Warning: social autist at work!

Chad helpfully summarizes Richard Dawkins’s hilariously autistic response to “The Dicky D Rap”:

1. Video posted around 11:00 PM

2. 1 hour and 44 minutes later, Dawkins implores his more intelligent readers to help inform him as to whose side the video is on (his side, or not his side). He then pokes fun at people that think things are funny that he doesn’t understand just in case it turns out to be ‘not on his side’. Comment #151544

3. Dawkins now presumably goes to sleep.

4. Nearly nine hours later, he wakes up and checks the post again. He sees that his fellow scientific elites like the video, but also don’t understand it. Dawkins tries to get in a little dig on postmodernism, but just ends up making fun of his posters. Comment #151685

5. Nine and a half hours after posting, Dawkins wonders how his fellow comrades could laugh at something they don’t understand. He then lauds ‘The Life of Brian’ as the pinnacle of comedic evolution. Comment #151704

6. A couple minutes after the last post, he gets in another jab at Postmodernism. Comment #151713

7. Under chastisement for his humbuggery, Dawkins admits that Daniel Dennett popping his head up from out of nowhere is, in fact, funny. Comment #151715

8. Nearly ten hours after posting the video, someone postulates that the humor is derived from the silly dancing bodies (not the satire). Dawkins seems to accept this theory and thanks the poster for his intellect. Comment #151723

9. Sixteen hours after first watching the video, Dawkins finally realizes that it is, in fact, making fun of ‘his side’. Dawkins defends himself again by saying that he didn’t understand it. Comment #151849.

10. Seventeen hours after posting, Dawkins attempts to comprehend the humor by equating similar scenes of incongruousness that Monty Python has also done. Dawkins has apparently not yet pondered why, if this were the only thing funny about the video, he did not ‘catch on’ before this. Dawkins chalks this up to the video not being funny, and dismisses the obvious conclusion that his head is too big to see the satire behind it. Comment #151889

11. The next day, Dawkins chimes in again to defend his Ph.D. status to a poster who dared presume questioning it. Comment #152142

12. Nearly 36 hours after posting, Dawkins discovers what a ‘grill’ is and waxes philosophic as to why Sam Harris would have one in the video. The conclusion he comes up with is that it adds no humor to the video and should not have been put in. Comment #152168

13. After a full three and a half days after first watching the video, Dawkins (obviously perturbed at the fact he didn’t get that he was the butt of the joke, when every other non-elite who saw it could tell in an instant) attempts to equate the video with ‘The worst poem ever written’. He then satisfies himself by settling on the conclusion that this is the only reason why people might like it. The final analysis is that it’s not only ‘not good’, and not even ‘pretty bad’, but so incredibly bad, that it is in fact, good. He gets in a snobbish comment about the Bible for good measure. Comment #153061

This tends to support what I have suspected ever since reading The God Delusion. The scientist-king has no clothes; Richard Dawkins is simply not very intelligent. He’s a mere popularizer, not a creator, and I’d be willing to bet that every single successful game designer of my acquaintance has a higher IQ than him, in fact, I’d even bet that their average IQ exceeds his by a standard deviation. After all, it takes a particularly deluded individual to not only make EIGHT glaring errors in the central argument of his landmark literary contribution, but to simultaneously claim that refutation of the logical train wreck is impossible.

Dawkins betrays every sign of the 1SD-2SD IQ individual, who tends to think that because he is rather more intelligent than the average, he is therefore brilliant. He isn’t, as his dependable inability to perceive the glaring flaws in his own arguments and his hilarious failure to understand when he is being blatantly mocked illustrates very nicely indeed. It’s no wonder Dawkins shies away from debating anyone brighter or better-trained than journalists and decrepit Anglican priests, he knows perfectly well that if he did, he’d get abused so badly that Child Protective Services would have to be called in to pick up the pieces.

Also, anyone who thinks The Life of Brian is funnier than Monty Python and The Holy Grail is clearly a blithering chowderhead.