Whoa, RDF/CFI says the right thing

For once.

I am truly surprised, actually.

Would someone care to write a standard inclusion rider for conference speakers?

Frances McDornand gave a speech at the Oscars in which she asked everyone to include an “inclusion rider” in their contracts. Like most people around the country, I had to google it to find out what an “inclusion rider” is.

What the heck is an inclusion rider? It’s a way to make Hollywood more equitable. Actors sign contracts when they are cast in films, and they have the ability to negotiate for riders, or additional provisions. An inclusion rider is a stipulation that the minor roles of a film reflect the demography of where the film takes place, including a proportionate number of women, minorities, LGBTQ individuals and people with disabilities. Big name actors who have leverage in negotiations could put this stipulation into their contracts and drastically change representation in film.

Hey! Why don’t we have such a thing for speakers at atheist cons (maybe you do, and I just don’t know about it)? This would be so useful. You want me to speak at your event? Great! But part of the deal is that I don’t show up and discover that I’m one among a big roster of nothing but old white men.

Or maybe you don’t want me anyway, and that’s fine — but what would be really powerful is if all those popular old white men also had an “inclusion rider” in their contracts that would motivate conference organizers to be a bit more balanced in their lineups if they want Big Name Atheist to join their meeting. It might also be revealing to find out which Big Name Atheists don’t want to leverage greater inclusivity in the events they grace.

My one obstacle is ignorance. We made a big push to have reasonable harassment policies at cons a few years ago. Maybe this would be a good next step: if someone who knows the legalese to craft a basic boilerplate conference speaker contract, I’d be happy to use it and would include it in any of my agreements to speak somewhere as a requirement. If enough of us start using such a thing, conference organizers would have to accommodate to them and figure them into the speaker lineups they put together.

Or they could just start automatically rejecting speakers who expect an appropriate gender and minority balance. That would be good to know about a conference, too.

(Psst. Science conferences, too. Any event where there exists a more desirable class of speakers — use your power to promote more diversity.)

EST+Scientology+Ayn Rand? Sign me up!

If I wanted to build a horrible chimeric religion to get rich, that would probably be a profitable combo…but I’d have to be totally rotten at the core to be able to do it. Just like Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman, who founded a cult called variously NXIVM or the Knife of Aristotle.

There are innumerable articles on NXIVM and Raniere that are worth your time, including this 2010 piece in Vanity Fair that claims Raniere took advantage of several wealthy heiresses, among other alleged victims. What everyone seems to agree on is that NXIVM shares DNA with Scientology, but mostly appears to be a direct descendant of the ‘70s self-investment movement EST. Most in my age range know about EST from its appearance in recent seasons of FX’s The Americans. NXIVM goes a step further than either, with ex-members reporting harems, color-coded hierarchy dress codes, deep sexism, and other assorted basic bitch cult moves—especially litigation against journalists and anti-Raniere voices. There’s also a website devoted to tracking the group, which seems like it shouldn’t be alone in this. After all, Raniere has been on the cover of Forbes magazine. He’s not hiding from anything.

So NXIVM focuses on internal truth and a re-prioritized set of internal ethics, mostly ripped from the objectivist pages of Ayn Rand, which I think solves the mystery of “Why fake news?”

Talk about your unholy hybrids…it’s terrifying that people actually fall for this kind of poison.

An interesting development

Mike Adams, the “health ranger”, the con artist behind Natural News, has been kicked off YouTube. Apparently it’s because he has long been promoting hateful conspiracy theories, but I’m surprised it hasn’t been because of his life-threatening quackery, or his twisted racism. He’s a red-skinned American Indian, you know.

So he’s gone. Now Alex Jones is feeling existential dread. YouTube is threatening to throttle his channel for all the nonsensical conspiracy theories he peddles, and advertisers are finally stampeding away.

Can we hope that the NRA is next?

I know all the freeze-peachers will be shrieking about this abridgment of the freedom of conservatives, but it’s really not a conservative/liberal thing. It’s about lies. There should be disincentives to fraud and lying and fomenting hate, and that goes for the entire range of the political spectrum. Dangerous health advice ought to be punished rather than rewarded, and that’s the purview of not just the Right, but also the Left. Racist garbage ought to be flagged and not be a recipe for shoveling money via clicks. Let the NRA make their blood-soaked propaganda, but don’t let them use YouTube to monetize it.

The Internet had such promise, but now it’s used as a convenient sewer pipe to drench us with lies. A crackdown on dishonesty would be a nice corrective.

I despise quacks

I can sort of see the twisted logic behind the claim that cancer is good.

  • If cancer were an indicator of an underlying systemic problem, rather than the problem itself;

  • If cancers were easily treatable;

  • If cancers weren’t a massive cause of pain and death;

Then yes, cancer would be great! You get a lump in your breast, you start pooping blood, you have been coughing up slime and can’t catch your breath…why, happy day, that means you have to go take a big swig of orange juice and all your problems would go away, breasts would be instantly perky, rainbows will shine out of your ass, and you’ll be off running marathons.

The only problem is that none of those premises are true. Just ask someone who has cancer. Cancer isn’t a symptom, it’s the disease. Only quacks claim that cancer can be easily cured. And if all it took was changing your diet to cure it, how do you account for the millions of people who died in terrible agony from it?

The person spreading these damnable lies is a Canadian naturopath, Brittany Auerbach, who calls herself “Montreal Healthy Girl”. Her article on this is a case study in the arrogance of ignorance.

Cancer is not a disease that came from ‘out there’, you did not ‘catch it’ and there is no need for the powerless self-pitying of ” how can this happen to me, I am so unlucky!”. By understanding the actual physiology behind what cancer really is, it makes knowing the true ‘cure’ pretty simple and straight-forward.

She thinks she understands the physiology of cancer. In the next paragraph, she demonstrates that she doesn’t.

It is imperative that we understand one point: the human body is alkaline by design and acidic by function. It fights for homeostasis and works every minute of every living moment to keep our blood Ph at an alkaline 7.2-7.4. The body is meant to thrive on oxygen and alkaline minerals, we cannot survive without them. All foods and substances that are healthiest for us leave an alkaline residue and alkaline minerals in the body. Healthy tissues are oxygen-rich and loaded with alkaline nutrient stores that the body can use to neutralize the acids that are produced by everyday activities like walking, having sex, digestion, breathing, etc. When the body is rich in alkaline nutrients and rich in oxygen, it is disease-free and optimally functional. When the body becomes too acidic, the cells close themselves off by encasing themselves with alkaline minerals to protect the blood from becoming very acid (which would result in death). By closing themselves off, these cells begin to be unable to absorb alkaline nutrients or oxygen and basically turn anaerobic and cancerous. It is the same process that a bacteria undertakes: when blood supply and oxygen is cut off and acidity increases, they morph into ‘superbugs’, ones that can thrive and grow in the even the most undesirable of environments. AH thanks to acidic antibiotics!

I’ve seen this before. There’s a whole industry of quacks who reduce every ailment to one simple thing, pH, and make these silly arguments about an imbalance of hydrogen ions. At least the ancients argued for four humors that needed balancing, these loons have reduced it to just one. The “pH Miracle” scam has been going on for decades.

This horrible person also doesn’t just claim that cancer is a minor inconvenience, she’s also going to blame antibiotics for magically morphing bacteria into antibiotic resistant superbugs.

In fact, she has a treatment for everything! She can cure cancer, all viruses, all bacterial infections, alcoholism, ADD, and a whole raft of imaginary problems! She’s a fraud, but she’s got a successful scam going.

I was reminded of the Dunning-Kruger effect while browsing Brittany’s website. Ignorant people do not have empty minds; rather, their brain is filled with inaccurate information they believe to be true. And the Dunning-Kruger effect is the fact that many of these people actually think they have superior knowledge. If a fool knew they were a fool, they would not be dangerous. But a fool who thinks he is a genius, that is problematic. With videos that can reach up to half a million people, Brittany “MontrealHealthyGirl” Auerbach can do a lot of damage. She has more YouTube subscribers (over 106,000) than the Food Babe (38,566), though her Facebook and Twitter followers are dwarfed by her American counterpart.

If you’re listening to these lying phonies, you need to stop. She may be a fool, but she’s successfully milking a hundred thousand other fools.

I’m sensing a theme here

I just noticed something on Facebook. They have this pane titled “Suggested Groups” where they recommend stuff based on your browsing habits, I guess, and there were two of them being pushed at me. Here are their logos.

Is it just me, or do you see it too?

Several of those guys pictured are dead. One, Neil deGrasse Tyson, doesn’t want to be associated with movement atheism. But that isn’t what bothers me most.

One problem is that they’re all guys, every one, except for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They couldn’t be bothered to copy and paste a picture of Susan Jacoby or Annie Laurie Gaylor or Madalyn Murray O’Hair or Margaret Downey in there — heck, not even Ayn Rand, but maybe that would be too revealing of their political philosophy. If you wanted to demonstrate that atheism is a boys’ club, all you have to do is look at how they advertise themselves.

But another big problem is how much of a cult of personality this whole movement is becoming. All that matters is who you know, how compatible you are with that gang of 5 to 10 men who are the big names, and your ideas don’t matter otherwise. It’s all about conformity. You need to be centrist or right of center (or dead, if you’re liberal), and if you’re not, you’ve got to accommodate yourself to the status quo. You’ve got to be a man. It helps to be vigorously anti-Muslim, again part of that right-of-center bias. You should be white, but they’re happy to bring in a few tokens, even if they don’t ask to be part of this mess. It’s all part of the marketing of establishment atheism, which is going to be built around people you like, rather than ideas that challenge the culture. It’s a brand now.

It’s also focused on the past. Aww, aren’t you pinin’ for the days of George Carlin and Carl Sagan, when the atheist boys’ club could be all rational and shit without some girl or social scientist or somethin’ coming along and putting a damper on the party with complexity and exposing your underlying assumptions?

Even with electoral victories, we have to worry about being undermined by the media

The liberal media is a myth. It’s been bought and sold by the rich. Take a look at this critique of the editor of the NY Times editorial section, James Bennett.

By now, there’s a somewhat prolific repertoire of writings critical of Bennet’s tenure. The beef is primarily with the op-eds as opposed to the editorial page, which remains a champion of progressive values, especially on urgent issues like gun control, climate change and, of course, opposition to the policies pouring forth from the Trump White House. It’s not surprising that some of the most blistering assessments have come from anti-establishment precincts. Here’s Glenn Greenwald: “If your goal were to wage war on media diversity in all of its forms, and to offer the narrowest range of views possible, it would be hard to top the roster of columnists the paper has assembled . . . Beyond the obvious demographic homogeneity, literally every one of them fits squarely within the narrow, establishment, center-right to center-left range of opinion that prevails in elite opinion-making circles . . . None is associated with or supportive of the growing populist left or the populist right; they all wallow in the vague, safe, Washington-approved middle ground, members in good standing of the newly overt neoliberal-neoconservative alliance.”

It’s all got the same flavor, whether it’s the Sunday morning news shows or the op-eds of most of the elite newspapers: wealthy old white guys droning on to support failed ideas backed only by tradition. It’s agonizing to watch.

Charles Pierce forecasts the future.

You can almost taste the flopsweat from the elite political media. They’re warming things up in case there really is a Democratic wave in the fall. Experience tells us that, if that happens, the elite political media will immediately engage the dampers on anything a Democratic majority might want to do that is in anyway Democratic or (horrors!) liberal. Expeditions to the Trumpish hinterlands will depart immediately. Appeals to “bipartisanship” will deafen the gods. This is what happened in 2006, when the country revolted against George W. Bush and his many crimes and failures. This is what will happen next fall, too.

You’re seeing it with the hilarious contortions of James Bennet regarding how he’s putting together his Opinion staff, and this obvious ratings extravaganza is another indication that all the old tracks are being set down again. In 2006, this phenomenon helped with the efforts to toss the Avignon Presidency down the memory hole so that people wouldn’t notice how it was the logical end to 30 years of conservative politics. It’s going to take even more of an effort to do that with this disaster. No wonder they’re starting early.

I’m afraid that’s a safe prediction. Trumpistani’s win: we get stories about sad, stupid people who are unhappy that we don’t respect their self-harming opinions. Trumpistani’s lose: we get stories about sad, stupid people who are unhappy that they don’t get to inflict their self-harming opinions on the rest of us. The media will do whatever they can of the myth of the Golden Age of Trump, just as they’re resusciating George W Bush’s reputation, and as they’ve always enshrined the myth of St Ronald Reagan.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a reality-based media that was less interested in pampering the opinions of the yahoos who still buy their papers and more concerned with reporting facts? Bret Stephens should never have gotten a column, not because he’s conservative, but because he rejects the facts of climate change.