THE FATHER OF MEMES: A GUIDE TO RICHARD DAWKINS 

Memes, the DNA of the soul.

Dawkins was the og reddit atheist

Big chungus in a Sisyphus thumbnail. The internet lately has gone insane and im for it

I think the word Dawkins was looking for is 'dank'.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

The REAL father of memes is Carl Jung

While the video was great as always, I feel like there was a slight misrepresentation of the Sokal affair. This controversy was by no means the dunk on postmodernists that it's made out to be. Sokal himself has stated: "From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual standards in these fields are generally lax. (...) It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty, " Jonas Čeika has a great video on this, which I recommend to anyone interested in the issue.

Out of all the living thinkers that you haven’t done a video for yet, I think Kendrick Lamar might make the most interesting one. I feel like his takes on self-actualization and morality in To Pimp a Butterfly are not talked about enough.

I don't understand the issue with the trans tweet. To me it seems pretty clear in what he says. Trans people may not have the chromosomes that they want, but he still refers to them how they want to be addressed out of courtesy and because it's how they identify. If somebody who does see the problem could explain it to me that would be great, thanks.

5:40 Is it transphobic to agree with (at least partially) the sentiment of that tweet? What defines a woman kinda IS semantic. If we define woman as "person with XX chromosomes", then a trans woman isn't a woman. And if it'd by self-identification, of course a trans woman is a woman. As someone who I think most accurately described as non-binary, I dont see how this is offensive at all.

I'd love to see old trusty Hitch.

This video presumes that proceeding generations develop “nuanced” views of the world and that Dawkins interpretation of said nuance is shallow. Maybe his interpretation is nuanced and the generations worldview is shallow. Why must I believe a-priori that a generation and it’s changing worldview is of value worthy of a nuanced interpretation

0:50 Kazakstan

This doesn't seem like a good choice for a profile since Dawkins isn't really a philosopher and his more systematic thinking is scientific. He has opinions but so do most people.

Instead of calling him old, could you talk about his arguments? You act as if what he is saying is absolutely idiotic, as if it is self evident that he is wrong. Please anyone, tell me why he is wrong.

goddamnit, I laughed way too hard at chung us

am I the only atheist who doesn't like any of these new atheist guys?

Nothing wrong with that tweet tho.

All I'm getting when looking for answers is that "the problem lies in the subtext". The problem with that statement is that it has a subtext itself, namely "I'm the deciding authority on what Dawkins REALLY meant". See how annoying that is? EDIT: In the time since I wrote this comment 4 months ago, Richard Dawkins has openly endorsed trans-exclusive feminism by tweeting "Please sign the Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. I have just done so." - that document he wants you to sign? It's fucking wild yo, read it if you have the time. So with all this context and hindsight it's safe to say that his past tweets were dog-whistles. Kudos to everyone who saw what Dawkins was doing all along, I will openly admit that I did not.

"Free will is a myth! Religion is a joke We are all pawns controlled by something greater: Memes, the DNA of the soul" -Richard Dawkins

There's nothing wrong with saying you should be able to say anything at university. That's what they're there for.

that tweet doesn't seem that wild honestly

I never really liked his stance on belief, even after I left the church. Sure, the chaotic and oppressive forms of Christianity are extremely toxic and he was right to point it out, but he seems to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in most cases. He says that beliefs that aren't rooted in some form of science are idiotic, but our modern science was formed by all sorts of people with different beliefs. And science is far from a complete picture and changes all the time. He also says it's wrong to follow ideology, but it's clear to anyone who isn't a die hard for his work that he follows a few ideologies himself that he seems unaware of.

"a movement that has lost its edge" This had to be an intentional pun

Imagine getting canceled for saying males have an x and y chromosome

Wait, by intentionally having the advertisement portion's audio low does that crackpottedly boost algorithm interaction with people more likely to interact to turn it down? Just curious if anybody would be able to add insight on that. Much love man, your content is desperately needed by the generations looking for a way up on better critical thinking and reflection.

“Memework makes the dreamwork” -Ancient Kekistani Shitposting Sages

Do the rest of the new atheists, especially Dan Dennett!

I am transgender and I see his comment about it as a bit iffy but not full blown evil worth total 100% shaming of. You can't change your chromosomal sex, but you can change several other characteristics of it (hormones, a lot of secondary sexual characteristics, etc.), sex in its totality is not a binary, and a fully transitioned person would fall non-binary in some spots, male in some spots, and female on others. And also gender is a separate thing from sex (he kind of mentions this), with both a non-deniable biological part to identity (Trans people's brains match closer to their desired sex and lie somewhere between their birth and desired sex), and a socially constructed view of gender (roles, looking deeper into identity, etc. This stuff is literally so weird when you begin to look at it and runs super deep, and as Lily Alexandre put it, "I see this sh-t in six dimensions, you cannot begin to comprehend just how fake it is!"). It's good that as a formality he refers to someone as their gender, rather than biological sex, as anyone should out of respect.

8:13 let's talk about that iFunny watermark 🍀

Hitchens is finally coming 🥃

I don't think it always stands that the older you get, the more outdated your views become or you get conservative about certain issues. Noam Chomsky comes to mind as a counterexample.

It might just be because you are from Canada, but coming from where I live and the people I'm around, none of what Richard Dawkins has said on Trans people or Gender Identity is seen outdated or bigoted, and it hasn't really been brought up as something controversial about him at all. I'm sorry, but stating people can't change their biological sex isn't some outdated prejudiced idea, it's just fact.

Seems to be a euro-centric view of religion. With blankets statements absolut religion only really consistently applying to Christianity. Great work bro!

The man used Logic in 2020. What did he expect?

All I took from this is gods a meme

Well, he’s not wrong in the tweets, is he? Too many special little butterflies these days, we deify narcissism and run away from actual effort as much as possible.

Nicely done. As a fellow "radical atheist", I find it absolutely ludicrous that someone took that tweet and used it to smear him. I took that tweet to mean "It doesn't matter what chromosomes she has. Who cares? Be polite and use her preferred pronouns." To twist it around is pure rubbish. As mentioned above, he defended homosexuals before it was chic to do so. Anyone who has listened, seen, or actually read him knows his malice always directed against stupidity, whiners and those who deny science on religious grounds. I have much respect for the guy, even though I disagree with some of his opinions. 😉

You know, I've mostly agreed with some of your takes up until now, or have at least tolerated them, but your recent take on Dawkins' views on transgenderism has made an ever apparent flaw in your content much more clear. What I've began to notice in your content is that your thinly veiled political views have recently began bleeding into your writings and analysis on philosophical topics and figures, to the point that your intellectual takes have began to become diluted. I began to notice this through your statements on cultural marxism, where in your analysis of Jorden Peterson, you state that the belief in such is "far-right" and "antisemitic", without showing any evidence for such statements, beyond a handful of fringe memes on the subject, as well as much more notable terrorists, that have been tied to the belief system. This, in all regards, is much closer to strawmaning then it is any serious discussion on the subject, as rather then tackling the subject on its own merit, you tie the idea to acts of terror in a way to write it off and disregard it. Furthermore, I find it striking that your analysis of Jorden Peterson, as opposed to Slavoj Zizek, seems to be far more critical and satirical to the former than the latter, despite both of them having equally apparent flaws. This, I can only surmise, is due to flagrant favoritism over the other, due to their stated beliefs and political opinion. Furthermore, I've noticed how in your analysis of Ted Kaczynski, you note how his ideas are ultimately unworthy of philosophical discourse, due to his violent methods of portraying his message, that is mail-bombing. While in your video on racism, you seem to side with the notion that acts such as rioting should be seen as valid social action, despite it's equally destructive and violent methods, when compared with terrorism. To quote the thumbnail of said video: "Riots are the voice of the unheard", which seems to display the destructive actions of rioters in a positive light, which directly contradicts your notions of the actions of Ted Kaczynski, where you seem to decry his equally violent methods. In this video, you appear to be completely fine with Dawkins' views on atheism and religion, judged by your lack of off-hand jokes about his character while discussing it. However, as soon as his, by all means, equally rational views on transgenderism comes to light, you are quick to denounce him as "crotchety" and "senile", seemingly for no other reason then that your views contradict his, which is rather childish on your part. Overall, I now find it difficult to take your analysis of various subjects seriously in current day, due to these aforementioned cases of contradictory views, and incorrectly displaying the ideas of others. You're seemingly fine and neutral with any intellectual figure you're analyzing, unless they contradict or criticize your personal views on a particular subject. I sincerely hope that you take this criticism into consideration when moving forward, so we can begin to see more intellectual analysis from you in the future.

His tweet raised a genuine interrogation in me since I'm not much of an expert in gender dysphoria but what does it exactly mean to feel like a woman while you're biologically male ? Because the tweet about comparing identifying as black and identifying as a woman may sound silly but the first objection that came to my mind was "you can't identify as black cause it is just a skin color, it doesn't associate with any personality, behaviour, or anything fundamentally different from being white. Saying you identify as black implies some kind of stereotype that is ultimately unfounded in reality". But then is this reasoning not applyable to gender too ? One of the things I came to understand is that gender roles are just a social construct and there's no really any specific personality traits associated with your biological sex. So much so that it's said that it's nonsensical to write a "female character" because a female character is just a character but with a vagina that doesn't change anything in how she should behave. So when you identify as a man or a girl, does it mean that you just subjectively feel, baselessly, so or is there some personality you have that make you think that way? Either way I find the two really challenging because it either goes against the inexistence of gender specificities or it legitimates that you could genuinely identify as anything. Please if there are people that could help in figuring this out I would be very thankful.

Dawkins shouldn’t have lost his award because of a completely innocent opinion. He is entitled to his beliefs

The original reddit athiest

Man implies nothing matters, surprised when people say nothing matters, do whatever they feel like and turn on him

Oh and by the way, religious organizations are still a big threat.

Am I the only one who doesn't think his tweets are that crazy? I don't think he said anything wrong.

if you are still doing your podcast i think it would be super cool to have an episode with Syrmor!! his content is very different from yours but he's talked to a ton of people and shared incredible stories, i think discussions of self made happiness and life would be cool to listen to

Huge fan of Richard Dawkins! I love his idea of "altruism" in evolution.

I think not using Twitter is a very good idea.

Can you give a better take on how his beliefs now are bad? Because of the tweets? And what do you have to say about them?

8:39 I am disappointed that I didn't get rickrolled

Need a dostoevsky video

Can ANYBODY even explain what is wrong with his tweets? Everything he said in these tweets is true.

I don't see why people have to overreact to some tweets just because they don't agree with them. Seriously. They're just tweets. People need to find something better to do with their time

I don’t understand how anyone could consider Dawkins to still be an intellectual after looking at his take on Kafka’s metamorphosis. He might have been a hotshot back in the day but now he’s just an old man that has lost the intellectual edge and fallen to a point where he lashes out at anything that he does not understand or doesn’t support his world view (like novels and gender theory), similar to the very theologians he spent his career debating against.

His excuse/joke to not do theological research is terrible though. No one believes in leprechauns but close to half the world believe in God/god and have personal testimony regarding their belief. It's not the same comparison. He shouldn't be so sloppy

Unironically “based” might be the best English word to replace “selfish” in regards to genes

What is your issue with his tweets that you've shown? Every single one of them is very reasonable.

I had to pause a re-read the tweet (being up too fast to read and assuming it was a really spicy take)... it was not spicy at all. I'm assuming it was sarcasm that he lost his humanity award?

Now this guy still says race is real (when genetics has shown it isnt) and isn't against many progressive movements of today

richard dawkins the terf lol

"Biologist under fire for views on gender identity" ain't that a headline?

metal gear rising revengeance

I think your videos on modern figures spend far too much time talking about their controversies or people who disagree with them and not enough time talking about their ideologies or beliefs. Most videos in your 'modern thinkers' playlist, like Slavoj Zizek or Jordan Peterson have that problem. You also have an obvious bias against any right wing ideas, which is understandable but you should still try to remain impartial in your videos. If your videos on modern figures were more like your videos on old ones, then I think they would be much more interesting.

Context is clear & intended meaning was clarified. That said, If some complain yet can't find an adequate word to use in place of a word then should some complain @ all?

Stick figure adult Dawkins was less than 0ne third from a hate crime on the dl

Good video as always, but why the assumption that he doesn’t understand modern gender politics? Just because he disagrees with them doesn’t mean he is not nuanced in his opinion.

How could he lose his humanist of the year title after being scientifically correct? I hate today’s culture

The funny thing about Dawkins is that in his pursuit to destroy religion and its dogmatism he only recreated it as an anti-religous dogmatism. You become what you hate

I am wondering what is the difference between "memes", according to the definition of Dawkins, and "archetypes" from Carl Gustav Jung ?

semantics meaning words. a male is only a woman through words and sexist stereotypes. that completely true and his tweet is based

the Christian side of me is saying he’s a jackass but on the other hand the Philosophy side of me is saying he’s a Genius for example if religion gives you purpose than that’s good and if you study Evolution as a job that’s good or so just do something that makes you happy 😎🥸

The narration of this video exemplifies the trouble with binary thinking and its propensity to throw out the baby with the bathwater as single-issue minds are wont to do.

Everyone is either agreeing with or asking what the problem with the first tweet is so. Dawkins mainly made an issue here by equating gender to sex, which are not the same thing, and believing a trans woman is still just a man while continuing to respect her as a woman is a pointless contradiction to make; she's just a woman. Plus the chromosomes = gender argument is tired and obnoxious, it’s founded on nothing other than a middle school understanding of biological sex that suddenly resurfaced in everyone’s minds as a meager “scientific” explanation for why they can’t accept the existence of transgender people.

He is right about gender identity tho

But, Dawkins has always been crotchety and senile

5:41 how is this controversial?

Dawkins should have stuck to natural science. He seems talented at understanding material causes of things and for educating people about scientific concepts, but not much else.

11:13 all these tweets are based

Sisyphus more like sussyphus

dawkins is pure cringe, the only thing that isnt cringe is he is abe to recognise that one can not change the x to a y or the y to an x

The "Arete" ("excellent") Gene

literally nothing wrong with any of his Tweets

his “problematic” tweets are spot on. i don’t get what the fuss is about

Dude got cancelled for using logic in a time where feelings are more important lol

Let's paint him has a fool for relying on science to talk about something that is science proof

Kenya is the country and Nairobi the city not the other way round as you said in video.

He’s definitely a “mixed bad” of a person, I respect Dawkins for his work in promoting “skepticism” and science as opposed to blind religious devotion (even if some of the “edge lord brand atheists” can give other people the wrong impression), however his transphobic views are harmful and he comes across as an old man who refuses to do any research in the topic and just blindly hates/dismisses it. Ironic really. So given that’s the case, I’d say figures like Carl Sagan are better figures for “skepticism” and science.

Now there's a pretty meme, exquisite!

So basically, he's been cancelled because he disagrees with some new shit.

5:40 Dawkins was actually stripped of his Humanist of the Year award in April 2021 for a different tweet that month (not 2015), an honor he said wasn’t important enough to put on his CV.

2:00-2:02 Holy S, His head Turned.

One guide to Christopher hitchens too !

He is still the humanist of the year. He is and will always be until his death one the biggest lgbt defender.

It is funny people don’t think Richard Dawkins is forward thinking. Seeing as how he questions idea that are new as well as old, he seems as though he has more of a progressive thinking brain than a “evangelical old fart” and a “self-centered snowflake”

I digress his viewpoints on the topics are not "shallow" nor "archaic" but well thought out and backed by actual EVIDENCE, which is of utmost importance when proving something is right or wrong regardless of whether its emotionally uncomfortable for some or that the idea is put out recently and believed by a more contemporary audience does nothing to back it up as a true statement what matters and what he does do is look to the EVIDENCE and cites it in backing his claims constantly , other than that entertaining video.

I just purchased Susan Blackmores "The Meme Machine" today on a whim and seeing as you've mentioned them in this video a dedicated look into the topic could be highly informative for what I feel is a painfully under highlighted subject and idea

Evolution, chromosomes, and eugenics.. so, they hate Dawkins for being consistent?

Richard Dawkins indirectly invented Big Chungus

To me, the way he advocates for atheism is super cringe, but ig it was cool in 2006 AYEEEE RYHME

Ugh, this hits close to home. I used to be such a stan for Dawkins and the new atheists since back in the aughts. Then they all started to be anti-muslim and anti-feminist and I gradually came out of the rabbit hole. An interesting journey, that I'm sure I share with many.