Once again, we bring you the wisdom of Dan Cardamon. Scroll down and take a moment to remember…
Once again, we bring you the wisdom of Dan Cardamon. Scroll down and take a moment to remember…
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
That is an inspired use of La Marseillaise I must say, lol
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.
(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!)
I was just amused by it being used :)
Is the three years part of the joke? Because it’s actually two.
It feels like ten.
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.”
Clearly Dan Cardamom is ahead of his time.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Yay! I love/hate Dan. :D
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.
It’s just like the French Resistance! Dan Cardamon is a brave, brave man.
:-)
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons! Marchons!
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
:)
Ha ha ha! Rebecca is the Obergruppenführer!
Brain sploded.
Amy
That’s “Dan Cardamon” character has done it again. man he’s hilarious!
Somehow, vulvascist is so much classier than feminazi.
Right? Now I want a Vulvascist Stole My Ice Cream shirt.
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.
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?
There are plenty of more respectful and reasonable comments there, of course.