation, his article’s bottom line being:

    And why don’t we all admire – as I increasingly do — those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is “cheating on” whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?,1926,Banishing-the-Green-Eyed-Monster,Richard-Dawkins-On-Faith

    … And she can go jump in the lake.


    When else has Dawkins been very outspoken in opposition to someone complaining about a philanderer? Ah yes, his infamous “Dear Muslima” ‘letter’ immediately after ElevatorGate. One wonders which philanderer he was then so offensively defending with very public humiliation of the offended woman in mind.


    And he’s such a gentle-spoken, invariably courteous man, yes?

  12. Ilíon says:

    My thoughts also turned to Dick to the Dawk’s public championing of infidelity and attempt to portray breaking-one’s-solemn-promise-and-obligation as being of a “higher morality” than objecting to the same.

  13. nsr says:

    Is there any high-profile atheist promoter or activist who *hasn’t* turned out to be motivated by their desire to pursue an immoral or deviant lifestyle?

  14. Ilíon says:

    If there is one, he’s been keeping it a well-guarded secret.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.