FeminismRandom Asides

Three Years After Elevatorgate

Once again, we bring you the wisdom of Dan Cardamon. Scroll down and take a moment to remember…

Amy Roth

Amy Roth

Amy Davis Roth (aka Surly Amy) is a multimedia artist who resides in Los Angeles, California. She makes Surly-Ramics She is the fearless leader of Mad Art Lab and cohost of Makers' Hustle Podcast Support her on Patreon. Follow her on twitter: @SurlyAmy or on Google+.

Previous post

Skepchick Quickies 6.20

Next post

Skepchick Quickies 6.21

25 Comments

  1. June 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm —

    That is an inspired use of La Marseillaise I must say, lol

    • June 21, 2013 at 1:10 am —

      Actually considering the lyrics to the anthem and the war-like rhetoric used in the video, I find it to be quite appropriate and well placed.

      The ultimate irony, actually, is his quoting of Henry V from Shakespeare’s play – Henry was presently en route across France claiming back territory, and ultimately the French crown, for England! Now that’s worth an LOL.

      • June 21, 2013 at 1:16 am —

        (Considering your later comment, perhaps mine comes across as more condescending or contradicting in its start; I didn’t mean offense, and frankly wasn’t quite sure what “an inspired use” meant in context so I interpreted it as meaning it was misplaced, for the intent of irony for the video. My bad if that’s not how you meant!)

  2. June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm —

    Is the three years part of the joke? Because it’s actually two.

    • June 20, 2013 at 4:53 pm —

      It feels like ten.

    • June 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm —

      I thought it was part of the joke, in the vein of “everything they say is demonstrably wrong, including the most basic and easily confirmed facts.”

    • June 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm —

      Clearly Dan Cardamom is ahead of his time.

  3. June 20, 2013 at 4:58 pm —

    AWESOME!

    [Provided he is being ironic]

    I was discussing this event at lunch with a friend. One of the things that I suddenly realized is that as with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute you can tell whose side someone is on by what point they go back in history. I was watching a video this morning of someone defending Dawkins on the basis of some allegedly nasty comments Rebecca had made in reply to Dawkins but no mention of the statement she was replying to. Very much like the folk who discount all history between the destruction of the temple cult and 1948.

    What we need here is better netiquette. And I mean that in the sense of formal protocols. For example, before commenting on an Internet dispute go back to the original source if it is online. What I think happened with Dawkins is that he read a lot of second, third and fourth hand accounts and dived in without bothering to find out what the original context was. He saw that a group of people were criticizing that irritating woman who has the gall to make presentations that send up his grandiloquent theories and didn’t think it necessary to check before joining in.

    And to improve netiquette we need better tools that make it easier to do the necessary.

    • June 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm —

      What I think happened with Dawkins is that he read a lot of second, third and fourth hand accounts and dived in without bothering to find out what the original context was. He saw that a group of people were criticizing that irritating woman who has the gall to make presentations that send up his grandiloquent theories and didn’t think it necessary to check before joining in.

      What I think happened with Dawkins is that he’s a pompous blowhard who thinks he knows everything about everything and cannot–nay, refuses to see past his own privilege.

      • June 20, 2013 at 6:18 pm —

        OK so imagine that we are trying to deal with the consequences of Dawkins alleged refusal to share a conference stage with Rebecca.

        Your analysis, while entirely true is not the sort of thing that I would write to a conference organizer suggesting that they take Rebecca rather than Dawkins.

        A large part of this argument is wrapped up in Dawkins expectation that his qualifications entitle him to deference. Which is bullshit in this particular instance. There are times when qualifications are relevant and times when they are not. I don’t think privilege is a useful construct as it suggests a one way relationship, Dawkins has privilege and Rebecca does not. No they both have privilege but they have different privileges. Anyone who gets up and delivers a keynote is automatically privileged.

        The problem as I see it is respect. Dawkins demands respect but does not give it. Dawkins does not understand that whatever his position is as emeritus university lecturer at Cambridge, if he wants to engage in Internet discourse he has to show respect to others.

        The other big issue is that when someone expresses a safety concern people need to pay attention. What I find quite astounding is that Dawkins would come in and make the statement he did in response to a complaint about safety.

    • June 20, 2013 at 6:07 pm —

      “What I think happened with Dawkins is that he read a lot of second, third and fourth hand accounts and dived in without bothering to find out what the original context was. He saw that a group of people were criticizing that irritating woman who has the gall to make presentations that send up his grandiloquent theories and didn’t think it necessary to check before joining in.”
      Phillip, perhaps you need to follow your own advice here. Dawkins was on the panel with Rebecca immediately prior to the elevator incident. It was Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment on Pharyngula that caused the whole thing to go thermonuclear. There was no presentation by Rebecca that “sent up his grandiloquent theories”.

      Perhaps you are referring to Rebecca’s later criticism of evolutionary psychology, which came much later and was a whole separate issue?

      I appreciate that you are generally being supportive of Rebecca, but there is a whole lot of context there that you seem to be missing.

      • June 20, 2013 at 7:01 pm —

        Eww man! Seriously! Ewww!

        Yes, I was missing one important piece of context. What an utter, utter, the man is.

        Excuse me while I go rinse my brain out.

  4. June 20, 2013 at 5:04 pm —

    Yay! I love/hate Dan. :D

  5. June 20, 2013 at 5:32 pm —

    OK so that one outdid Agent Orange… The godwinning by using footage of Hitler is exactly what Justicar did for a Richard Carrier talk about A+, sometimes you cannot parody them more than they parody themselves.

  6. June 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm —

    It’s just like the French Resistance! Dan Cardamon is a brave, brave man.
    :-)

  7. June 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm —

    Ha ha ha! Rebecca is the Obergruppenführer!

  8. June 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm —

    Brain sploded.

  9. June 20, 2013 at 8:24 pm —

    Amy

    That’s “Dan Cardamon” character has done it again. man he’s hilarious!

  10. June 20, 2013 at 9:26 pm —

    Somehow, vulvascist is so much classier than feminazi.

  11. June 21, 2013 at 1:23 am —

    I already said it responding to scribe999 above, but I’m literally wigging out over the contrast between the Saint Crispen’s Day speech and La Marseillaise. The video was great yes, but this level of genius is blowing my mind. I sure hope it wasn’t unintentional.

  12. June 21, 2013 at 7:50 am —

    Those bastards (may I use that word here?) are STILL attacking Rebecca on the original video over her polite and reasonable request that men leave her alone at four in the morning!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?=DYw-HjKrmY4&v=uKHwduG1Frk

    One abusive bit of crap should be enough, right?

    Ivan Knight 8 hours ago
    They sexualized you because he asked? for a cup of coffee? Bitch, kill yourself.

    There are plenty of more respectful and reasonable comments there, of course.

Leave a reply