But 140-character reflections on what I just ate, or something, not. Why?This is so true as Richard Dawkins is attempting to prove. Although Dawkins has thousands of followers who adore every stupid bigoted thing he says. But occasionally his more obnoxious statements get publicized.
One reason is that I have better things to do with my time. Another is that I don’t think my instant reactions to things are especially interesting. But I have to admit that I’ve also been aware for some time how many people end up destroying themselves by tweeting something really offensive.
At least he did apologize for making the presumption that although he was OK with one of his teachers feeling him up, he shouldn't have said: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."
Now if he would just apologize for unleashing a thousand rabid fan boys to threaten female atheists thanks to his obnoxiousness - and then he never spoke out against those rabid fan boys.
But he won't because Dawkins is a nasty, petty, power-mongering upperclass twit, who promotes both idiotic evolutionary psychology and brutish bigotry.
Krugman provides a link to EconoLOLCats.