While being a computer geek, I have never been terribly good at high-level physics or maths. This post makes me want to change my mind, where it attempts to create a unified quantum theory out of sexuality.
If there is a difference in energy of the basis states a pure |M> state can oscillate between |S> and |G> according to a time-dependent phase factor arising when the two states interfere with each other:
|M(t)>=cosθ|S>exp(-iE1t) + sinθ|G>exp(-iE2t);
(obviously we are using natural units here, so that it all looks cleverer than it actually is). This equation is the origin of the expressions “it’s just a phase he’s going through” and “he swings both ways”. In physics parlance this means that the eigenstates of the sexual interaction do not coincide with the conventional gender types, indicating that sexual behaviour is not necessarily time-invariant for a given body.
Brilliant, but I’m going to have to do way more research before my eyes don’t glaze over repeatedly. Oh well, anything to self-improve.
And while we’re talking about sex and geekery, it’s worth mentioning that XKCD had a relevant comic recently (especially the more relevant if you’ve been attempting to follow all these crazy drama threads lately).
Sheril Kirschenbaum posted this a long while back, (like April! That’s AGES AGO!) and I wanted to listen to it as I happen to love Green Day, don’t have their newest CD, and it was in my head; but MTV is restricted in Canuckistan, so here’s the Youtube version.
The “Silence is the Enemy” lyric is timely. And mentioned in the comments, so I can’t even claim I’m clever in noticing.
This is just a repost without all the extra junk that ensued, so I can solicit comments on the post itself. There are very slight alterations, but none that change my point. If you read the other one, no need to reread this one unless you’re looking for a way to post about it without getting entangled (and I honestly hope you do comment… I need your feedback!). If you’re looking for something different to read, Ed Brayton expands Greg’s theme in a different direction, through all the acts of barbarism of which the same example soldiers are capable. Or you could read one of Greg’s follow-ups on the topic admonishing those that make the topic about themselves, that it’s not about them (unless they happen to be women being victimized by roaming bands of soldiers).
But whatever else you do, go here to do something positive and support the Silence is the Enemy campaign.
—
Greg Laden, as you may already know, recently postulated a hypothesis regarding the possibility of a “rape switch” — a set of circumstances in which soldiers are significantly more likely to rape members of the local population — that rang true with him. The idea originally came from one of his students’ term paper written in 1993. Discussion of the topic has been heated, to say the least, and I’ve been throwing more than my fair share of wild punches in the fray. This is just an attempt to put together a number of them into something more cohesive (and coherent) now that a lot of the rage has subsided. I will attempt to avoid or ameliorate those sticking points that drew so much of everyone’s off-topic ire, and I’ll even try to make up for a number of misconceptions I myself had in coming into the argument to begin with.
Greg Laden, as you may already know, recently postulated a hypothesis regarding the possibility of a “rape switch” — a set of circumstances in which soldiers are significantly more likely to rape members of the local population — that rang true with him. The idea originally came from one of his students’ term paper written in 1993. Discussion of the topic has been heated, to say the least, and I’ve been throwing more than my fair share of wild punches in the fray. This is just an attempt to put together a number of them into something more cohesive (and coherent) now that a lot of the rage has subsided. I will attempt to avoid or ameliorate those sticking points that drew so much of everyone’s off-topic ire, and I’ll even try to make up for a number of misconceptions I myself had in coming into the argument to begin with.
Researchers find first common autism gene. I have a (wholly unscientific) suspicion that autism is the result of a whole bunch of genes that are expressed in a certain relatively rare configuration in relation to one another, manifesting in the whole spectrum of ‘autistic’ behaviours including a number that weren’t always classified as such, like Asperger’s. The particular configuration of genes determines where on that spectrum you fall. This news fits my suspicion, at least.
Incidentally, I have a suspicion that homosexuality is the same way — there’s no one single gene you can pinpoint, but it’s the result of a whole lot of genes interacting in a specific combination; no one single gene making you prefer partners of your gender. In combination, knowing all the genes involved could lead to, say, figuring out the odds of your kid being gay before they’re even born. Horrifyingly, if that’s the case, homophobic parents might choose to abort or give up for adoption children that have above a specific percentile chance of being gay. Likewise with parents abandoning autistic kids, but there’s no in-grained social stigma about being on the autistic spectrum.
Anyway, back on topic — I wonder whether Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey will claim that vaccines somehow change your genetics. Or if they’ll miss the point and suggest that genetics accounts for only 15% of autistic cases, not realizing that this only means we’ve figured out what one specific gene looks like, not that we’ve “isolated the autism gene”.
Update: Well I was wrong about there being no social stigma about being autistic. Catching up reading Orac, I saw this article. It’s unbelievable the pain people are willing to cause over ridiculous, unfounded, unscientific, irrational fear of the unknown.
There are awesome people and idiots in every social group or subculture in the world. This includes ninjas, and it also includes ones where there’s a correlation between education and likelihood of joining the subculture, e.g. atheism. Just like those poser kids and trend whores in high school, or confused college students trying out bisexuality based solely on getting laid more often and/or because it’s popular, and not out of any real attraction to both genders, atheism, and specifically the “New Atheist movement” is being invaded by people who come to the decision to be atheist not because it’s the most rational one — they join up to be “counterculture”, to piss their parents off, or to build an identity for themselves during their formative years. Let’s call these douchebags “trend-atheists“.
This is very annoying to people like me, who came to atheism after being indoctrinated into Catholicism and who was “confirmed” before he even realized what was going on, finally learning that the universe is a vast and mysterious place, but that it could be comprehended through rational study and scientific endeavour. In all seriousness, I had no idea what was going on with the whole confirmation thing. I remember being incredibly anxious to get home and play Megaman, and honestly didn’t know why everyone was making such a big deal out of me going to church and standing in front of everyone, then eating a cracker handed to me by the old guy in a funny costume who smelled like liniment and maybe a hint of Vaseline and was sooooo boring when he read from that book he always had on his podium, that I thought maybe I could replace with my latest Hardy Boys book one day so we could find out what evildoers Joe and Frank discovered when they entered Pirates’ Cave!
Another thing that bothers me is the lack of understanding of the terms being bandied about. There’s a huge difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. Again, as with trend-atheism vs rational-atheism, reality favours the latter. First, definitions. Theist obviously means, “believes in God”. Prefix “a-” in Latin means “not”, so atheist therefore means “does not believe in God”. Likewise for gnostic — to be gnostic means you think the existence of God is knowable, e.g. that it’s possible to discover with 100% certainty that God exists. To be agnostic thus means you believe it’s NOT possible to know with 100% certainty that God exists.
This is shamelessly ripped off from this site, which is great. You should read it. No, finish my blog first. Yes, the whole thing. Then finish your peas.
As you probably have figured out from my previous rants introspections, I consider the concept of God to be inherently, by its very nature, by necessity, outside of our universe. Since we cannot know with any certainty what’s going on outside of our universe, since our existence is an abstraction of only three dimensions of it, then God is inherently unknowable. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocal atheists out there, says he cannot know with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist, but that he believes that God does not exist, and that the burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim that they can know that God exists with any degree of certainty whatsoever. Anyway, the only way to prove God exists is for God to do something that tells us he does. For instance, appear to us humans by making the moon into his head, and talking to all of us in all our languages simultaneously and telling us that he exists. And do it once a generation, to prove to every generation that he exists, lest we start thinking all our parents and grandparents were just delusional or were making unverifiable stuff up (you know, like with the Bible and the fish thing, or the walking on water thing, or the wine thing…). And also explain why it is that he must be worshipped or else he’ll damn you to an eternity of torture. And explain why what might seem like self-serving vanity in any other creature is perfectly acceptable and Supreme Good in him, because torture for eternity just for not believing in a magical universe-creating invisible guy is a pretty douchy thing to do.
So, the only sane, justifiable position to hold in the face of the deafening silence regarding direct evidence of God is simply to act like there isn’t one. Go ahead and enjoy life, better your fellow human’s lot, and do whatever you can to be a good, moral, and happy person, without worrying about what comes after you shuffle off this mortal coil, because there is no reward or punishment after death, no floating on a cloud, no eternal hellfire, no seventy-two virgins, and no cosmic High Score list on which you get to write your initials in as “FUK”.
tl;dr: I was atheist when atheism was underground, and people who use words wrong should be cock-punched. Or uterus-punched. (Don’t wanna be sexist.)
This time around, though, the media actually seems to be getting the fact that this guy was a radical conservative, whose Required Reading list included such philosophical giants as Bill-O The Clown, Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner — I honestly can’t blame him for his pseudonym), and Sean Hannity. The problem being, nobody’s going to call for these idiots to be banned from the airwaves for creating radicals — that particular tactic is generally only employed by conservatives, for starters.
He specifically picked the Unitarian Universalist church (which, by the way, if I had even a smattering of religious tendencies in my body, I’d happily convert to) because, though it finds its roots in Protestantism, it has a non-dogmatic approach to spirituality, and it is open to all walks of life, including (and prominently advertised on the sign outside its doors) homosexuals. Don’t forget, gays “tookhisjoerbs”. Of course he has to go shoot up a church full of good people because it’s tolerant of homosexuality. That makes perfect sense, in such a xenophobic mind twisted by the conservative pundits’ Two Minutes Hate. And because of the lies these pundits spewed, two people are dead, and six more are hanging by a thread.
I can’t wait to see how O’Reilly and Hannity (I don’t often get much exposure to Savage, being that he’s radio, moreso than television) try to spin this. Well, no, actually, I don’t. Anything they say short of apologizing profusely for categorically spreading fear and hate will likely make me vomit in my mouth, and you know as well as I do that they’re going to express their “heartfelt sympathies” for the victims of the tragedy, ignore completely their part in creating this monster, then turn back to their Two Minutes Hate of the day.
