A Landscape in a Hand Sample: To Settle »« New at Rosetta Stones: Something Old (and, Remarkably, Less Boring Than You’d Expect)


  1. Funny Diva says

    Excellent, Dana. Thank you so much!

    Especially considering the exponential escalation of fire-setting over the last week or so. It’s been Ah-PALLING!

  2. smhll says

    But…but…but, madame, why don’t you just grow a less flammable skin? Or find a gender presentation and a new blog topic that doesn’t spark the outrage of firebugs so intently?


  3. A Hermit says

    Just reading those reactions to Jen McC’s decision to quite blogging makes me see red again. The absolute lack of simple human empathy in those tweets is enough to convince me these are not people who can be be reasoned with.

  4. maudell says

    I think Ophelia put it nicely last week when writing the “feminist dogma” argument. http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/06/reasoned-arguments-against-the-basic-tenets/#more-8414
    She was discussing the main issue with people arguing that feminists won’t apply critical thinking on gender equality. Of course, what this argument really means is “why won’t you consider that women may be inherently inferior/submissive to men? A true skeptic would totally apply the scientific method on this question.” They never mean the opposite, because *everyone knows men are not inferior to women, amirite?”

    But any discussion, dialogue or debate needs axiomatic foundations. As a woman, considering my subhumanity on a discussion with a man is ridiculous and self-defeating (I happen to think “inferior” and “superior” is meaningless in this context anyway). I think the same apply with the harassers/harassed “dialogue”. The message is “why won’t you hear harassers out on why harassing you is the sensible thing to do? They want to discuss the unimportance of women in atheism. Then they can say a few blanket statements, “free speech, gender blind, colourblind, equality, just for the lulz.” We’ll all come home and nothing will be changed, but then if feminists don’t stop writing about women’s issues, they will be the ones breaking the peace. Amen.”

    Sorry for the rant, but ugh. I really feel like Michael Nugent doesn’t understand how much it’s not a “2 side” debate here. This patronizing false equality is harmful. Might as well start “teaching the controversy” of creationism and evolution in universities now. You know, show both sides of the argument.

  5. grumpyoldfart says

    In Australia we have the arsonists lighting bush fires that have killed hundreds of people and destroyed thousands of houses over the years.

    In South Australia they tried something new: On every day when there is a chance of a bushfire getting out of control, the police call on every known arsonist and remind them that they are being closely watched. In some cases a police car will be parked in front of the arsonist’s house – and if he or she leaves, the police follow.

    Liberals complain about restricting people’s rights, but fatalities due to arson have fallen to zero.

  6. Trebuchet says

    Wonderful. Good job Dana! And you even cleared up my confusion with the Cuttlefish post.

  7. says

    Thanks, Dana, very well said. Some of us are rightly sick of the futility of attempting to be reasonable with the patently unreasonable, and the false equivalence that the acceptable middle ground between them is to be found halfway. Burn half my house down? Sure that looks like a compromise, but the house is rendered uninhabitable just the same as if the arsonist got their wish of burning all of it to the ground.

  8. rq says

    Your post and the Cuttlefish poem/song go well together.
    They’re both fantastic, and, since they explain the situation so well, can now be used as explanatory materials for people who just don’t get it.
    ♥ to you and the Cuttlefish!

  9. Nick Gotts says

    Excellent post! It also reminds me of Max Frisch’s play The Fire-Raisers, a parable on the rise of Nazism. The protagonist, Biedermann (everyman or “worthy man”) knows that there are arsonists going around, insinuating themselves into people’s homes, then setting fire to them. He is convinced he can never be fooled, yet when two suspicious characters turn up, allows them in, and even when his attic is filled with drums of petrol, refuses to believe his eyes, and when this is demanded of him, gives them matches as a sign of trust. They burn his house down.

  10. Johnny Vector says

    Well if you didn’t want people burning it down, why do you live in a house? You know how that makes some people get.

    (Hoping this is not one of times my sarcasm fails to come through…)

  11. Trebuchet says

    By the way, Dana, I’ve been meaning to mention that I think you’re striking an excellent balance between serious posts like this one and the fun sciency geological-botanical-biological ones. I look forward to reading you every day.