The foundation of our civilization is…anything but the Ten Commandments.
(Episode CCXCIII: A belated happy birthday to Janis.)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The foundation of our civilization is…anything but the Ten Commandments.
(Episode CCXCIII: A belated happy birthday to Janis.)
Are too.
@ Nerd – ***snerkle***
+++++++++++
Shorter King Cobra: “I can’t scare ’em, and they’re too big to eat, fuck you guys, I’m going home!”
Ray Comfort is Moses?
Glen Davidson
Southern Comfort is Moses, Jack Daniels is Jesus.
Care to guess which game I just won? (Hint: It’s a game that, until recently, didn’t have a win condition.)
Life?
The Dating Game?
Sailor: No, the Dating Game has always had a win condition, and I still fail at life.
Frustration?
The Sailor
You are too quick for me.
Leisure Suit Larry?
Spoiler alert.
Operation?
Sorry Benjamin, I meant “Mystery Date”. I’ve never won at that.
What Did Grandma Peterson Do To The Cat?
I was gonna guess the game, but chigau has clearly won the thread.
O. M. G.
Not only was there Twister, there was Animal Twister, and Bratz Twister.
I feel dirty now.
Bot congratulations Benjamin!!!1!!
I was cheating, I was going down the list of Milton Bradley games.
I actually won Leisure Suit Larry.
Admittedly, Jon Stewart was swing at a huge softball that was lobbed over to him but damn, the righteous rage that fueled tonight’s monologue felt good.
I saw that video earlier today. I think it is one of Non-Stampcolletor’s best, which is saying a lot.
{previous incarnation of TET}
@ Walton (& Irene Delse)
I can accept that the meaning has shifted. What then for situations in which the overiding sense is one of fear? This applies not only to children but also adults (for example the older people terrified by the “Swart Gevaar” at the AWB rally.) The fearmongers have created a different type to themselves. It seems a bit obtuse to use terms like those in such a blunderbus fashion.
Is there a “silver bullet” word we could use? Rather than one that explodes, raining shrapnel on the just and the unjust alike. ( LM accused me of “homophobia” (in the sense of prejudice and bigotry) at one stage in the above thread, where some other word might likely have been more appropriate.)
@ Walton
The South African politician, Joseph Malema has been making the news for quite some time for the promotion of singing “Kill the Boer” (ie: Afrikaners, but also read in the context of ongoing murders of farmers). He has claimed that the song is traditional and he therefore has a right to indulge in such hate speech. The courts decided otherwise. Link to article: “Kill the Boer.”
My take on him is that he is a self-serving populist and that his promotion of these words has a very strong chance of being seen as a call to racial violence by many of his followers. I fail to see what good might have come from the courts’ endorsement his “right” to promote these lyrics.
The courts ruled that his words undermined the dignity of people and were discriminatory and harmful. And further:”No justification exists allowing the words to be sung… the words were in any event not sung on a justifiable occasion.”
(It is fairly easy to track back through the whole story and so may be a very useful example for you if you need to study the issue of hate speech legislation. eg:Quick Link.)
You have articulated why it may be problematic for USA to follow suite in this regard. Do you think that this is a universal principle, or is that driven more by a pragmatic view on the American legal system?
…..
On the subject of bigotry, here is a recent and rather shocking example from China: Link -“Hong Kongers are bastards and dogs.
In which Edwin Kagin tells us one more time that he’s a crotchety Old White Man who ain’t gonna listen to no youngsters and they politically correct popple-ty-cock-mm-baffle-ty-gab no way, no how. No suh.”
So stick that in y’all’s pipes and smoke it.
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
Is this thread called “TET”?
I just learned from first-hand experience that posting an off-topic comment in the wrong thread is a mortal sin. Oh boy.
I just hope I’m welcome here.
Don’t push your luck babe.
Posting off-topic isn’t in and of itself a “mortal sin,” but posting without regard for the nature of the current discussion isn’t looked highly upon. You even apologized for it (a rare thing to see), no need to play the martyr.
Jeez, is it really ten ’til one already? Friggin’ A.
Hi Josh, hope you’re well.
No, it’s 2 to 6pm, what are you talking about ? (And 33C/91F too, praise the lord for air con)
scottjordan, link to FB profile in your nym, really ?
@scottjordan, “off topic” is definitely welcome in TET. It’s still part of the shark tank though. (And we’re the sharks. *wink*)
Heya, Rorschach. I’m doing well. Hope you are too.
Oh – and TET is “The Endless Thread” (I think?) When each version gets to around 700 comments, PZ closes it and starts the next one.
@Josh, you’re welcome (for your thanks in the Paterno thread). I could talk more about coaching but it’s way way WAY not appropriate there… nor is this a good time. Maybe in a few days.
Sudden! Stomachache!
Curse you Mom!! I never should have hugged you!
OH FFS…’politically incorrect’…that’s a major bloody red flag for me because we hear it all the time in the UK…funnily enough, in my experience it’s normally used as a cover for blinkered idiots who don’t want to be called out for the disgusting and/or plain idiotic things they say.
This may seem random but it’s really, really not. In fact, it’s a local issue; just take a peek at the blogroll.
‘Political correctness’ my damned backside…
Sorry, Josh, I see you’ve already posted on it. I blundered in blindly, flailing at the sheer dumbassery of it all.
Good morning
Terribly tired, but I was too frustrated last night and could not sleep. Going shopping at Amazon didn’t help much.
Yay: Ordered original Dr. Who on DVD
Meh: Since nobody ever thought about rating them, I have to pay extra charge so the mailman can hand it over to me in person and look sternly at me to make sure I’m over 18.
CC
Let’s have a pity party.
Sally Strange
Is your mum:
-contagious
-a very strong woman
-somebody who makes your stomach curl?
Whoa what’s up people. First time in TET.
I wouldn’t do this but I need to vent.
Okay so I am a snowboarder what likes the snowboarding (OBVS) and last weekend I randomly met this dude while up on the mountain.
If you are not into skiing/snowboarding, quick explanation: chairlifts have so many seats, and if you are up by yourself (single) you often ride with other people. People that you may/may not have conversations with (often related to, obvs, skiing).
SO SOMEHOW I end up riding up with this guy and I met him on the slopes, like, halfway down, because it was some skier that stopped pretty damn close to me so I was all “sup” because I ALWAYS DO THAT.
For like the past 15 years.
But this time dude follows me to chairlift and rides up with me and gets my phone number in a totally not creepy way, and I don’t even know how this happened, and then we spent Sunday skiing together, and now I guess he wants to go out with me this week??
Whut.
Help I don’t understand everything is terrible.
Okay I know this is not really like, atheism or science related but… I don’t really… date people? What is this I don’t even.
I don’t really need advice I just needed to vent. Thanks for “listening.”
What, love and humanity are totally atheism/science related. ~;>
Congratz, enjoy, take precautions?
Yeah, I like to think of chairlifts as outdoor elevators. -.-
But really, how do you normally meet people? Seems pretty standard to me.
Mom was contagious!
ARGGH someone light the spokesgay signal. I need your help Josh. My phone is dead cuz I left the charger at Audleys and i have to call into work. Or if someone else wants to help. Egad what a horrible sitauion.
Free phone calls via web for emergency use (probably better off having a friend call to avoid being cut off). Haven’t used it myself.
Rorschach:
There’s been a whole lot of people commenting lately with FB profiles in their nyms. I think it’s because people can log in with their FB accounts now, noticed that last time I had to log in.
Oh ! Thanks Caine, I missed that. Another data point to suggest that internet privacy should be taught in schools.
@ Josh
I tried reading the blog you linked to. It did not scan, so I read it again. The only thing I can make of it, is that he is trying to say: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.”
… or some such.
Shorter Edwin Kagan: “Damn kids, get off my lawn!” That really does seem to be the entire gist of it.
Alukonis, congratulations??
Oh, look, Moses has an Apple tablet.
O hai! I can has thread bankruptcy! Have I missed something important or interesting?
CC needs a pity party? *Jadehawk’s® Totally Biodegradable Confetti®*
Alukonis, are you interested in that guy, or not? If yes, where’s the problem?
theophontes: Pretty much.
“politically incorrect”? Has anyone used that phrase since about 1996?
Hi, David!
I’m feeling pretty crap right now, and I want to get something off my chest.
I want to give a proper apology to those who were offended by my comment in this thread. Child rape is a very serious matter, and I shouldn’t have made light of it with my flippant off-topic comment and link. I was a jerk for not considering how it would hurt other people’s sensibilities. This is not my blog, so I don’t make the rules. If I say something that is out of line, it is everyone’s duty to call me out on it. For this, I am sorry.
That is all I want to say for now.
It’s used a lot over here, usually by right-wing commenters (US translation: two points right of centre, as opposed to the strange breed you call Republicanus gopiana batshitterus). It’s usually accompanying a screed about how ‘they’re playing the race/sexism/gay card’, or ‘coming over here and taking our jobs, but you can’t say that’, except that they just did, often live on TV/radio. Funnily enough, the Thought Police fail to kick down the studio doors and drag them off to Larkhill Detainment Camp. Maybe they only arrive by appointment.
Adopt a white van driver’s accent (you may need about seven bacon sandwiches and a packet of Benson and Hedges to get the correct guttural tone) and bewail: “It’s political correctness gone maaaad!” Try also: “Bring back hangin’, it’s the only langauge they understaand!” and the ever-popular: “They’re all on benefits, mate!” The cry of ‘political correctness’ is unfortunately alive and well in the UK.
Thanks for the apology, Scott. Go make some bacon and present it to the Grand High Poobah PZ and we’ll put it under the rug for now.
It’s alright Scott, just be a little more careful where the hobnailed boots go. Some threads are more sensitive than others.
Emrysmyrddin – yeah, that’s the usage here too. It just feels so old. I think it fell out of favor here by the late 90s or so. It’s like complaining about those morally bankrupt shows like Murphy Brown or something.
Alukonis,
That sounds sweet. However, if you’re not interested in dating (for whatever reason), you should be upfront about it just so he knows what’s going on.
On the other hand, if you’re just nervous, it’s okay. It’s nerve-wracking being on a first date. Just remember to breathe and try to enjoy yourself. ;)
I just assign anyone who uses it as herp-a-derp and move on, FTBers included…but I can ‘pass’ as majority. It usually wouldn’t be directed at me. Others aren’t so lucky.
Scott:
That’s great, thanks. That said, there really wasn’t any drama at all, just a couple of people who pointed out the right place for off topic stuff. It’s all over and done. Grab a drink at the bar, do some reading, get to know people and jump on in.
Also, welcome in Alukonis and Scott! The water’s a bit sharky, but you’ll get used to it.
Scott, thanks for the apology. We all screw up, so it’s not the end of the world (but you can probably let go of it now).
Alethea:
Pretty much and that bugs the hell out of me, because if that’s his attitude, why Camp Quest? Why found anything that is kid based? Honestly, I hope he never shows up or talks at any of the camps.
Thanks, everyone. I just really hated myself for upsetting people. You guys are cool! :3
Last Thread:
Try Morse Code.
But normoal.
=====
Classical Cypher:
Just channel the discomfort of the wet socks into devastating incisiveness in your paper.
==========
This Thread:
But the frikkin’ laaasers are held up by paperwork.
=====
Alukonis:
Be safe and have fun. If you feel uncomfortable with it, you are. If you don’t, you aren’t.
And you damn snowsboarders are always scraping the powder and loose granular offa the slopes and your moguls are the wrong shape!
=====
And I am just staying the hell away from from the JoPa thread. Way too close . . . .
*points*
KITTY!
@Emrysmyrddin
You’re not pointing at me, are you? :3
“Murphy Brown” as morally bankrupt? It was so bland that I do not actually remember what it was about, even though I watched a couple of episodes.
Now, “Married with Children” starring the horrible family Bundy…that was bankrupt (in a good way). Although “Two and a half men” is considerably more daring. Like a version of South Park with live actors.
Somebody should make a TV comedy as a thinly disguised history of Newt Gingrich’s family problems.
— — — — — — — — — —
“Kill the Boer” ?
“Borat” apparently had a few songs, I am told one of them is titled “Throw the Jew into the well”
Yesterday I saw the cutest little kitten in PetCo. I was getting food, litter, and some bitter apple spray (to keep Snip away from my electronics.) Since PetCo always has those shelter cats in the cages in front, naturally I had to go play with them. One was a pretty black and white, probably year old, cat named Rachel (she was very calm.) The other was a tiny black kitten named Plum.
Plum was mewing at me and rubbing against my fingers and looking up at me with big doleful eyes and I fell in love with her, but I have a studio apartment, so she has to be taken in by someone with a slightly bigger home :(
But, no fear. In about two months I’m looking into 1 bedrooms in my apartment complex, and I will have another kitten by then! I’ll have to make sure that it was born in July or close to it so I can keep Snip and new kitty on the same food schedule.
So they stay off his lawn? ;)
@Scott:
I once Nyaned for over 9000 seconds, mostly to see whether there’d be some easter egg for Nyanning for over 9000 seconds.
There wasn’t, I am somewhat less sane than I was before that event.
Last night, Wife and I gave both Dust and Oreo baths and shampooed them with flea shampoo.
Dust (the 28 pound half-Maine Coon and half RagDoll giant (with three layers of fur)) was not happy. He screamed and howled and yowled and cursed and tried to escape (that cat is strong) multiple times and was thoroughly miserable.
Oreo (who is now down to about 7 pounds) purred, loudly, the entire time. From the initial soaking to working the shampoo in to rinsing, she purred. I guess she thought if she sounded happy we would stop?
We hope that the fleas are all dead. We have been pesticiding various parts of our hose, sequestering the cats in non-carpeted areas, and fighting the little fucking fleas furiously.
And the best news? No stitches or bandaids required.
@Oggie:
Ouch… 3 layers of fur and fleas must be a huge pain in the ass. I’m lucky Snip has relatively thin fur, so when he got fleas I could see them all easily.
28 pounds? That’s a lot of cat!
*dum-di-dumm*
[shameless bragging to follow]
I plead guilty to the deadly sin of pride and the less known sin of vanity by proxy.
The fleas have been driving him nuts, so he’s lost a little weight. He is a big cat, though. He can stand up on two legs and rest his chin on the kitchen counter. Luckily, he is the sweetest cat in existence. Which is good, considering his canines (?on a cat?) are just under 1cm.
Giliell:
Is that embroidery? Fandamntastic!
@Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort:
I bet you haven’t “Nyaned” as long as this guy. And I think it’s a good thing if you haven’t!
@Oggie:
I used to have a full Maine Coon and my parents currently have a part Maine Coon (not sure how much.) I remember the full was very non-chalant – very BIG – but she usually just kind of lazed about and while she was never a lap cat so to speak, she wouldn’t mind sitting next to you. The part Coon is super-sweet, super-talkative, and… kind of dumb. He obviously only inherited the size and temperment of the Maine Coon without inheriting the purported intelligence.
I love Maine Coons, though – they’re my favorite kind of cat. Cept with the double fur layer I’d be sneezing and miserable so I’ll have to not get one :(
@Gilliel:
Pretty!
Scottjordan: Kitty pointing phenomnomnom proved by Science. It are a fact.
@Scott:
Fortunately for me, I was not hypnotized by the Nyanning or the cuteness or the toaster pastry. I’m sure it could’ve gone on for some time if I had… and work would be calling, and my parents would be worried, and my cat would be meowing at me wanting food.
Reading into the previous subthread.
:-o
I had no idea.
*leaps out and hugs all the surviving actors*
This sentence is so perfectly damning it should be posted on Failblog. Just so, without comment. :-)
Horrifying.
That’s nothing. Second time I went to a cinema that wasn’t IMAX?
Jurassic Park.
Last time there was freezing rain over here (10 to 15 years ago maybe), an ice layer simply formed on top of the snow.
Ooh! Seconded! :-)
Ah, I know that (except for the caffeine). It’s too late for this time, but never try that again. It simply never works. When you’re tired, sleep.
I’ve seen much shorter sentences that were much more difficult to understand. That one was pretty straightforward. (It just was full of arguments from ignorance.)
:-D :-D :-D
=8-)
Or indeed about other people’s. There was a subthread that floated the possibility of Ing/Ing slash fiction.
Sounds familiar.
@Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
Damn, I’m slow. I only just figured out your “over 9000” reference! :P
@Scott:
Haha, yea. I figured, given the weirdness of the Nyan Cat writer that they’d have some easter egg pertaining to that. But no… they did not. There are a few other easter eggs apparently (if you go to http://nyan.Cat and hit the “lower volume” button a few times… well, just do it yourself and see what happens.)
Yeah I actually do like the guy, but because I don’t date people I have no experience, therefore panic. I can’t articulate my irrational fear, hence venting instead of advice-asking.
Chairlifts are not like elevators in that it is totally standard to chat with people you don’t know on them. For example, just recently I rode up with this woman and we ended up talking skier traffic and she told me a story that I’m sure her kids would be absolutely mortified to know that she told me. Long story short, it involved peeing in a cup.
And Ogvorbis I cannot speak for all of snowboardkind, but I am not one of the powder-scrapers, thankyouverymuch!
Oh snizaap. Looks like Sierra Nevada is going to be building their east coast brewery in Henderson county NC. That, my furry friends, is kick ass news.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20120123/ARTICLES/120129896/1151?Title=Sierra-Nevada-Brewing-Co-to-tap-Henderson-County-
Aaaagh.
Remember that poll-that-was-actually-a-petition from a while back?
Now RAND FUCKING PAUL is spamming me on that address.
And quote-mining:
It’s precisely the same sort of quote mining as one finds with Darwin’s “absurd in the highest possible degree” quote: they quote the setup but cut out the part where they knock down their rhetorical argument.
The next two paragraphs of Roe v. Wade:
AAAAGH.
Priestly
@Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
Nyan Cat loves screwing with us!
My brother disagrees with me, but I actually prefer The Amazing Horse myself. Nyan Cat is cute, but this one is funny!
“Give it a lick – Mmmm! It tastes just like raisins!!”
You damn kids with your snowboards always scrape the snow off. Always.
Oh. The last time I skiid? Right before I went in the Army and destroyed my knee which would have been 1989. Why do you ask?
(attempted humour)
====
Wife made a Nyan-cat scarf for future Son-in-Law for Solstice.
@Oggie:
That’s just awesome! I want a Nyan Cat scarf now XD
I have a job interview tomorrow. I cannot attend this interview with The Amazing Horse on continuous loop inside of my brain. Argh.
/withdraws to find brain bleach
@Scott:
Wow… my poor brain.
Emrysmyrrddin:
Some things to dislodge the Amazing Horse:
annoying (yes it is)
bonjour
Flying Squirrels
And something special for the regulars.
QFT. Usually by the Daily Mail or those who read it. And the rest of sentence typically involves “floods of immigrants”, “asylum seekers”, “scroungers”, “Eurocrats”, “taxes” or something of that nature.
The best way to avoid snow being scraped off, ski the backcountry…
Anyone who has ever seen Nyan Cat has to watch the sadness of Stray.
I’ve been on the hunt for a new apartment and I think the lack of urgency is turning me into George Costanza about some of the places I’ve been looking at. I walked through a nice place with two balconies yesterday (I like balconies a lot) and found that the water heater was in the middle of a bathroom and the whole place got ruined for me.
I saw another place that I REALLY want to like because it’s such a good deal- it’s a >1000 sq ft studio with nice hardwood floors and a new kitchen with all utilities included, but I think at some point it was an attic because there are no windows in the thing other than on the door and a skylight that seems like it would be blocked by a support column most of the day.
The most frustrating part of this is that I was going to try using the apartment hunt as an excuse to spend some time with my dad- we never really got along that well, but we just found out that my grandmother has cancer and he’s been depressed. I thought it might help take his mind off it so I try to call him and get him to look at places with me.
Every place I tell him about, he hears the address and gives me some offensive reason why I “don’t want to live there.” Last week an entire street was, according to him, “full of Mexicans” and not just normal Mexicans but “illegals.” The studio I looked at yesterday is “drug central” which I’m positive he believes because there is a historically black neighborhood a few blocks away and he probably saw a black person walking around there once. The funny thing is, every apartment complex I’ve ever lived in has been filled with both Mexicans and drugs and I’ve never had a problem related to either.
I guess I’m going to have to finally ask my stepdad for help. I like him well enough, but the concept of having a stepfather is still pretty new and weird to me. On the other hand, he does know his shit; he’s owned a lot of rental properties and served on a board for it, and he does a lot of woodworking so he’d be able to pick problematic stuff out much better than I could. It’s just that as much as my dad and I have had our disagreements, I would hate for him to somehow find out that I had chosen stepdad over him for help. However, if he continues with the racist don’t-live-there excuses then he’ll be forfeiting the opportunity.
Aw – just realized there’s a secret happy ending to Stray if you pause at 1:44 and click in the middle of the screen.
@Emrysmyrddin, Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
Sorry I showed you that. You wouldn’t believe how fervently I sing along to that video. That’s how f***ed up I am! :P
Kristinc from last thread, re Reptile Man: Friends of mine in the Albany, NY area do similar shows.
Get a load of this shit: Georgia judge orders President Obama to appear in court over ‘birthers’ suit
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/23/2603770/georgia-judge-orders-president.html
+++++++++
The comments are just bless your heart precious. (Sometimes I think Sherman was too lenient.)
@Ms. Daisy Cutter, Feral Fembeast
Thanks for appreciating my brief apology in the other thread. It was stupid of me to post that inappropriate comment. I promise I will restrict such comments to threads such as this.
A friend of my future in-laws is a rabid conservative. She is a self-proclaimed Obama-hater. She denies that he is President. Why? Because the President has to have a Top-Secret clearance and, with Obama’s ties to domestic terrorists, there is no way he could ever get a security clearance, therefore he cannot be President.
The last time she brought this up to me, I asked what she thought of the US Constitution. She replied, “It is the law of the land.”
“Fine,” I said. “Please point to the clause in the US Constitution which states that the President cannot hold office if he or she cannot pass a security clearance.”
She blustered and bullied, claiming that I was taking her out of context and that Obama, since he cannot hold a security clearance, is unable to be in charge of the US military. So I asked her to point out that clause. She blustered and bullied again, claiming that since Obama has ties to terrorists, he cannot have a security clearance therefore he cannot legally be President. I again asked her to point to the relevant clause.
This is the same person who, five or so years later, claims that the New England Patriots cheated when a challenge overturned a fumble because of something called the “Tuck Rule.” So I asked her, “What is it about conservatives that, when they don’t like the person or team who wins, they decide either the rules do not say what they say, or there are special rules that are not written?” Happily, she has not talked with me since then.
I took a look at the comments in the linked article and find it fascinating that an Obama-hater has found that there are three kinds of citizens in the US. Again, what is it about conservatives that the rules only matter when the rules get them what they want? For law-and-order assholes, for people who think that relativism is anathema, for those who want to return to the original meaning of the US Constitution, they sure are big on ignoring the rules. Or making them up.
@scottjordan: So you know, a lot of us are survivors of rape or abuse. If you post something that’s inappropriate or insensitive *in general*, you’re going to get educated, quick. ~;>
Juvenile innuendo, however…
…I love this planet sometimes.
Ogvorbis: Is the NFL rulebook available for people to read? Most people figure out the rules of football by listening to commentators.
Then again, the same is true of civics…
Ben:
Yes.
This gives me flashbacks to Being John Malkovich for some reason.
@Alukonis, metal ninja
Sorry to just jump in here, but can I ask why you don’t…date people?
I was pretty much the same. My last relationship ended well over three years ago, and I hadn’t even talked to anyone outside my circle of friends for as long. I had long ago accepted being alone and was fine with it. Then last week I was in the bookstore reading the back of a Neil DeGrasse Tyson book, and a very lovely girl snuck up behind me and asked me if I’d read any of his other books. I was quite literally shaking in terror. We chatted a bit and she suggested we go for a coffee and discuss space, time, and Pluto. We did. And we had a fantastic time. We’re planning to go out again this weekend. Anyways, I guess my point is that despite that I was quite content, even happy being on my own, my fears were quite unjustified. It’s quite a feeling to find someone new with similar interests, even if it doesn’t end up anywhere.
Also, I’m just really excited about this! And I wanted to share my story with the horde. Thanks for listening!
So how many of you, when you get a new video camera (for example), poke all the buttons saying “This doesn’t work. This doesn’t work.” and how many of you READ THE FUCKING MANUAL?
Sorry, Ben. That should link to http://nfl.com/rulebook .
QFT!
==============
Urgh. I am terribly depressed with crying jags, dwelling on all the pain in my life, physical chest pain from the feeling of grief and just everything from soup to nuts. It started yesterday and I have no idea what triggered it or how long it will go on. It hurts and it sucks and I hate it.
chigau:
I do. But I am well known as one who takes the road less travelled (which explains why my suspension wears out so quickly).
@The Sailor:
Birthers make me laugh. They’re depressingly stupid. How someone that stupid knows how to even breathe is beyond my understanding.
I kind of understand how they manage to breathe, but how the fuck they are able to work out which way round to sit on the toilet is beyond me.
Alukonis, welcome to TET. :)
I don’t understand where the terribleness comes in. Does this guy like peas, or something? Is he (*shudder*) a horse?
(Mental image of horse in chairlift at no extra charge.)
–
Matt:
For birthers, it’s upside-down, mouth downward.
I seldom buy techtoys, but when I do, I READ THE FUCKING MANUAL, as much from fear of accidentally breaking the whatever-it-is as anything else.
–
kristinc, *hugs* and *chocolates* and *boozes* and *bacons* and *moar hugs*.
Sometimes life sucks, on greased rails.
–
is this a place where we can talk about the other FTB blogs too? Because 1. Edwin Kagin: blogging seems like a poor choice for someone who apparently cannot handle criticism; and 2. pet peeve: I really hate password-protected posts. If there’s something you want to say privately, send it in an email or call the person or write a letter; don’t put it on your damn blog.
phew. thanks!
also, hi! this is my first venture in to TET.
Bill, thanks for that comment about somebody’s anticipated down-ballot effects of a right-wing third-party challenge. I’ll have to study before I can decide how seriously to take that idea, but it’s plausible and interesting and I hadn’t thought about it before.
My current reason for preferring Gingrich is just that his negatives are much higher than Romney’s, and polling shows him losing to Obama by a wider margin than Romney would.
Of course you can trash talk other blogs! Just not mine. Oh, wait…people do. Oh, well.
One of the rules FtB has, though, is that the bloggers have nearly complete autonomy — so Edwin can do as he wants on his own blog. The solution is, if you don’t like an individual blog here, don’t read it.
This would never work here.
Edwin may do as he likes, but I don’t think he’ll be very happy here if he continues to expect FtB readers to refrain from calling him out when he’s acting like a bigoted, privileged ass. Those who confuse criticism with “censorship” and characterize it as PC-Gone-Wild tend to have an unpleasant time blogging in more enlightened circles. Ya know, any place where ideas about the decent way to talk about queer people have moved past the 1960s.
For Downton Abbey fans (you knew this was coming)
Shit Dowager Countesses say
ScottJordan, Alukonis, sisu,
Welcome to thread. There will be a quiz at the end. So there.
___
Kristinc,
Shitty days. Hugs if you want ’em. And pull up as many comments as you like.
Walton, I’m not sure that r1ck is best understood as a science denialist rather than a science fan who’s vulnerable to hype. New Scientist, while known for hype and otherwise irritating styles, is not a denialist source, and Cell is a respected journal.
I might link the Bonnet study and call it interesting.
What I wouldn’t do is suspect that profit-motivated suppression is the only reason a drug which showed promise in nonhuman trials just five years ago isn’t now being marketed for humans.
Maybe thirty years…
I see. In order to avoid the charge of groupthink, FtB has hired an actual idiot to provide balance.
An idiot that whines about the twin terrors of political correctness and ill manners.
But, he has a point. Clearly, the only reason this fuckwit has a blog at all is affirmative action.
And then, without a trace of self reflection, complain about ‘vulgarity’.
Did some Christian beat his head against a brick wall? Is there an explanation for why this man is so fucking clueless?
Seriously, fuck him.
Chigau:
Have you noticed how many things don’t come with manuals? My Kindle Fire didn’t, neither did my smartphone.
Hell, even some videogames are getting rid of them. I know I’ve seen user manuals that just have the button config and that’s it.
Which commandant is it that says though shalt not eat your pastrami with cheese?
I see lots of talk about dating here today (Hey Alukonis! Welcome to TET!) and its inspired me to do something to further my own self esteem immensely:
I’m fucking deleting my PoF profile in one week! :D
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Wow. It’s almost like performance art now. Do you think he’s wearing a starched collar and ordering his manservant around while blogging, then taking a bracing ride on his velocipede to calm his outrage at the terrible insults being slung at him?
It is kind of hilarious, in an awkward, uncomfortable way, to watch his nonsense. Of course, I got a good lecture on manners from him.
Chigau,
I booked a trip to Club Med Cancun a few years ago and decided I should finally get a “real” camera to take pictures while there. A friend is a professional photographer, so I asked his opinion and got some ideas, then went shopping around.
At one camera shop, I got to hold the DSLR he’d recommended (the D80; this was a while ago), but it was physically too small in my hands (it just felt weird). I picked up the next model “up”, and it felt right, so I bought it. It ended up being the “prosumer” model – a D300.
I then went to Cancun and, since I hadn’t read any of the manuals, left it in total manual mode the entire time I was there. I figured out how to work the shutter speed and aperture settings the first day, and got a rough idea on how to read the histograph, so by the third day I was actually taking decent pictures, but I still get teased about it. Nowadays, it’s mostly in aperture priority, but I’ve now got a decent instinctive idea of what settings to use in manual for different environments.
(But, yes, I usually read the manuals – at least if the functioning isn’t immediately obvious.)
My immediate thought was a John Hodgeman Porn tape O-o
“I’m a mac”
“And I’m a PC”
*muted trumpet jazz*
@greame
I don’t date people because I kind of have intimacy issues, I guess? If you want to hang out then that is what friends are for. Otherwise, why hang out with someone when you could be having sex instead? Dates are like, time you are wasting when you could be boning instead.
And in this case I really had fun hanging out with this guy, but he obviously wants to date, and I’m all DOES NOT COMPUTE. So basically I am a shallow asshole but I think maybe I want to… not be a shallow asshole? Yeaaaaaah.
—
Dhorvath, what percentage of my overall grade is the quiz? I’m only taking this thread pass/fail.
jimmauch:
There’s something about not cooking a kid in its mother’s milk, or something.
Not a commandment. More just a culinary guideline by someone who never had a beef-and-cheese sandwich.
Isn’t dating just the fun hanging out time till you decide if you want to fuck?
Alukonis,
You aren’t a completist are you? This may be an issue, the quiz is recursively defined with no stop function so it keeps getting longer.
I cannot believe that a human could write that fucking piece of masturbatory bullshit and not have a sympathetic doctor step in and offer to put end to the suffering and dementia.
“I’m on your side, as long as you don’t say anything rude to me or tell me I can’t call you faggot/nigger.”
So far, my comments are held in moderation. And I even nicely refrained from letting him know how many bags of stupid he is.
More accurately; isn’t dating scheduled flirting time?
Maybe for you it is, Ing. For me it’s like, I can hang out with friends any damn time I want, so if I’m with someone I can have sex with, then we should be doing that.
You can hang out with ANYBODY. You can hang out with your parents or grandparents, people way older or younger than you, people of all genders and sexual orientations.
But the slice of the population you want to have sex with that ALSO wants to have sex with you is pretty small, so why waste time doing stuff you can do with any random person?
Well, that sounds like a fun thing to do together. Hey, wanna go out on Thursday and flirt together? Yeah, that works.
Actually, most of our dates are like that, seeing if the flirt languages are compatible. Most aren’t, still nice to meet up with people and find out.
Hi, sisu; welcome in!
–
One of Zelazny’s Amber books says something like, “While sex heads a lot of lists, we all have things we like to do in between”. So, why not do them with your lover, if your tastes overlap out of the bedroom as well as in it, and call it a ‘date’?
–
I know, right? It’s really bad. I brought it up because I was frankly so surprised by his attitude of “I’m an ally, so fuck off with your criticism.” Before FTB came into existence I’d only read Pharyngula; since then I’ve read each of the other bloggers and found something that reasonated with me on each blog… whether it made me angry, made me laugh, or more often made me think. But that one… not so much.
Alukonis, I like your style.
Remember, you’re not the only one who thinks ‘dating’ is stupid. Maybe this person you speak of is just trying to do things ‘the socially acceptable way’, and would be overjoyed to find out that you feel this way?
I know that if I ever met a woman who was into me, and thought the way you do, my ‘dating’ problems would be OVER.
‘Cause some of us don’t have the stamina to fuck 24/7? To avoid bed sores? To enjoy the other person’s company?
Mean ta say, it doesn’t have to be considered “wasted time”.
–
Oh my fucking FSM, I hate smug white Western Buddhists.
That’s far from the only shit-awful comment in that diary, but that one made me see red mist.
some people should not own dogs
cicely, you don’t spend all your time with one person, do you? I’m saying, when you’re with that person, you have the sex. When you’re not with that person, then you just do whatever.
I just find it really difficult to hang out with people I’ve had sex with, since all I can think is “I know what you look like naaaakeeeeeed! WOO!”
Alukonis,
Not only do I hang out with people I have had sex with, I even introduce them to my friends. They are more than just the sex crazed fuck partners they were last night just as I am more than their willing accomplice. This is something that I love about people: they have dimensions and those dimensions can intersect or be completely separate. Finding out where and how those things interact is as much fun as immersing myself in one of those dimensions.
Happiestsadist:
I’m sure he thought it was highly witty, too. Same with his reply to me.
By his second or so post in which he plagiarized half of Roget’s Thesaurus to make BAAAWWWW fill up an entire page, I began finding it hard to take him seriously enough to even be angry at him. That’s not to fault anyone else who’s still angry, because after all he’s spouting bigoted shit. It’s just that… he’s such a lolcow.
Sisu: Welcome. As for Kagin, I guess he’s here because he founded an atheist camp for kids, rather than he has anything actually interesting to say.
Now this I don’t get. Why should that preclude you hanging out with them? Humans are animals, and ‘naked’ is the default clothing state of animals. What’s so weird about knowing what the person you’re hanging out with looks like naked?
It’s been a lonnnnng time since I dated anyone other than Mr kristinc, but I agree with Ing: a good date involves an hour or so of increasingly sizzling sexual tension. Especially when you both know you’re going to fuck. It’s good fun.
*blinkblink*
Well, different strokes and all that, but if everybody saw it this way, there’d be damned few marriages, or roommatings.
And while I don’t spend all my time with Husband, there just ain’t enough lube….
–
Could someone clarify.
By “with a person” do you mean “already in a sexual relationship with a person” or “sitting at the same table with a person”?
I wouldn’t know. Every ‘date’ I’ve ever been on has either been with someone I’ve already been seeing and fucking for a long time, or has just involved hanging out at my place or hers and ‘getting to know each other.
Right now, I’m very discouraged about the whole dating scene. That’s the best way I can articulate it without sounding incredibly bitter (The nicotine withdrawal has a lot to do with that. Still winning at this ‘quitting’ thing though!)
I am NOT an Elevator Guy. I am the exact opposite. Women either approach me and make it obvious they’re interested, or simply nothing happens. Period.
The same bullshit social ‘rule’ that says women are supposed to sit there and ‘drop hints’ and wait for men to ask them out, and that there’s something ‘off’ about a woman who’s too forward, is the reason I’m going to die alone.
And I thank the feminists here yet again for helping me realize that we’re fighting the same goddamned enemies. This is what separates the new loser-me from the old loser-me.
Coyote, knowing what they look like naked isn’t really the problem, it’s the distraction of all I can think about is that time we had naked time together. You know the expression, to undress someone with your eyes? It’s like that.
The only reason I’m trying to explain this is because someone asked why I don’t date people, and these are my reasons. I never said they were good reasons. And now I am in the situation where I actually like someone as a person and like hanging out with them in addition to being interested in what’s inside their pants, and it’s got me all freaked out.
Generally speaking I haven’t had all that much in common with people I’ve had sex with, except, of course, what we like to do when naked together.
Don’t get me wrong Alukonis, I think your reasons are perfectly valid.
Maybe you just need to have a good long session, ‘get it out of your systems’ as much as possible, before commencing the nonsexual hanging out?
Of course, dating advice from me is like aviation advice from a tortoise, so take it with a pinch of salt.
Sex is one activity that can be performed with people. It isn’t the only one. I find that, generally speaking, the people I want to have sex with are the same people I want to do lots of other things with.
Besides, there’s the aforementioned issue of sufficient lubrication…
Befriend some nudists. *nodnod* Very salutory to hang out naked with people who have no interest whatsoever in sexing. Err, sexing YOU. Just then. >_>
Alukonis
I risk sounding like a Mommy but, “It’s a part of growing up, dear.”
Edwin Kagin is a complete jackwagon.
I imagine that as the founder of a camp for kids, he likes a good camping joke.
Send your kids elsewhere.
But I went to grad school so I wouldn’t HAVE to grow up!
Besides it’s all going to end horribly, like the last time I tried having sex with someone I hung out with and then he wanted to make me pancakes and I was like GOTTA GO and then I didn’t speak to him for a year.
Or that other time when the one guy was all “I would like to date you” and I was like UM WHAT and totally blew him off and found out that apparently I broke his heart or whatever.
What I’m saying is that there is a pattern here, and it’s not a nice one.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/24/wsj-reporter-compares-state-of-the-union-seating-to-date-rape/
carlie,
So true! (Lag was pretty funny also.)
—
chigau,
Yeah, I’ve always been weird like that.
—
TLC,
Obligatory.
…okay, since I find pretty much everybody sexy that I like sufficiently, I’m completely confused. Why is thinking about sex all the time so awful? Is it THAT distracting, or is being embarrassed about it the distracting part? (disclaimer: I flirt shamelessly in public, too.) Heck, would it help to play-act that you’re strangers once you cross the bedroom threshold?
Ha, I can field this one. Yay for feeling useful!
Ahem:
This is where being brutally honest about how you feel and what you want comes in. No offence, but you can’t expect people to just read your mind and negotiate these areas blindfolded.
I believe it’s perfectly valid to keep ‘sex’ and ‘hanging out’ completely separate, if that’s what works for you, just like I believe in open relationships, being ‘monogamish’, girls approaching and asking guys out, and other ways to thumb our noses at stupid social expectations.
But honesty is kind of paramount, IMO. You gotta be honest about what you want and how you feel, if you want to do this kind of thing ‘ethically’ and without hurting anyone.
I understand that bullshit social expectations also make this difficult too though. Hard to be brutally honest about these things, if you feel you’re just gonna get judged for it.
Not only do I hang out with people I have had sex with and introduce them to my friends, I’ve introduced them to each other and they’ve become friends who hang out independently of me.
What do you think of sharing all you’ve shared here with your new friend, Alukonis? Best case scenario; he’s totally on (snow)board, and you two can spend time exactly how you want with each other. At the least, he’s fairly warned and you don’t have to feel so weirded out and full of worry.
Totally different obligatory reference! (MLP)
IOW, what Brownian said?
Therrin: Thanks for that. UHF was such a bizarre movie. It was the type of movie that ONLY Weird Al Yankovich, and absolutely no one else, could pull off. Anyone else who tried would just stray into ‘HERP DERP MONKEY CHEESE RANDUMB!” territory.
@Alukonis
It sounds like you’ve internalized some very sexphobic messages
Mostly I feel panic. I’ve had a few “relationships” that were entirely sex-based and it was totally fine, but I’ve never had anything work where the sex and the friendship were happening simultaneously. Because I freak out and panic.
It’s just usually not an issue because I usually don’t really care about the people I have sex with. I mean we should get along and all, but there’s no need for like, a similar taste in music or movies or books. I know that a lot of people really need to get to know someone before having sex with them, but I’m just not like that. So when I start hanging out with someone I’m like “oh this is nice, I have a new friend” and when that someone suddenly goes “I would like to date you” I can’t do that because like, I know them, and it would be weird to have sex with them now. So that’s what happened in THAT case.
People like me are fairly rare and I think we have a greater capacity for unintended heart-stomping. I mean, I know I’m a shallow asshole, but I don’t introduce myself to people by saying “oh hey I’m a shallow asshole so we can be friends or have sex, BUT NOT BOTH!” Because that would be bizarre.
*Sigh* I clearly should just never talk to people, ever.
[Swallows last s’more, holds flashlight under chin, and begins speaking in a spooky voice.]
“And knowing the legend, it was with the hairs at the back of my neck raised that I clicked ‘submit’, watching for the appearance of another comment posted just after my last refresh saying pretty much the same thing as mine but before it, fearing that I would become the latest victim of…
THE DUPLICATE POST GHOST!“
Why not? You already consider yourself a fairly rare type of person, so what does it matter if you engage in one more behaviour that the squares consider ‘bizarre’? I guarantee you’ll find out you’re not as weird as you think, and maybe it’ll help you get over your hang-up.
Leave off the “shallow asshole” part, though. That’s not as uncommon or interesting or true.
I don’t know Ing. It sounds more like compartmentalization than derogation. I get off on the slip between my bedroom life and real life, but that’s not how everyone works.
Alukonis:
Such angst!
The fact that the heart-stomping is unintended means, to me, that there IS a better way. Not by changing who you are or how you express yourself sexually, necessarily, either.
Well of course, if you say it in such a clumsy and awkward way, it would be incredibly bizarre. But what’s stopping you from having a certain ‘talk’ with people who may become future friends or sexual partners?
I mean, it’s not like I introduce myself to people by saying “Hey, I’m a notorious shiteating coward, so if you like, happen to be attracted to me, could you make it really stupidly obvious because I’m an idiot?” But I do find other ways to explain myself. Why is it we always seem to jump to the most goofy, awkward, idiotic way to explain these things in our own heads? Because insecurity, that’s fucking why, at least in my own case.
Or you could find ways to be honest about what you feel? I know it’s not easy.
I see nothing wrong with how you view sex and friendship. What I see something wrong with, is the way you seem to just expect people to know what’s in your head.
@Alukonis: given that explanation, if you’re SURE that’s just the way you are, then I’m with whoever said to lay it on the table and be nice about it. Would you be happy with having this guy EITHER as only a friend, OR only as a sex partner?
wow, I’m posting slooow from here. So I’ll just say “what they said” by default.
@TLC:
Fortunately for me, it’s really easy to go “Hey, I’m a blunt honest loudmouth who likes sex way too much, so if I’m getting too friendly just tell me to shut up.”
I do have to keep self-checking and asking in gentle ways though, because I don’t want to terrify one of the shy folks into acquiescence.
psst… was that obvious enough? ~;>
Cartoonist Steve Benson’s take on Santorum:
http://www.azcentral.com/commphotos/azcentral/21182/6/#14
Indeed pteryxx, now if only someone I knew IRL would be that obvious.
I have to believe this is what’s happening. The alternative is unthinkable, and can only lead to one thing. I have to believe that it’s this fucking societal expectation, that women are supposed to be all passive and wait for some guy to ask them out. I have to believe it, because there’s no way I can live under the alternative explanation.
Come on, Pteryxx, isn’t it obvious? I’m afraid he won’t want to be just friends OR just a sex partner.
But srsly enough about me. I have shit to filter so I am out.
Chigau:
I do. First thing I did when I got my D80, was to read the manual. Mister is the same way, reads manuals or directions first.
@ theophontes #22:
Not so much that the meaning has shifted, but that there are often several possible meanings to one word. I come back to the example of “miso-” in misogyny: misogynes don’t always dislike women, they often like women very much as sexual objects and/or child-making appliances!
Look, part of the problem here, IMO, is that there is a time to be careful and educate the people who don’t know better because they’ve never been exposed to other kinds of humans (or not in a way conducive to mutual respect and comprehension). And then there’s a time for calling out outrageous bigotry spouted by the hypocrites, the self-blinkered and the merchants of hate.
When talking politics among ourselves, or in the general public, we are not always engaged in education. Sometimes we may have to point out to outrageous instances of hatemongering that careless or confused media are glossing over; or we may have to shout down bullies in an internet forum. Then, saying that something is homophobic or islamophobic can perfectly do the job.
If there was one, more of us would be using it. Or so I think.
For instance, I’m not going to confuse a political discussion with, say, the case of the father of a friend of mine who couldn’t believe his daughter was going to marry a Muslim man and already saw her in a burqa. He was just an old guy who was going into panic mode, not stopping to consider that the husband wasn’t in any sense an extremist, that the daughter had no intention to convert, and that the Muslim husband was happy with that! It didn’t stop the father to be frightened out of his senses, probably because when something touches your flesh and blood, you tend towards irrationality. The daughter was angry, but she didn’t go and tell her father “you’re a racist”, she just reminded him of the facts and told him to think before acting like she was abducted to Iran.
The fact is that the reaction of the father was Islamophobic, in every sense, but it would have been counter-productive to berate him with this label, because his distrust came from irrational causes. Telling him simply to not confuse all Muslims with Talibans was necessary before any further discussion was possible.
But it’s a question of context and nuances and how to adapt oneself to the situation. There’s no perfect word capable to do that kind of job.
There you go. So you know what you have to do, and why.
theophontes,
I said you’re promoting homophobia, which is true.
For your reference, here is a sneak preview of the script I expect we’re working from.
Act I Scene 1. YOU: [Something homophobic.]
Act I Scene 2. ME: That’s homophobic.
Act II Scene 1. YOU: Don’t call me homophobic.
Act II Scene 2. ME: I didn’t. But you said something homophobic.
Act III Scene 1. YOU: You called me homophobic!
Act III Scene 2. ME: Fine, if there’s no value in making a distinction, then I might as well consider you a homophobe.
++++
And here ends Act II Scene 2.
Your line?
Oh FFS…I miss Waltons uperclass twit report.
Where did all these Joeporons come from BTW? Do people scout out stories to be a dashing white knight? Are they lurkers who somehow though aha joepoe!? This is of vital importance I must comment!
Good evening
*yawn*
Long day.
Can somebody tell me when it became fashionable to say “we are pregnant”, meaning the expecting parents?
No, the two of you are not pregnant unless you’re a lesbian couple with bad timing.
I’m sure there’s a manual in ebook form somewhere in the memory of the machine. Usually, there’s a leaflet or card with instructions for 1) starting the machine, and 2) finding the e-manual.
Of course, there’s also cheapskate makers who just print on the box the url of a page where you can an online manual.
God I just wish it was tomorrow. If it was tomorrow I’d be buying a fuckton of weed. Some comfort as I kick nicotine from my system. I might even get drunk.
I feel like no one should be around me right now. I feel venomous, angry, vicious, deadly, reactive, explosive, bitter, toxic, corrosive….
Even knowing that soon enough, this too shall pass and I’ll have one less stupid substance to be dependant on, is zero help right now.
I don’t even know what to say. I’m so used to people just telling me shut the fuck up and quit whining when I’m having problems, that I’m honestly afraid to even admit that I’m having a problem right now. But I am. A huge fucking problem. A fucking nicotine-shaped hole in my head.
Ing: I thought it was “JoePa”? Which is equally silly and less rhyming, so I’m all for “joepoe”. Also has connotations of poe, though I think they’re all too serious.
TLC: on the bright side, you seem to be exercising your thesaurus.
Richard Austin: Nicotine withdrawal crises are no excuse for poor or boring choice of words.
I feel like the rattlesnake must feel.
“No really, I’m a nice guy and it’s nothing personal… it’s just that if you come near me or do one little thing I don’t like, I’m going to inject you full of venom and watch you turn blue and die right in front of my eyes!”
Also, I feel way more physically powerful without nicotine pumping through my veins and slowing everything down.
You’d think this would be a ‘good thing’, eh?
TLC: sweet, you’re turning into a bio-viper! <3
Pteryxx: I just plugged ‘Bio-viper’ into Google Images… and yup, that’s about how it feels.
Keeping track of the horrible physical results of nicotine withdrawal helps me deal with them, so I hope no one minds if I talk about it a LOT for the next little while. This is something I absolutely have to do for myself.
First time seeing the ghost meter, had to look it up:
AmAzInG~!
—
Also, +1 on David Tennant.
The dangers of having ten threads open at once.
In a little over 6 hours, Opportunity will start its ninth Earth-year on Mars. Not bad for a 90-day mission.
(And yes, Spirit is still missed.)
I got to do something fun today, my boss bought a DLP for me to take home and play with so I can evaluate it for the 700 level course I’m apparently a TA in the lab for*.
It fits in a shirt pocket, has 50 lumens of light output, and projects 1080 x 800 still images and 1080i movies. Hold it a couple of meters away from a white surface and the image is about 1.5 meters diagonal. It’s best in a darkened environment.
(* I say ‘apparently’ because teaching post-grads how to do basic photonics is not in my job description. But it’s a nice break.)
+++++++++++++++
Conga rats to TLC for holding out. You’ll feel much better tomorrow;-)
+++++++++++++++
IRT to the sex discussions; I’ve been on all parts & either side of the ‘let’s just screw’ to ‘I only want to be with you’ spectrum.
If someone finds a solution please let me know because I can’t tell what I want, much less what another human wants.
Yeah, I find that a very odd usage. It doesn’t seem to be common in British English; I’d never even heard anyone say “we’re pregnant” in reference to a couple expecting a baby, until this thread about an xkcd cartoon back in July 2010.
It seems to me to be simply an incorrect use of words. “We’re having a baby” is fine, but the word “pregnant” has a specific meaning: it refers to a physiological state, and one experienced exclusively by women.
Richard, once again xkcd manages to be all funny, sad & smart.
I have always heard “we are expecting”
I heard that “we’re pregnant” a couple of times on TV/videos, and tonight I heard it in German for the first time and I really, really find it annoying.
Supportive fathers? Great! Happy? I’m happy for you! But really, that’s not something we’re sharing (I’d have loved to. He could have done it all alone the last time)
And now off to bed.
Routine check-up with #2 for her kidney tomorrow. I’m pretty confident that everything is OK, but this tiny bit of uncertainty is driving me nuts.
…he wrote in his much derived version of the linguistic porridge spoken by the Angles, Saxons, Frisii, and the Jutes.
I’d thought the usage became more prominent in the late 80s and 90s, when men were encouraged to participate in pregnancy, rather than simply waiting until the big day to smoke a cigar.
When my boss first told me I was helping teach post-grads to learn to learn, I thought she was joking.
They follow directions extremely well, (except for reading the manual BEFORE hooking up the lasers), and they regurgitate facts extremely well, but we’re giving them A and G and saying ‘get from one to the other’. And believe me, this is not a minimal info problem.
I did their tasks with the syllabus, Google and Wiki in 20 minutes. I iz not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Sometimes I wish I’d taken my boss’s offer to go back part time to school.
The Sailor:
I work with PhDs and MDs, people doing active research on gene therapies and chemo toxicology. I have had it proven to me, multiple times, that these people – who can rattle of drug formulae and DNA sequences like they were Ben&Jerry’s flavors – can’t open Google and find the nearest electronics store. Not “won’t” – actually can’t. I’ve watched them try.
Different people have different skills.
(That isn’t to say all degreed folks are like that, but I seem to meet an inordinate amount of “smart in one area totally clueless in most others” people.)
Walton, was saying…
I was reminded of that just now when I saw this comment by ttch:
Ing: “Where did all these Joeporons come from BTW?”
I think they borrowed the batshit-signal technology from the Paulorrhoids.
Anybody feel like taking aim at the “gender realist” on Jason’s blog?
I’m composing something, but I gotta go home now.
We’re having a baby. We’re going to be parents. We’re expecting.
She’s pregnant.
Kind of a critical difference there.
####
Richard Austin:
Generally speaking, my DSLR is in aperture priority mode unless I have a specific reason to have it in a different mode. Also, it tends to be close to wide-open unless I’m in bright sunlight, primarily because I mostly have slow glass (my 50mm f/1.8 notwithstanding).
I’d give my right nut for a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, though.
####
Also to Richard Austin:
I kinda like the name “JoePa”, by similary to “zhopa” (supposedly Russian for “asshole”).
####
I’d explain the way I think in social situations, and point out that I’m exactly the same way, but some people here would apparently claim that it actually means I disembowel kittens with a wooden spoon or something.
####
UHF is made of awesome. It’s just tacky enough to be perfect.
And yes, only Weird Al could get away with it.
####
I tend to read the manual for an electronic gadget eventually, generally after I’ve been playing with it for a while. As a general rule, if I can’t do most of what the device is capable of without reading the manual, that’s a user interface fail.
“until the big day to smoke a cigar.”
Have a cigar
++++++++++++++++
“Different people have different skills.”
Well sure, but I don’t want them working on my body and I don’t want them teaching or doing research. If one can’t learn, every fucking day as long as you are able to, one has no business in these fields. … … … aw shit, that’s not quite fair is it?
I might prefer a 4 year China trained doctor who only does cataract surgery to do mine … unless something unanticipated goes wrong.
Cat cartoon. Features mouse, violence, and Listz. ;)
—
“DUPLICATE POST GHOST”
Quantum post-tanglement.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely say it again …
Brownian:
Woah. That guy is something…else. “I’m considered sociopathic because I’m blunt.” I’d say, at the very least, that introspection is not a strong point.
I’d dive in, but I just had a smoke, I feel lucky I can type at all.
Giliell (@185):
Your question about when it became fashionable to say “we’re pregnant” reminded me of the scene included in this trailer from one of my favorite shows (sorry ’bout the ad). And they’re not even a couple (yet); just partners (in the work sense).
I just ran across this on another channel:http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-comic-sans-asshole
And it reminded me I have to bookmark that site.
A those folks can write. Some of them I don’t care for what they write, but they writes good.
What are the odds an updated MacBook Pro will be announced in the next month or so? Mine’s four years old and feeling every day of it.
“Have a cigar”
Next up, what’s that song on the radio?
“Anybody feel like taking aim at the “gender realist” on Jason’s blog?”
Nope. And can we not bring it back here if someone does?
Sailor:
It’s a good thing I wasn’t eating soup when I hit that McSweeney’s link, or you’d owe me a keyboard!
Ben:
I’d like to know about that, too, ‘cuz my Lovely Daughter® will be graduating soon, and her existing MacBook Pro is likely to need replacin’ for grad school.
Brownian on Kagin:
I lol’d.
OMFG. Fucking wingnuts. Serious trigger warning for animal abuse. I want to put my fist through the goddamn computer.
/hugs kitteh
changeable, umm yeah … oh god, oh god, oh FUCKING CHEristeerist.
I need a cigarette now.
I’ll step outside because I can’t smoke in my bunk.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ben, why would you want to be a beta tester? Get the last gen and pay used prices. It’s proven tech at that point.
Hang in there TLC. Actually, I find it interesting that you note that you feel stronger without nicotine clogging your system. And now I’m curious about one would feel after smoking pot without taking a single hit of nicotine before or after.
——————————————
J and M are having work done on the house. Aside from the possibility of mold, so far so good. I’m kind of looking forward to seeing the results. Hopefully the contractors remember to clean up after the work is done (unlike some people mom has had do work for us).
——————————————
Re: dating. Being a late starter, I can sort of relate to the uncertainty. I don’t know what it’s like for other people, but every first date was always a bit nerve-wracking for me, even if it seemed like we’d get along just fine. Maybe the newness of each person brings that to the forefront of my mind, or I’m just hyperaware that no two guys will react exactly the same, or think exactly the same, much less get turned on the same way.
I’ve never encountered the “friends only OR sex only” mindset personally. It’s something I’ve heard of. Can’t say I’d go for it myself, but eh, whatever works. And I agree about honesty. Since humans are not mind-readers, spell out what you want and expect. Better to get it out of the way first, since the aftermath of a clash of expectations is worse when neither side is clued in. And hey, this way you can’t say you didn’t try to warn anyone.
….Maybe “warn” wasn’t quite the right word.
Thanks for the support, Sailor
Benjamin: Ugh, did I really say that? The ‘gonna die alone’ bit was overdramatic even by my standards.
I apologize to everyone for that and blame the nicotine withdrawal.
@ Benjamin, Bill:
Even if one was announced tomorrow, I’d be careful with brand new hardware from Apple. They have a bit of a hit-and-miss record, and for their prices, I’d rather get something tested and true.
At least for anything I’m needing for work.
I can field that. As of right now, the weed is definitely…. not so much hitting me harder, but lasting me longer. I’m not burning out. It’s pretty good actually.
OTOH…. it’s not burning me out. I guess I can say goodbye to the ‘lazy couch-lock’ type of high forever.
Sailor: Depends on what they announce.
If they announce more-of-the-same, I’ll probably buy the current generation.
However, if they announce the retina-display MBP that has been rumored (2880×1800 at 15″)… I’ll be in my bunk.
See: Politically Incorrect
Ms Daisy Cutter:
Come to think of it… For me, it’s that, plus Ophelia’s style: most of the times, she posts some example of bad stuff about religion or human rights and then goes into a sort of “naive bystander” act, where she pretends to not knowing what’s going on, presumably to showcase how outrageous the thing is. Problem is, she doesn’t make a very good job of it; and the excerpts she quotes are generally enough in themselves to make her point. So the routine gets quickly old.
Granted, sometimes the satire works, but for me, most of the time, it’s not clever or funny or enlightening, it makes me cringe to see an adult making a fuss of pointing to the bloody obvious, and then acting like it’s a new insight. Sigh.
Sorry, to each their own, but I’d rather have less fuss and more clarity.
End result, I spend less time at her blog and more here – Oh, wait, at least there’s a positive consequence here! I don’t lose as much time on the Internet as I could ;-)
To whoever mentioned “we’re pregnant”: Holy shit, very few things annoy me more. If proto-dad wants to say “I’m gonna be a father!” or “We’re going to have a child!”, that’s fine. But “pregnant” is a fucking physical state. You don’t get to share/lay claim to that, proto-dad. Not cool.
TLC, rant as much as you want, you are doing what most cigarette smokers cant. Including me.
Just curious, but if you feel powerful do you also feel creative? (hint: I really would like a like an original TLC one-of-a-kind knife.)
Oh man, if there is any shit I am not in the mood for, it’s shitty passive-aggressive sideswipes from Benjamin Fucking Geiger.
Fucking awesome.
If I hear the phrase “class warfare” one more fucking time, I will lose it. It is the most annoying, meaningless buzz word in the history of the media and I cannot wait until the forget about it.
No, what you do is say ‘I am like this…therefore I am justified in disemboweling kittens’
Jesus, did you really think that would fly? Did you just not listen to anyone? Hey here’s a hint. Next time you want to squeeeeeeeze sympathy out of us here try giving oral sex to a cactus. It’ll have roughly the same success and give roughly the same satisfaction to all involved.
Except that there is no disemboweling, except for in various fevered imaginations. That’s precisely the point I’m making here.
Well, it’s not like calling you a fucking liar to your face did any good.
What, precisely, is the point you’re making there?
Adventures Ing being bitchy to friends on facebook!
StarStuff:
The point is that I made comments very similar to TLC’s, about how I don’t date because nobody approaches me, and I don’t approach people because I’m not fluent in reading body language, and then people here (who shall remain nameless but who know who they are) accused me of being the spawn of Charles Manson and Jack the Ripper.
“Enough of this bullshit. I’m gonna go get hammered with Papyrus.”
PUA, really Ben? Really? This is explained to you. You’re a fucking obnoxious looser who doesn’t deserve a date because your a selfish twit who doesn’t care about others feelings.
TLC, I quit smoking a little over a year and a half ago. I ended up starting to do triathlons with all the free time I suddenly had.
It was so weird how suddenly all that time I used to spend smoking was suddenly just THERE and I’m like, what the fuck do I do to occupy myself now?? (Take up a ridiculous endurance sport lol.)
Also I wanted to gnaw off my own arm out of frustration for the first week, and then possibly use it to beat other people to death. After that it gets better, but one of my main motivators to stay away from the cigarettes has been my fervent desire to never go through the quitting withdrawal again.
So good luck to you! I know it is hard but it is so, SO awesome to never have the late-night “oh fuck I don’t have enough cigs to make it until tomorrow and the store is going to close in 15 minutes!” panic attacks.
[citation needed]
And fever dreams doesn’t count as a source.
Hey Ben
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/01/22/someone-is-vague-on-the-internet/
No one said that. What they said was you’re incredibly selfish to hear people explain why PUA and that bullshit is a) bullshit and b) treating women like shit and insist on your right to do it anyway.
Now that you opened this can of worms by throwing down the damn gauntlet I might point out that TLC has said NOTHING of wanting to play “the game” and do bullshit like you were whining about. He does not justify that he should be able to use sleaze and emotional manipulation/abuse because he is a man and thus entitled to pussy.
@ Ing #234
Why? D: That hurts to read.
Play that card Ben, that doesn’t look at all like say emmet.
And my breakfast cereal doesn’t contain asbestos.
Oops, that’s #237
Irene:
I’ve rarely been in a position to be “first in line” for a new model of Apple hardware, but I’ve bought lots of Macs (and a few iPods) brand new (as opposed to used), and they’ve all been as bulletproof as you could expect tech gadgets to be (plus, on the tiny few occasions when I’ve had any problem, customer service has been, to coin a phrase, insanely great).
What I wouldn’t do is buy a used MacBook: If the example of my daughter and her friends is any guide, people tend to wear them the Hell out!
Because of my formatting or bc o thr wtf wrttin?
Ben, you talked about PUA and that sort of stuff, and justified it because you don’t know body language. You ignored everyone explaining the facts to you and just whined and whined about how you’re entitled and blah blah blah.
You’re already at zero sex appeal from that, don’t add intellectual dishonesty to the mix.
Audley:
But what if they’re both mothers and both pregnant? XD
(Sorry if I’m being abrupt but the mini-rant made me chuckle a little)
The second thing.
My policy on facebook is that if someone posts too many stupid things, I block their statuses from my wall. It’s saved my brain from unnecessary pain.
Dumbass, you calling me a liar to my face did absolutely no good because I was not lying. What did you think was going to happen? Ye fuckin’ gods, you’re infuriating.
ING: Ugh, yeah, I definitely don’t want to play ‘the game’.
Like I said, I was being a teeny bit overdramatic, and I apologize for that… but also note that I blame stupid bullshit societal expectations and most emphatically NOT women. There was a time I would have… out of insecurity… and that is the difference between then and now I suppose.
[citation needed]
Lying about lying doesn’t make your original lie true.
President starting out strong.
oh Ben, don’t bother talking to me. You’re now killfiled because when you’re like this you repel me.
Right, good for you. Don’t feel bad. Now Ben, if you wanted to be at all smart or honest you would look back at your old comments and compare and contrast to see what people were actually judging you for. Hint: it’s not that we just hate you and love TLC.
Ing, #237
How the hell does your head not explode from reading that sort of shit? And I’m not even talking about the content; the wretched l33t-speak (if it’s still called that) makes me want to set things on fire.
Bohner looks like a real stiff prick sitting back there. I wonder if he’s going to cry?
Now imagine you’re dyslexic.
That’s not even l33t-speak. That just looked like someone who couldn’t (or couldn’t be bothered to) spell things correctly. Or use a keyboard properly.
Dang, the Redhead is trying to corrupt her therapists. She asked me to bring in her Mah Jongg set.
So, tomorrow my big monthly check comes.
It’s one thing to not smoke when I have no money and no way of getting smokes… but will I crack under the pressure tomorrow?
Say, what do you guys say about France banning Armenian genocide denial? While France already recognize it, they want to make the denial punishable by law. While I agree with recognizing the genocide, I don’t think punishing the denial is a good thing to do. But I don’t know, is there any justified reason for them passing the law? Here is the story: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/01/201212455116999464.html
Why? Didn’t we see benefits of this in Germany?
If you’re really worried go to any stores within travel distance and ask/bribe them not to sell to you
@TLC
You can do it! If not, this might help (not because it works, but because laughing at stupid things is fun).
ING: Well… I have been practicing for the eventuality…. forcing myself to stand around my smoking friends while they smoke so as to build up my resistance.
I think I’ll make it.
GH:
:D
Sorry, I’m specifically thinking of hetero couples. If both partners in a lesbian couple are pregnant at the same time, then they can totes say “we’re pregnant” without annoying me!
Punishing the peaceful expression of an opinion is never a good thing to do. It’s gross authoritarianism. When someone’s ideas about history are wrong and false, the answer is to debate them and refute their false claims with evidence, not to demand that the State send round a squad of armed men to throw them in jail.
In a free society, we should be able to express whatever view we think fit about any issue of politics, religion or morals. If it’s a stupid view, others, of course, have the right to point and laugh. Let’s use arguments and reason to defeat stupid claims, rather than calling on the government to be the Thought Police.
As it happens, I was just re-reading West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette for class this week… “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Good sentiments, and I wish we had a First Amendment in Britain
I read this as a sign that whatever therapy/meds you’re doing is working – before you would have said that it’s the women who on purpose try to not be understandable, not that you are the one with problems understanding.
+1 Starstuff! :D
I’m smoking a doobie right now. it’s working. If I can have a fuckton of doobies, I can do this. Tomorrow, I buy weed. Lots of weed. There’s gonna be a happy dealer in town tomorrow.
TLC just keep thinking about how much quitting sucks and how bad it was the first day you gave it up, and how much you never want to go through that again.
Works for me, anyway. YMMV?
Bill, #248:
Lol, that’s true! I know folks who kept theirs 10 years. Still, the second-hand market is often interesting for MacBooks, because you have people who bought one in affluent times and next year sell it to raise money because they’ve been fired. Or a company that updates their laptops and sell redundant machines.
Cold Stone Creamery has this crazy thing now! It’s a cookie with cookie dough on top, with ice cream and chocolate shavings on top of that. I’m gonna go get one tonight.
Alukonis: Yeah…. that was a horrible horrible day. It’s been constantly better since then.
I just worry bout the relapse rate, you know? The relapse rate seems to get everyone.
Ms. Daisy Cutter:
Oh, it gets even worse. Look at this post by “thewordofme on one of the latest B&W threads. (Not a commenter I’d seen before, at least, which is something to be thankful for; but the comment is awful.)
Honestly, given that Ophelia seems to dedicate most of her posts lately to criticizing Islam, I think she needs to take a stronger stance in calling out the anti-Muslim bigots who show up on her threads and in the wider blogosphere, and vocally distancing herself from them. Don’t get me wrong; open criticism of Islam is necessary and important, as is open criticism of all religions and philosophies. But there is serious discrimination against and marginalization of Muslims in Western societies, and I think it’s important for humanists who write about Islam to make sure that we aren’t inadvertently giving cover to the Condell-esque bigots.
More that it doesn’t matter which is the case.
And honestly I’m still trying to figure out how “I generally don’t talk to people because I have a hard time reading social cues” turned in the collective imagination into “I’m going to rape everybody I see”. The former is what I actually said, the latter is what everybody seems to think I said…
Yeah, TLC, what you said was the difference between you and Ben, not the similarity as he seems to think.
@TLC
Well as I said, I quit a bit over a year and a half ago, and I’m doing okay. It’s not impossible to quit, it just REALLY sucks.
Convincing myself that I don’t actually *want* cigarettes is what has worked for me. And at this point I don’t, really, although sometimes I see someone smoking and I get a twinge. But I actually quit because of a book my mom bought me that some friends of hers who quit said worked for them, and I was dubious as all hell, but it actually worked for me. I mean it’s called “Allen Carr’s Easy Way to Stop Smoking.” And the back of it totally reads like a gimmicky testimonial.
But hey, it got me to quit smoking. *shrug*
Anyway have an e-cookie of support! *sends cookie*
You know, Ben, for someone who claims to not be able to read social clues and who would like people to be more forward, you seem to read a lot more into what everyone here says about you than I do.
Kristinc, Alukonis, Ing, and everyone else: Thanks. I think it’s gonna get either a lot easier, or a lot harder, tomorrow. Time will tell. I think I can do it though.
Pres is doing a good job.
Yeah, but I think Biden is playing with his phone.
Because the term has been misused so much over the past decade and a half, I can’t help but think that anyone using the prefix “cyber” is stupid or out of touch.
Short version: it’s bloody politics, again.
1) France already has a law punishing denial of the Holocaust* under the rationale that it’s hate speech. 2) The Armenian community has lobbied for making “their” genocide recognised on par with the other one. 3) Their lobbies are usually supporters of the party currently in power. 4) The presidential election is 2012 for us too.
Add to that the fact that the current government also wants to be seen as “hard-line” on Islamism and the fact that Turkey, which still doesn’t recognise the Armenian genocide IIRC, has a government dominated by an Islamic party (even though is pretty moderate by Islamists standards), and you’ll find the recipe for a headache.
—
* A law I’m in two minds about, btw. Punishing speech per se, when it’s not linked to incitation to violence, is not a good idea. Germany and Austria also have similar laws against Holocaust denial, but AFAIK they were enacted shortly after WWII, in the wake of the banning of the Nazi party. In France, that laws was voted in 1990, after a series of scandals: not only prominent politicians and intellectuals denying the Holocaust, but also denialists managing to infiltrate academia. As often in France, everybody turned to the People In Charge and said “What are you doing about that then?” The govt responded by banning hate speech and Holocaust denial. Keep in mind that the ’90s saw a new generation in charge that didn’t know the war and were less open than their parents’ generation to let old dogs lie, i.e. to avoid talking about the bad things said generation did during the war. Because basically, from 1945 onwards, till about the mid-1980s, there was a kind of tacit agreement to avoid talking about both the criminals (the Nazis and their French Collaborators) and their victims. Sort of a price to pay to avoid civil unrest in a country where part of the population had a part in the genocide of a minority, but tried to avoid going through the painful step of putting it all in the open first before attempting reconciliation. (Damn Catholic culture of obligatory forgiving without caring for the victims!) But then, after a few decades, Holocaust denialists came out in the open as well as a new urge to not tolerate racism.
And here we are.
You’d think that France, with its culture of street demos and loud argumentation on everything, would be a champion of the freedom of speech? Well, as often, it’s more complicated than that.
I’m starting to suspect it’s not an inability but refusal. The last few comments are making me think that it’s more of “i don’t like the answer” thing.
TLC:
Unsolicited advice ahead. I know you said you “know all about” e cigarettes, but if you haven’t tried what I sent you by email you really don’t. There is *no need* to put yourself through all of this to get off tobacco.
Yes, I understand that e-cigarettes still give you nicotine-that’s the point. But it isn’t the nicotine (despite what you think) that was hurting you or making you feel run down. It was the damned tar from the tobacco. Nicotine doesn’t sap your energy and it’s about as toxic as caffeine. Seriously. It is the very smallest, tiniest health problem associated with smoking. Smoking and inhaling burnt particulates is the problem.
It’s not “fake quitting” if you use e-cigs. Would we say that a person who continues to chew nicotine gum for years (and that’s a boatload of people) didn’t quit smoking? Of course not.
Sure, I understand that some people may want to break off the nicotine addiction completely, and for some cold turkey is the only way. But from what I’m reading from you you seem to think it’s the nicotine that’s the problem (yes, it’s what keeps you hooked, I know). It isn’t. It was smoking smoke.
So, you don’t have to do this, and you don’t have to go right back to smoking tobacco if you break. You can even cut down on the nicotine by getting weaker and weaker ecig juice til there’s none.
Not trying to badger you, but hoping to get you to reconsider what seems to be a misguided Purity Above All approach. Quitting’s hard enough!
I am compelled to point out this is nonsense just as surely as it’s nonsense when someone claims echinacea/homeopathy makes them feel better. It’s simply not physically plausible. I’m not saying TLC doesn’t feel what he’s feeling — I’m sure he does. But he’s incorrectly attributing it to nicotine.
Nicotine doesn’t “clog your system”. It’s a mild stimulant, no more, no less. To the degree that one starts feeling better after putting down cigarettes it’s due to the fact that you’re getting more oxygen and you’re putting less stress on your cardiopulmonary system because you aren’t actually clogging it up with smoke/tar.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the widespread misunderstanding of nicotine really irks me. It’s what causes otherwise sensible people to be utterly unable to comprehend that I’m not, in fact, killing myself by inhaling nicotine vapor and that, yes, I’m much much much healthier because I’m not smoking.
I can’t contribute much to the discussion of reading body language, because I’m terrible at it. I have the misfortune of being an open book to anyone with eyes, while completely missing whatever their body language is signalling. I’m learning to see the humour in this.
What I will contribute is what I’ve learned about dating this month:
Don’t go to a third date after helping undergrads dissect sharks all afternoon. The smell doesn’t come off.
(This will probably not be helpful to anyone who isn’t a socially inept biology grad student.)
I’m going to say that the scent of pickled sharks is why Bachelor #3 hasn’t called. Next week I’ll have dinner with my less-socially-inept female friends, and they’ll explain what I actually did wrong. In the meantime, I kinda like the shark explanation.
Josh: Yeah, it was kind of arrogant of me to say I ‘know all about E-cigarettes.’ My apologies.
The health benefits, the ‘feeling stronger’, that’s nice and all, but what it comes down to is the fact that I’m too addicted to it, I don’t like how I act to people when I don’t have my nicotine fix, and I need to save more of my money.
I appreciate the advice about E-cigarettes, but necessity alone forced me to forego them and quit as I am… not exactly cold turkey but ‘cool turkey’ (I have had a single puff or two here and there.)
And I’ve already come so far just dropping it nearly completely, I might as well keep going as good as I can. Because being that dependant upon ANYTHING just kinda goes against my own personal philosophy.
And I don’t enjoy it like I do weed. I’m ok with being dependant on stuff I enjoy, because isn’t life all about doing what you enjoy without hurting others?
I do also promise not to become one of those insufferable ex-smokers that asks all my smoking friends not to smoke in front of me, and I also promise not to get sanctimonious or smug about it.
Josh:
I’ll add (since you didn’t) that you discussed this with your heart doc and he confirmed that nicotine is not the problem.
Coyote-
Hey, you have to do what you have to do, and I’m certainly not saying you’re wrong to do it. I’m only trying to tease out what the actual problem is and make sure you know there’s a non-health-harming solution. No, that won’t take care of the I-mustn’t-be-addicted thing, but it’s a damned sight better than going back to smokes.
And money? I don’t think you get it. :) I spent $250 a month on cigarettes and now spend about $25 per month maintaining my e-cig habit.
Caine’s right – my cardiologist said to me a week after my heart attack, “I don’t care if you use that thing. . .you’re getting clean nicotine and that’s fine. Just don’t smoke.”
TLC:
Also, you have my sympathies, I hope you know. I was a Professional Smoker™ and loved almost every minute of it. If I could get away with it (meaning no health problems, no coughing up phlegm, no expense, no stench) I’d take it up again in a heartbeat. But e-cigs have been a godsend.
For me, I just can’t be bothered to worry about my nicotine (or caffeine) addiction. There are so much more awful things I could be doing, and I’m not Puritanical by nature. If this is the worst, I’m doing pretty well. Honey Badger don’t give a shit. I get that it’s different for everyone.
Best of luck on all of it!
Thanks Josh.
Thanks EVERYONE for the support.
I believe the correct response in that case is either a congratulatory group hug or some form of double handed high-five, depending on how close you are.
—
Have laws against Holocaust Denial been effective in even stopping pseudo-scholars from publishing on the subject? And if they have been, does the spread of Holocaust Denial hinge on complex scholarship that needs to be carried out, collected and then published officially?
It seems to me as though the ban of a book on the subject might appear as informative, to its target audience, as them actually getting to read it. They’re already inclined to believe in a conspiracy to silence the truth, after all.
Technically, that’s not an opinion but a fact claim, isn’t it?
***
It’s worse than this. She and Namazie appear to be doing exactly what KG and I were talking about the other day. Not noting issues with the word “Islamophobia” or the fact that claims of Islamophobia are wielded by some as a political weapon and silencing tactic, but agreeing that all discussion of Islamophobia is this – that the whole notion is nothing but a political weapon and silencing tactic of Islamic extremists, and that there is no real phenomenon described by the word. In other words, this specific kind of bigotry doesn’t exist, it’s not worthy of naming or comment, or it’s just not something that harms people (not Muslims in our societies, not anyone affected by the imperialist foreign policies this gives ideological justification to, not Muslims in countries invaded by armies containing bigoted crusaders,…).
I just can’t imagine how they deal with the mass of evidence of rightwing foundations funding this prejudice to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the influential people and powerful media outlets disseminating it, or the effects on public opinion. I also can’t imagine how they aren’t concerned that they share this line of argument with people like the AFA, Beck, Scaife, and the most militant imperialists, not to mention the likes of Geller and Wilders. Or how they don’t see it in the context of the history of past waves of bigotry and of imperialism.
I just don’t get why they don’t feel like they can effectively oppose Islamic militants and governments without denying this hugely important and painfully obvious reality.
(Good comment on that thread, by the way.)
TLC, I do sympathize. Admittedly I don’t know exactly what you’re going through, since I’ve never been a smoker, either of tobacco or weed; in part, because I don’t much like fire, and have never really fancied the idea of putting a burning stick of anything in my mouth. (And in the case of weed, I’m very reluctant to experiment with any psychoactive substances with which I’m unfamiliar, given that I have some emotional stability issues to start with. Not to mention the legal risks. I believe strongly that weed should be legalized, and have campaigned to that effect, but I’ve never been particularly inclined to try it myself.)
In my case, though, I’m very much addicted to caffeinated beverages. It’s not just the caffeine I’m dependent on; there seems to be a strong ritualistic psychological element. For instance, I have to have coffee, specifically, when I first get up in the morning; if I can’t get coffee and have to drink something else instead, it just doesn’t feel right and I can’t function properly. The rest of the day I drink either coffee or diet soda, usually Diet Mountain Dew. (I rarely bother to drink anything that isn’t caffeinated.) I’m comfortable with this dependency because it seems to be in my nature to be addicted to something, and this is pretty harmless, as addictions go; and caffeine really makes a huge difference to my ability to function well and think clearly. It would be a struggle if I had to give it up.
QFT.
Quick thoughts on the SOTU:
1. I thought it was a strong speech. It wasn’t the exact speech I would’ve liked to hear — too much American exceptionalism and the pro-government stuff was too muted — but I grok that I’m not the real audience. He did a good job of staking out the high, optimistic, patriotic ground, which will force the Repubs into the position of articulating a pessimistic, fearful position (I’m lookin’ at you, Mitch Daniels), and will make them look like the liars they are when they (inevitably) call Obama un-American. The policy positions were strong, I thought: Progressive and pro-middle-class in principle, but moderate enough in detail that “OMG, Socialism!1!!1″ will look disingenuous. I have a problem with forcing everyone to stay in HS ’til graduation, but that’ll never pass anyway: Too much of a federal intrusion on state control for Repubs to ever support it.
2. Mitch Daniels… SRSLY? That’s your big gun; the guy everyone wishes had run for president? C’mon….
3. Chris Matthews… SRSLY? You really thought that was a good speech? One that made you “understand why Republicans like Mitch Daniels”? C’mon!!!
4. Rachel Maddow is a national treasure. The way she geeked out over the “city on a hill” reference was adorable; the way she took Matthews right on over Daniels’ speech was fabulous; the fact that her first guest was a Republican congressman (giving the lie to the persistent whining about how she presides over a liberal echo chamber) was perfect. Oh, and she put both speeches’ word clouds on her blog. Enjoy!
Gripe (it’s not you, Bill, you just happen to be the messenger. :)))
I hate, hate, hate these acronyms for US political institutions. SCOTUS. POTUS. Ugh. Before today, I’d never even seen SOTU (for the benefit of non-USAnians, that stands for the State of the Union speech, a political set piece every president performs in front of the cameras each January).
If I can’t figure these out, how must they look to non USAnians? Yeah, I know. They save key strokes. But they’re often opaque, and they’re not “jocular” they’re irritating. . .in the way ubiquitous sports metaphors are. Please don’t SOTU me any more than you’d bring your best game (and if anyone ever says that to me I’ll deck them.:) )
/Gripe
@ NuMad:
Well, here in France, it stopped pseudo-scholars from getting published in respectable venues, but there are plenty of websites and book publishers who are managed by dyed in the wool anti-Semites, so overall, it probably just made Holocaust denial go a little underground. As for complex scholarship: it’s really not a requirement for publishing Holocaust denial when they don’t try for “serious” outlets like mainstream publishers or scholarly journals. The fans of this sort of genre don’t ask for science or fact-checking but for reinforcement of their prejudices!
A lot of the deniers and anti-Semites also manage to go on just fine by creative use of dog-whistling: instead of speaking about a “Jewish lobby”, they hint about “Israeli influence”, and so on. In the end, it doesn’t make public debate more clear but more muddied.
But worse, the existence of such laws and the punishments they entail (heavy fines, in the case of France, and sometimes a few years of civil indignity, meaning that it would ban someone from being elected or finding a job as civil servant) lead to Holocaust denialists being able to play the martyr card: “look, look, they are suppressing our speech!”
More insidious, IMO, is the effect all this has on public debate and discussion. Since there’s a law, denialists learn how to not get afoul of it and go on spouting lies, while the anti-racist movements seem to lose their edge, when they think they can rely on the tribunals to do their job for them, so to speak. So that now, 20 years after the anti-Holocaust denial law, they are probably less good at countering racist claims than before.
Also, glad you can sit through it Bill. I can’t. It’s pure theater and I’ve never thought it did anything beyond the most tepid PR.
Rachel Maddow? Oh, hellz yes. I’m closer to having a sexual attraction to that woman and her brain than to any other. Most definitely in love with her mind (and her general presentation and delivery).
Josh:
It’s a fair cop! In my defense, it’s not like hanging out in blog comment threads exactly discourages acronym usage, eh? ;^)
The one of those acronyms that weirds me out the most is FLOTUS, which always reminds me of flatus, the term my wife’s brothers used to use to joke about their farts.
Josh,
Yeah, but every so often they come up with a good one, like the STRIP act (ht loweringthebar).
Fair point. I should have been more precise. And of course the difference is sometimes relevant for legal purposes: for instance, for the torts of libel and slander, in which false fact-claims may be actionable but mere negative statements of opinion are not.
But it doesn’t change the substance of my argument in this instance. After all, many of the topics of greatest political and religious controversy – whether tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, whether a god exists, whether particular medical treatments are effective, the extent of anthropogenic global warming, and so on – rest on disputed fact-claims, not mere personal opinions. We don’t, and shouldn’t, give the government the power to prosecute and jail those who express particular opinions on these issues, even when said opinions are (as they sometimes are) utterly stupid, contrary to the evidence, and damaging to society. Rather, in free societies, we hold no issue to be off-limits; and we deal with falsehoods and bad ideas by exposing them to reasoned argument and evidence-based criticism, not by using force to silence them.
I spend quite a lot of time responding to xenophobic anti-immigration idiocy, for instance, and it’s often extremely frustrating to the point of being emotionally painful, given the horrific and immediate human cost of Western countries’ ridiculous immigration laws and the institutionalized violence of immigration enforcement. It makes me feel ill when I read someone parroting the hate-screeds of the Daily Mail or the distorted talking points promoted by FAIR and MigrationWatch, given that I know they’re lying, I have the evidence, and yet the lies keep on being repeated. But, even if I had the power to do so (and I’m glad I don’t), I would never seek to silence the anti-immigration lobby by force. Because I don’t trust myself with the power to decide which opinions are acceptable to express, and to silence dissent by force; and if I don’t trust myself with that kind of power, I certainly don’t trust elected legislators or courts with it. If my opinion on immigration is right, as I think it is, I should be able to (and, indeed, can) defend it openly in reasoned debate.
@ SC:
To be fair, Namazie usually just posts about the people who do use claims of “Islamophobia” as a silencing tactic, but she doesn’t go on a several-post long riff about “but what does it mean, then”. And she’s clearly blogging as an advocate for the Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law For All, not as an all-purpose cultural and political commentator, so I can understand that she chooses to focus on a few issues and doesn’t blog often about racism in general.
But she’s also been on the record as a harsh critic of the rabid anti-Muslims ideologues, from the EDL to Stop Islamization of America, who denigrate the work of human right activists. See the category on her blog about “Enemies not allies: the Far-Right”.
You’re fucking kidding me. Right? Right? I could have gone 986 lifetimes without having to have seen that.
And that’s another gripe -“First Lady.” It’s the most ridiculous title I can think of.
1. It’s anti-democratic by nature. The point of the founding of the US was a repudiation of monarchy. There are no ladies in the US any more than there are lords.
2. Obviously it reduces the wife of the president to a feminine ornament. She’s no longer a lawyer (Michelle Obama, Hillary Rodham), or a social justice activist (Eleanor Roosevelt), she’s a “lady.”
So offensive on every level. Wanna place bets on whether we’ll style the husband of a woman president “First Gentleman?” No chance. Because it wouldn’t sound degrading enough, it doesn’t have the implications of courtesan, or eye candy or hostess that are embedded in “first lady.” We all know that no man could be degraded thusly. Unless we were to snigger at him as “First Cuckold,” which I find unfortunately likely.
Argh. And I made the same mistake again, right after correcting myself (because I’m exhausted and sleep-deprived). Replace the two above occurrences of “opinion” with “fact-claim”.
@ Bill:
OMG, really, “FLOTUS”??? And here I thought “POTUS” had to be the funniest of all USian acronyms…
Oh, my poor zygomatic muscles :^)
Josh:
True. Although, if they really wanted to be democrats, they should never have mimicked Octavian Augustus’ empire. Senate, First Citizen (the official title of the emperor), Capitol, eagles…
Heh.
Yep. She also wrote an excellent post in response to neocon Douglas Murray on the subject of immigration restrictions. I have a lot of respect for Maryam Namazie, even though I disagree with her strongly about certain issues (the French burqa ban, for example).
Josh:
To be fair, I first heard FLOTUS long after POTUS and SCOTUS were in pretty common usage; I’ve always suspected it was coined with bit of a wink at the silliness of that whole set of acronyms.
BTW, I agree with you about First Lady; I came this close to saying more or less what you said in my last. I wouldn’t have any actual objection to First Gentleman, which would have the salutary effect of making it explicit that the Lady in First Lady was on the lady/gentleman axis and not the Lady/Lord one.
But better to have that whole weird little eddy of nomenclature go away altogether, eh? Which is what I imagine will happen once we elect a woman president (Hillary ’16!).
Unless, of course, Caribou Barbie ever makes it to the
throneWhite House: I gather Todd was all set to be First Dude.A pedantic point: “Lady” isn’t necessarily the feminine counterpart of “Lord”, although it can be. (In Britain it is used for peeresses – “Lord and Lady Smith” – but, for instance the wives of knights and baronets are also styled “Lady [husband’s surname]”: so a knight and his wife would be, for instance, “Sir John and Lady Smith”.)
And although of course the honorific was traditionally associated with women of noble birth, I don’t think it necessarily carries that connotation any more, given that it’s been customary in both American and British English since the nineteenth century to use it as a polite form of reference for any woman, as in “ladies and gentlemen” or “ladies’ restroom”.
(Sorry for the pedantry, but you know I can’t resist a discussion of titles. :-p)
True, and this is undoubtedly a good reason to object to the style. Though being the consort of a head of state usually does lead to being forced into this kind of role even for men: Prince Philip had to give up his naval career when he married the Queen, for instance.
It’s actually revealing, in terms of the history of sexism and gender roles, to look at the gendered assumptions behind the history of titles in general. Traditionally, a woman who marries a titled man takes her husband’s style and title; so the wife of a King is a Queen, the wife of a Duke is a Duchess, and so on. (And the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is Princess Michael of Kent, rather than “Princess Marie-Christine.) By contrast, a man who marries a titled woman doesn’t take his wife’s style or title; so when Princess Anne married Mark Phillips, for instance, he remained a commoner, and their children Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips do not have titles, although they are in the line of succession to the throne. Likewise with Andrea and Charlotte Casiraghi, who are the children of Princess Caroline of Monaco and her late husband Stefano Casiraghi, but have no titles in their own right. And so on. Even Prince Philip didn’t automatically get a title by virtue of being married to the Queen; he is a Prince* and a Duke because he was specifically granted those titles, not because he was entitled to them automatically.
(*Of Great Britain, that is. He was already a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, but doesn’t use that title.)
FWIW, it seems the style “First Gentleman” is used in North Carolina, for instance, for Governor Nikki Haley’s husband. (I gather Alaskans tended informally to prefer “First Dude” for Todd Palin, though.)
Walton (if you’re still awake):
The talk about First Lady got me thinking: Is there a formal term for the wife of a Prime Minister? And if so, what version/equivalent of that term was used for Mrs. Thatcher’s husband? Surely not First Dude? ;^)
I’ve found a little note of encouragement here.
Hah! Mine @316 and Walton’s @315 seem to have crossed in the
wiresseries of tubes!Yeah, for the 27 minutes and 36 seconds his wife actually stayed in the job! Did y’all see today that Palin (Sarah, I mean) actually had the nerve to call Chris Christie a “rookie” today (actually, she said he made a “rookie mistake”)? Then she accused him of getting “his panties in a wad,” only to comment moments later that you have to be “disciplined” on the campaign trail.
Oy!
That’s interesting explication Walton, thank you. All of that withstanding it’s clear the role of Political Spouse is bound up in offensive gender role constrictions that are degrading and outmoded.
Not “Lord and Lady Douchebag”?
Sorry; couldn’t resist. Actually, the whole sketch is pretty funny. “Parliament has always had its share of Douchebags, and always will!” ;^)
Day 1 of campaign to be nicer. Not going well :(
@ Ing
Why are to trying to be nicer?
Yah, and that’s overlaid with the fact that the role of Very Important Person‘s spouse is just generally apt to be a subordinate one (at least publicly), on top of any gender issues.
There is no official term for the spouse of a Prime Minister, no; nor does she have any official place in the table of precedence. Bear in mind that the title of Prime Minister is of relatively recent vintage, and that until the twentieth century there was, legally, no such office: “Prime Minister” was an informal description. The perks of the position, such as the Downing Street residence, technically attach to the office of the First Lord of the Treasury, an ancient office which is always held ex officio by the PM.
As for Margaret Thatcher’s husband, Sir Denis Thatcher: he had no official title during his wife’s tenure as Prime Minister, but he was given a title in 1990, just after his wife’s resignation, when he was created a Baronet. (A baronetcy is like a knighthood, except that a baronetcy is hereditary whereas a knighthood is not; baronets, like knights, are styled Sir Firstname.) He was still outranked by his wife, though, since she was created a life peer as Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. On Sir Denis’ death, this title was inherited by his son Mark.
I should add, as a tangent: I mentioned above the general rule of traditional protocol that a woman takes her husband’s name and title (“Princess Michael of Kent”, “Mrs. John Smith” and so on). The exception to this is when a woman outranks her husband, in which case she keeps her own title and adds her husband’s title to it. This can lead to some odd-sounding titles: like the Queen’s first cousin, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy. Similarly, in formal protocol terms, Margaret Thatcher was “Mrs. Dennis Thatcher MP” when first elected to Parliament. However, this changed when she was made a Privy Counsellor, meaning that she outranked her husband, and became “The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher MP”.
(Who later became famous for trying to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea, of course, but that’s another story.)
(Interestingly, her late father, Prince George, Duke of Kent, a younger son of King George V and a fascinating character, is reputed, among other interesting stories, to have had a gay affair with Noel Coward. But anyway. I digress.)
Walton, I do believe you’ve missed your calling: You should be editing some royal-watchers’ gossip rag! ;^)
Josh, do you know if they still do that stupid First Lady Cookie Recipe bakeoff or whatever the hell it is? That shit is so vomitously offensive it almost literally stuns me.
everything hurts. stomach, head, back, neck…
This is way worse than the chest cold. why me?!?
/pitiful
when she can put two and two together.
I notice in the comments of that thread that Namazie has not updated her reasoning about the Oklahoma law, even after Brayton informed her on how the USA works.
I’ve never had the expertise to evaluate whether One Law For All were accurately presenting the situation in the UK. My hopes are diminished, though, after seeing them write about the USA like absolute cranks.
SallyStrange
Take drugs!!
or rum
I am out of motherfucking weed.
Bitch, I cannot help you. Though I wish I could.
SallyStrange
I was thinking more like aspirin.
and maybe a *hot* bath
@ LM 183
Herewith the rest of your script:
Act IV Scene 1.
{flashback to an earlier, simpler TET. A small bamboo grove, lit with red lanterns, rustic tables set out before it, groaning under the load of Dim Sum and flagons of grog. Various Pharyngulites, in rustic garb, mill around, eating drinking and talking amongst themselves.}
LM: “you are arguing that “criticism of homosexuality” is not homophobia, and that “disapproval of homosexual behaviour” is not homophobia,”
Theo: “No, that is not my argument at all. I believe you are conflating my querying of the suffix -phobia with someone else’s argument.”
LM: “Are you saying that you don’t understand what I mean by the term homophobic? I am not refering to a morbid phobia in the conventional sense but a very negative and antisocial point of view.”
Theo: “I understand that to which you refer. It is the morbid phobia part that I refer to.”
LM: “Are you trying to suggest that people can have such a fear?”
Theo: “I will posit that it is certainly possible.”
LM: “Why on earth would you even come up with such an idea?”
Theo: “Essentially I am just curious. But the implication is that blanket terms do not get to grips with all the intricacies of the debate.”
LM:” You are just obfuscating! You play right into the terrain of the bigots. They refine terms to avoid being labelled and called out.”
Theo: “People cannot control their phobias.”
LM: “And if we go along with this, they just claim “homophobia” … in the “Theo” sense … to get out of being called out for their bigotry. You are trying to create a weasel term.”
Theo: Not at all, I am trying to refine our wea…
*CRASH*
{Loud sounds of cymbals, a line of ululating conga rats appears from stage left. Each rodent is holding a broomstick that supports a long paper dragon above their heads. Cheers from the horde.}
*CRASH*
{fade lights and curtain}
Our PM’s bloke is mostly referred to as “First Bloke”. But if it’s a formal context, just by his name.
Actually, taking a hot bath helped a lot.
I love you, Josh, even if you cannot get me any ganja. Just knowing you’re there and willing to help is a wonderful thing.
In a sense Holocaust Denialism is one big dog whistle, a way to insinuate “Global Jewish Cabal” every time the subject comes up. I’d say muddled waters is kind of their element.
To some degree, when the debate has shifted to a debate about the laws against Denialism themselves, it’s still about Denialism; only in a way that perhaps is advantageous to Denialists in the sense that it’s less about the facts and their lies.
theo, first of all, I need to know that you understand I didn’t call you homophobic. Because that was a stupid mistake on your part. And I need to have some feedback, some indication that it’s worth trying to talk to you. So please do get around to acknowledging this real soon now.
Second of all, it’s more complicated than you think.
Hateful homophobia, much more than you suppose, is probably influenced by personality traits which the layperson imagines is beyond control.
The disgust and purity sensitivies are probably treatable like a sub-clinical OCD, by exposure and response prevention (ERP).
Notably, this is still not going to meet any diagnostic criteria for a phobia like arachnophobia. But you seem to be imagining that whatever happens subconsciously can be clearly differentiated from some wholly deliberate anti-gay bigotry. The latter is probably incredibly rare, if it ever exists.
Third, I can read, and you were indeed advocating that we not use the term homophobic when we’re not referring to an inescapable psychological fear. That is absurd. I am going to have to keep smacking down your stupid until you give it up.
Good morning
Yay.
Today we have our appointment at the university hospital and what did the kid do when I was 5 min out of the room?
Smeared lots of thick cream into her hair….
Ben
Seriously, if dogs can learn that humans are friendly when they show their teeth, I really don’t see what your excuse is.
Sally
My sympathies
Holocaust denial etc
Well, the German ban doesn’t punish it as such, but only public denial. So, you’re not getting jailed for saying it to your neighbour. (You most likely don’t get jailed at all. People aren’t put in jails here easily).
You get in trouble when you’re saying it publicly, at an assembly, or put it down in print.
I don’t want to rehash that whole hate-speech/free-speech debate, but I think that free speech ends where people are trying to take away my rights. The rules and mechanisms of a free society aren’t there for people to use in order to end free society.
And nobody questions the Holocaust just out of academic curiosity.
I think the power of words is generally underestimated. We’re talking about it and recognize it when it comes to homophobic and misogynistic slurs.
Every massacre in the known history of mankind started with the idea, it went on with communication and words.
SallyStrange (Bigger on the Inside), Spawn of Cthulhu says:
I am out of motherfucking weed.
—
Perhaps you could try the celibate or non-incestuous weed?
Eve was supposedly the first lady. As for being the wife of the president, there have been 44 of those (I think). At least one guy (Buchanan) was a bachelor.
Journalist: “…and here comes the 44th lady!”
Yay, back from the university hospital and everything is fine and dandy
*doing a little happy dance*
Doc was nice and I might even forgive him one day for the shit he pulled when I was still pregnant.
Mr Truth has returned to further pollute Jemima Cole’s essay.
I dunno how many of you read Love, Joy, Feminism, but Libby Anne posted an awesome takedown of anti-abortion asshattery. Read here
@ LM
I have read more carefully and accept this. I hope I did not create the impression of snapping at you and am quite happy with you calling it as you see it.
Thanks for your link, which I have read through carefully (although I must confess I have become very rusty wrt many of the statistical terms). What becomes clear to me is that an attempt to split the issues does not make sense. I guess this is what I was trying to do: separate unconscious aversion (disgust in the article) from willful discrimination. It would appear the two are more intimately entwined than I could have possibly imagined. (I trust this answers your third point too.)
Some questions of my own wrt your link:
1. I used to suffer from hemophobia -to the extent that I would feel faint, almost to the point of passing out, if I needed to give a blood. (I presume that this was due to a bad accident with a broken bottle as a child.) I have to a large extent managed to grow out of this. Would such a condition make me that much more judgmental? That is the sense I got from the linked paper.
2. From the paper:
I have spoken before about my early schooling in South Africa. I am sad to say that some of this experience was riven with all manner of bigotry. I would like to think that this had the opposite effect on me than intended. On the other hand, how would I know if I am not just overriding indoctrination that did sink in?
@ Giliell
Hold on and I’ll send the dancers from my play round to join you.
Since only 43 men have been President of the US (One was president twice, serving non-consecutive terms and for some reason is counted as two people), and one was never married that would mean there has been 42 First Ladies.
But there is actual class warfare. It just happens to be 180 degrees off of the version reported by the news. The rich, very rich, uber rich, and Romney rich are locked in mortal combat as they try to defeat the poor and middle class. And they are winning (the rich, not the poor and middle class).
===
Holocaust denial:
My first experience with that was in a high school social studies class in which a student gave a five minute talk (we all had too) about a foreign country (one kid did his on Vermont (yes, on Vermont! (not the brightest light bulb in the knife drawre))) and he did his on Israel. During the short talk, he spent most of the time explaining that the founding of Israel in 1959 (yes, I really do remember this talk that well and no that is not a typo (or a Tpyo)) proved that the Holocaust never happened as if it had happened there would not have been enough Jews to create a new nation and there would not have been enough bankers to buy off the United Nations. No idea the grade he got. Weird kid. Used to wear KKK t-shirts to school so I guess the talk was no big surprise.
====
I tried to stay out of the Joepa thread but I got sucked in and am very sorry that I did. Depressing as hell.
Katherine Lorraine @344: Thanks for the link, that was a good read.
yeah?
Ever heard of nicotinic cholinergic receptors?
Did you know that they (there are five subtypes) are found not only in the brain but also in all autonomic ganglion synapses (sympathetic and para-) and all somatic neuromuscular junctions?
The direct physiological effects of nicotine–and dependence, and therefore withdrawal–are nothing to scoff at, imo.
Walton @315 – Just a minor point for clarity: Nikki Haley is Gov of South Carolina. Bev Purdue is Gov of North Carolina and her husband is referred to as First Gentleman.
QFT. My ex-partner is Jewish, her paternal grandparents and other relatives died in the Holocaust, her parents and maternal grandparents fled to Britain, just in time. Before meeting her, I was pretty much a free-speech absolutist. She explained how terrifying she found Holocaust denial – she felt it as a fully intentional threat to do the same again.
Hi Thread, long time no see!
Conga rats to TLC on hir quitting smoking. My 2 cents: get an e-cig. Seriously. I’ve been off the smokes for 2 weeks now without any negative symptoms. Yeah, you still get nicotine, but that in itself is lot less harmful than nicotine + tar + carbonmonoxide + all the dozens of other possibly carcinogenic additives that are contained in cigarettes.
And welcome noobies, too! Sisu, am I completely wrong in thinking that we might be compatriots? =)
@ Kitty/McCluthu
I did some snuffling around after reading the Love,Joy Feminism post. In spite of Santorum’s pressing for anti-abortion legislation, the facts speak quite differently. More liberal laws actually lead to lower numbers of abortions. This chart makes it clear: Link to Guttmacher chart
As USA-people can move to a state with more liberal laws, this will give a very misleading impression as to the real effect of these laws if applied countrywide. If Santorum was to apply national legislation (FSM forbid) this effect would disappear.
Guttmacher has a media kit to help you out. Quick link to quick stats.
At least one guy (Buchanan) was a bachelor.
Jefferson was, IIRC, a widower when he was president. So that suggests that there have been only 41 “first ladies” so far.
@ Minnie The Finn
Hai Minnie! How is the sinful dancing going? ;)
It is bitterly cold here in Hong Kong. I am wrapped up in blankets, with a hot water bottle. I am scared to ask you how cold it is in Finland right now. (It is 8 degrees C here, 47F, brrrrr.)
Gilell or any other Germans posting on the thread: What’s your impression of how women are treated in Germany versus in the US? Specifically, what’s your impression of how they’re treated by medical professionals in Germany versus the US? Do woman get blown off more often? Given less support for symptoms or less investigation of underlying problems? I’d appreciate your opinion, if you’re willing to give it.
But you can be: Horst Mahler is serving a 12-year prison sentence. The fact that the threat of prison exists, in extreme cases, means that the ban is ultimately backed by force.
(I don’t deny that Germany generally has a far better attitude to criminal justice than the United States does; indeed, I say so often. The prison population is vastly lower, for one thing. However, the First Amendment and freedom of expression is one area in which the US, I believe, gets it right.)
This is a succinct statement of the general European legal position. Something similar is enshrined in Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which reads “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.” That provision has been used by the Strasbourg Court to hold, for instance, that neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and racist groups in general are not protected by the right under Article 10 to freedom of expression, because of their “totalitarian aims”.
However, I believe the Court has got it wrong. If Article 17 were consistently read in this literal sense, to exclude from the right to freedom of expression anyone who is trying to use their freedom of expression to campaign to take away the rights of others, then logically this would exclude a whole host of political debates from the right to freedom of expression. So in theory a State could make it illegal to express support for torture, for instance, or to support the death penalty, or to argue against universal suffrage, on the ground that these opinions all involve advocating that the rights of others guaranteed by the Convention should be taken away. (This is speculative; I don’t know how the Court would react if such laws were enacted, but it would be consistent with the logic of the Court’s current position.) Such a reading basically makes freedom of expression meaningless.
There needs to be room for open, uncensored political debate about what is true and what is not, and what rights people should and should not have. The price of allowing such room for political debate is that some people will express malign, offensive, stupid and wrong opinions. But as I said, the answer to this is not to silence them by force, but to respond to them with reasoned argument and evidence-based criticism.
Granted, but anti-immigration hate groups and the right-wing press aren’t claiming that “immigrants are taking our jobs and swamping our culture” just out of academic curiosity, and the oil industry lobby isn’t questioning anthropogenic global warming just out of academic curiosity, either. We can’t ban every lie that is told by propagandists everywhere, otherwise we really would be demanding that the state act as the Thought Police. What we can do, and should do, is point to the evidence and point out that they’re wrong. Which is extremely easy to do in the case of Holocaust denial, because there is a mountain of evidence for the Holocaust and an overwhelming historical consensus.
Plenty of LGBT people find Fred Phelps’ or Bryan Fischer’s explicit and rabid advocacy of anti-gay violence similarly terrifying (and it’s just as real a threat, given that LGBT people have often been murdered for being LGBT, and still are, in many places). Yet here a gay ACLU member explains why the ACLU supports Fred Phelps’ right to free speech, and why we should, too.
theophontes
It’s -8°C here. And that’s much warmer than it has been recently.
Hi Minnie!
Hi Theophontes!
The sinful dancing is going very well, thanks for asking. On Thursday, I’m going out to do a live performance (it’s a “girls’ night out” with my bff). Only amateurs do their embarrassing drunken dancing & karaoke on weekends.
We’re having a relatively mild spell here, it’s only -9 C =) But our central heating kicks ass, and as I’m working for home, I can stay indoors for days on end, if needed… now I don’t even have to face the elements to get more cigs anymore!
On other news: we could well have ‘a First Bloke’ in two weeks time, too. On the second round of presidential elections, the candidates are Niinistö, right wing coalition, very traditional; and Haavisto, Green party, openly gay, in a registered relationship with a guy from Equador. Niinistö is leading in the polls at a moment, but anything could happen in two weeks. I hope something will.
Hi Chigau!
Seems we’re sharing the temperatures.
I have a great fondness for thick woolly socks, the reason for which must be obvious.
dianne
Ugh, hard call.
I cannot compare it to a first hand experience in the USA and, actually, writing anything bluntly as “women get treated like this” seems to be very short of reality, because the single most deciding factor seems to be the professional in question.
I just mentioned that I might some day forgive the urologist for having been an asshole when I was pregnant. He tried to bully and guilt-trip me into giving birth at the university hospital.
But he and another asshole after my miscarriage was also the only people I encountered during all three pregnancies who were not wonderfull, respectfull, caring and dedicated people who treated me as a sensible human being.
But I know horror-stories from other women who encountered the exact opposite.
What you really, really need is a bit of information yourself and the strength to insist and question. Which sadly means that those who depend on being cared for the most get the worst treatment. Which also means that women are disadvantaged because we’re raised to being damn polite and say “yes, thank you” even when they’re postponing our appointment to the next blue moon. They pull that with everybody, yet women seem to accept it more.
My dad is very successfull in getting appointments, prescription and attention by being rather blunt and slightly intimidating. My grandma would still be waiting for an appointment with the neurologist if he hadn’t called them and very pointedly not yelled at them.
In general, I think there are the usual problems:
Women ofte postponing their medical needs for everybody else, research focussing on men and then extrapolating to women and a “sink or swim” mentality that hands women the short end of the stick because of our socialisation.
Days like this make me really appreciate living where I do. While you guys are dealing with below freezing temperatures (or just kind of chilly ones), I’ll be enjoying a high of 79°F (26°C).
Giliell: I’m starting to wonder if something similar to what you describe isn’t happening with my ex and her cyst issues. They still haven’t gone away, BTW, and her appointments keep seeming to get postponed or messed up. Most recently because of the snowstorm, but still. Now she’s pretty much stuck for another month.
Well, today’s the day my money arrives. I’m gonna buy myself a quitting-smoking present, I think, and I’ve had my eye on the cold steel Trail Hawk for a while now.
http://www.warriorsandwonders.com/Axes_Spears_Maces/Cold_Steel_Trail_Hawk_axe_in_store_only
Tomahawks are cool. I find them much more versatile than your typical full-sized axe or hatchet. And the Trail Hawk, at its reasonable price, lends itself to modification and customization. I’m thinking, decorative filework on the blade and some nice woodburning on the handle.
Plain and simple: No.
There is already something called Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It was hard fought for, it was bought with blood (the way to that document, not that specific document).
And I’m a mere two generations away from a time when people openly discussed this, came to the conclusion that it is true that Jews and Eastern European people were vermin and that they should not have the right to own property, or live. The right of future generations to not having that done to them is greater than the right of bigots to discuss that issue.
The right to Freedom of Speech is worth shit when you’re dead. Minority rights are not subject to majority vote.
Gileill: Thanks. I’m trying to explain a slightly odd epidemiologic finding, namely, that men with Hodgkin’s lymphoma do much better in Germany than in the US but women do only slightly better and arguably do worse if they’re older when they get the disease. (Though the last is not statistically significant and may be just randomness.) Furthermore, in the German HL Study Group, women do better than men. When one group does better in a study, but worse in the “real world”, it often (but not always) suggests that there is some prejudice preventing them from getting standard of care treatment for their problem. I could well believe that women are more likely to blow off symptoms, not push for appointments, etc and therefore end up getting treated at higher stages, etc.
Do you think that anyone in power would care if this was pointed out to them? That is, is emphasizing this problem likely to lead to policy change or would it just get blown off?
Hei Minnie! Sadly we are not compatriots… Mina asun Minnesotassa. :) My family is of Finnish heritage; my great-grandparents emigrated. I speak a little and am involved in the Minnesota Suomi-seura, mainly through my kids who attend Suomi-koulu. I chose ‘sisu’ as a ‘nym because I had a hard time coming up with one that hadn’t already been taken, and I felt like it reflects how I feel when I speak up as an atheist and take a stand.
TLC: conga rats and hang in there. I quit smoking in 2000 and it was hard, hard, hard. But so worthwhile.
Do German men present to their primary healthcare provider earlier than American men ?
Strangely in the UK the opposite seems to apply. Women it seems go to their GP earlier in the course of cancer.
Dianne:
IANAP (and thank Dog) but I suspect the answer to this one is fairly obvious: People in power will care, as soon as their being in power might depend upon them caring.
In other words, MAKE the fuckers care. If enough people made it clear that the issue is important enough to them, the politicians and bigwigs will decide it’s important to them too. Even if they’re only doing good to earn more votes, well, at least they’re doing good, right?
I hope I explained what’s in my head clearly enough.
Minnie the Finn and Sisu: Thanks. Today’s the big test of my resolve.
I think I phrased that very badly, but I also think you took it somewhat out of context. Of course minority rights should not be subject to majority vote: that’s the point of having human rights instruments, and judicial protection for human rights, in the first place. Indeed, that’s exactly the point for which I’m arguing! The majority, and their representatives in the legislature, should not be able to take away the rights of individuals or of minorities. And I believe that one of those rights should be the right to freedom of expression.
I absolutely agree that it’s a terrible idea to allow the majority to vote on others’ human rights, and I hope you don’t think that I advocate anything of the kind. I’ve been a strong defender of judicial protection of human rights for some considerable time. But that’s not what we’re discussing; what we’re talking about is whether someone should be arrested and prosecuted merely for proclaiming an opinion, even a bigoted, stupid and malign opinion. I think the right to abortion should be guaranteed by the constitution too, for instance, and outside the scope of majority vote (as it is in the US, post-Roe), but this doesn’t mean that anti-abortion activists should be arrested for expressing their view. Similarly, I think the right to same-sex marriage should be constitutionally guaranteed, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose same-sex marriage should be arrested. These are separate issues.
They would care to carefully explain it away.
Seriously, at the moment I don’t think you’d find an open ear for details. The biggest battle at the moment is public healthcare vs private healthcare, with the current minister of health busily trying to ruin the public healthcare.
It might be interesting for people in health administration, in the medical associations.
IIRC, women are statistically more consistent in their screenings and check-ups, thus getting earlier detection rates. Men seem to be earlier when they experience actual symptoms.
SarStuff: are you adopting? I work to pay for my maintenance, I can clean the house and my family considers me a very good cook.
I can recall a news story last year in which suggested that both sexes needed to present to their GP earlier, since the main reason the UK does not perform as well as it could in cancer survival rates is not down to the treatment offered once a diagnosis was made but because patients were diagnosed at a later stage. I also recall the point being made that men were actually worse at coming forward early, and indeed worse at looking after their health in general.
@ Walton
What is your take on someone like Julius Malema, who actually goes so far as to stand up on a podium and advocate the killing of people? We could say “only words” or “but they are only lyrics of a song” or some such, but what do we do once someone takes his words literally? The (farmer) murders that I mentioned * are happening and he is endorsing them. (Note: He is not being held to account for all the other racist and misogynyst things that he says.
You will recall the role of hate speech in Rwanda. I do not think the Judge was being overly paranoid in his concerns. But even one death inspired by hate speech would still be unconscionable.
If things have not got out of control yet in USA, I still would be wary. Actions are restricted by law in the US if they cause harm. Why not words?
*(I don’t know if you saw my comment upthread that provides more detail. Link to #22)
Sisu:
well, that makes you practically a close relative =) Many of my family emigrated to the States in the early 1900’s, some of them to Minnesota.
And yes, sisu is definitely something one needs when in discussion with certain less-than-sceptic elements, especially in your neck of the woods!
Atheism isn’t much of an issue in Finland – fervent religiotards are generally considered somewhat unhinged and are usually treated with much contempt with a dash of pity. That said, it’s not a perfect country, and I find plenty of other issues to raise my hackles any given day of the week =)
Walton
Yes, and they are good and valid. But the problem is that the best instruments are no use when the bigots become a heavy majority. That’s why they need to be stopped before that.
To Goodwin again: It wasn’t that the Weimarer Verfassung was bad, it just didn’t do us any good.
Ing:
Kind of like when people were giving him cooking advice, too. Making a sandwich is haaarrrd!!!
Walton:
I’m not coffee dependent; I can’t drink it very often because I have a low tolerance for caffeine. But there is definitely a ritualistic element for me to making a good cup of coffee, possibly because I’m one of those snobs who uses a French press. Tea has its own little rituals.
Also, I echo your “QFT” to SC on the Islamophobia discussion. It takes a rather determined ignorance of the right-wing anti-Muslim industry to make those claims, and, predictably, Ophelia’s commentariat includes certain types of atheists I’d rather avoid.
On another note, I used to also be a free-speech absolutist. The role of radio in the Rwandan massacres has made me reconsider it significantly.
Bill: I didn’t see or hear the speech last night, but this morning I got an email message from some progressive org or another about Obama promising investigations into Wall St. At this point I am cynical enough to chalk this up to election-year campaigning and not assuming that he will actually follow through.
Dianne: Women are much more likely to seek out medical care than men are, because men are socialized to “be a man and suck it up.”
It’s illegal in most countries directly to incite acts of violence. In circumstances where someone tells a mob of his followers to go out and kill members of group X, and the enraged mob actually does so, this would be a crime in most countries, America included. I think there is a line between this and merely expressing a hateful or bigoted opinion, though.
Some people associated with Radio Milles Collines were, indeed, tried before the ICTR for their role in organizing the genocide. Georges Ruggiu got twelve years’ imprisonment, for instance. (And incitement to genocide has, since, specifically been recognized as criminal by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.) But in that case, the radio station was being used directly to organize the Hutu militia and incite specific attacks on Tutsis. They weren’t limiting themselves to saying bigoted things about Tutsis; they were actually directing Hutu troops explicitly to kill the entire Tutsi population.
Ahh, my ggogle-foo and I dug up some data about men, women and doctors:
-Germans of all sexes go much more often to the doc than anybody else (probably because your employer kindly asks you to provide documentation for being sick…)
-Women go there about 20 times a year, men a bit less than 15 times.
What I did not find was if they controlled for factors of higher life expectancy (the older people get the more medical care do they need, so the fact that there are more old women than men should explain part of the numbers.
-Men are more likely to skip their check-ups and screenings.
-Men are much more likely to come in late and have to be transferred to the h0spital as emergencies. Might be confirmation bias: men go later when things have become serious, therefore, when men go to the doctor, it must be serious.
Minnie The Finn
If you get adopted by StatStuff, it will ruin my plans to be adopted by you when you go to your cabin for the summer.
Posting quickly in a gap between thunderstorms – wireless goes down, and there’s no WAY I’m leaving my laptop connected to a physical phone line (or power cord) with lightning everywhere. I’ve already lost two microwaves and a TV that way. (East Texas has a tornado watch in January, yay!)
So I’m loading all the threads I can to catch up while offline, and I’ll just leave these boxes of hugs here for TLC and all the rest of y’all music lovers and apologist haters. Rock on.
Sick dreams are weird, you know? I dreamt of lying down & making out with my ex, then being interruped by some dudes, and then we all got up to plan a heist of some kind together. Pulled off the heist, only there was a crude bomb in our car when we returned to it. Disarmed the bomb, took off down the road leaving a trail of melted wax behind. I remember trying to shoot the bomb to make it explode, thinking, this is my chance to practice since I never shoot things in motion, but I missed. For some reason we left a trail of melted wax behind our two cars. We stopped at the trailer park to regroup and ditch the incriminating stuff. Then for some reason I went back to my old house where my little sister (in my dream, a black girl of about 9 years old rather than a 27 year old white woman, still the same old house I grew up at though) was being menaced by another woman, part of a rival gang perhaps? She was about to tie my sister up and she wasn’t being horrible about it, didn’t really seem to enjoy what she was doing. No matter; I was filled with rage. I snuck up on her and jammed my knife into the palm of her hand, overpowered her, and tied her up and stuck her in a box which I then put in a hole and slid a heavy bed over it. I put my sister on the back of my motorcycle and as we took off, I saw these two large plywood boards with a spraypainted version of a chorus’ narration on them:
HER MODERN MIND KNEW IT WAS WRONG
BUT HER FAMILY WAS REINFORCED
something like that.
Is that for any period of sickness ? Here in the UK you have to see your GP to get a sick note after the 5th day.
Sally: Er… wow. Sounds like it would make a good piece of surrealist performance art. Or perhaps a music video.
Walton:
If you can buy that one may say racist things indirectly by dogwhistling them, you can also buy that one may also utter murderous dogwhistles.
Sally: My dreams tend to be just as surreal, but with less of a plot, and seldom as violent.
That’s really not an equivalent situation, or even close. While I agree that it’s irresponsible to engage in hateful rhetoric which risks inciting a lone mentally-unstable person to violence, that isn’t at all equivalent to what happened in Rwanda.
If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were organizing an armed right-wing militia with tens of thousands of “soldiers” nationwide, and using their radio and TV programs to direct their troops to go out and “exterminate” Democrats, Obama-voters, immigrants, LGBT people, abortion doctors and Unitarian Universalists, they would be criminally liable almost anywhere, including in the United States, where such an action would probably fall within counter-terrorism legislation. (And don’t get me wrong; I don’t doubt that both of them would do so in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it, and if they thought it would be in their interests. I’m not trying to defend them on any moral ground.) But there’s a big difference between that, and trying to hold them criminally responsible because their rhetoric has, on some occasions, been interpreted by a few of their more fanatical followers as a call to violence. You’d find it hard to establish a sufficient causal connection to make them criminally liable in any court.
Yeah, my dreams aren’t usually that violent either. Though in fact I haven’t been remembering my dreams much at all for the past few years.
Walton:
This is a serious question. And an honest one.
I understand that there is a legal difference between, “Those people need to die,” and, “You need to kill those people.” At least in the US. Do you see an ethical/moral (yeah, I know, loaded words with shitloads of extra freight attached) difference?
And I hit ‘submit’ too soon (I am lousy when it comes to submitting). After the last question, I should have added, “Or am I wrong and those statements are legally equivalent?”
Chigau @381:
oh, but summers are different! Even if I was adopted by a Caribbean billionaire, I’d still spend all my summers here at the cottage. Do not fret, your adoption plans are not threatened in the least.
There’s plenty of room for a whole horde of Pharyngulite part-time refugees, too. Just sayin’, in case someone else is interested, too =)
via Almost Diamonds – Canadian scientists begging the government to let them speak:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/01/25/harpers-code-of-silence/
Rick Santorum on pregnancy from rape and abortion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy
The difference, legal or moral, isn’t quite so straightforward as that; it’s also contextual. Shouting “[members of group X] need to die”, when on a platform in front of an angry armed mob of racists who subsequently went out and killed members of group X, would be incitement to violence by anyone’s definition. It clearly depends on context and circumstances.
And the most dangerous and popular far-right movements in Europe and America (the BNP, the Front National, the more xenophobic elements of the Tea Party, and so on) are usually too subtle to say something like “those people need to die”; they use dog-whistles to incite hatred, rather than advocating murder outright.
@ Walton
He did not do so directly. His defense of using the terms is that they are the lyrics of a “traditional” ANC song from the apartheid struggle (this is false in itself). He uses the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” approach, but crossed a line here.
We are also not talking about a baying, enraged mob, but a situation where he wishes to have his words and behaviour seen as normal. I cannot even say he would really like to see anyone dead. But he does like to play the tough outspoken one and intimidate others to seem the strong radical to his followers. His defense has been driven in large part by his claimed rights to free speech. He willfully takes it to the edge wherever he can. Which is what makes him an interesting case in this discussion.
I can’t think of an equivalent American example of the top of my head, but consider what would happen if someone like Phelps said the same things he said about the returning soldiers about a racial minority. The relevant clause is 16.2.c: “… advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” (Phelps may argue he is not directly inciting to cause harm. I would be interested to know if psychological harm or only physical harm is counted. … Personally I would certainly include it.)
Walton:
So the difference is whether the mob actually acts on the suggestion?
This depends on which criminal offence we’re talking about, and on different national and state laws, so I can’t generalize (and I’m not an expert in the laws of every jurisdiction).
Honestly, Fred Phelps is pretty much politically powerless, because no one outside his tiny group of followers takes him seriously. Republicans have joined with Democrats in condemning him, and even Jerry Falwell called him “a first-class nut”. (Bizarrely enough, Conservapedia labelled him a “leftist” at one point, based apparently on the fact that he once ran for political office as a Democrat.) He has absolutely no chance of inciting mob violence against LGBT people or returning soldiers, or of influencing government policy to take away their rights. His only political importance is as a test case for freedom of speech; since more-or-less everyone in America, left-wing and right-wing, finds him grossly offensive and wants him to shut up.
The real, influential haters in America are people like Rush Limbaugh, Bryan Fischer, Tom Tancredo, Glenn Beck, FAIR, and so on – mainstream politicians and media personalities who spew hatred, and actually influence people’s behaviour. And they are not the people who would be prosecuted under any laws against hate speech, because they’re generally bright enough not to say outright “[members of group X] should be killed”. They use dog-whistles instead.
I love the rituals around pot smoking. Pot especially seems to lend itself to ritual, which is why you see bongs and pipes and bud-busters manufactured and decorated way beyond any mere utilitarian purpose. As I said before, it’s a good old-fashioned primate bonding ritual. The primates sit in a circle and pass around the joint, making sure everyone gets some. Why don’t we see people doing this with any other kind of drug? I mean granted, it sometimes happens with alcohol, but in general the ‘passing around in a circle’ is just a pot thing.
Also the way everyone is putting the joint in their mouth and puffing before passing it on… we don’t really do that with anything else, and in fact with anything else it’d be kinda gross, but when it comes to pot smoking it’s almost like a symbolic gesture.
As I said before… pot was what allowed me to really start learning about these strange two-legged animals that I share my environment with… it gave me an ‘in’ to get close to them and talk to them without feeling TOO shy or awkward.
Pteryxx
This is what we get for having a “Harper Government” instead of a “Government of Canada”.
Walton:
I think I understand.
It bothers me, though. I remember back in the 90s hearing Rush Limbaugh say (this is (obviously) not a direct quote, but is pretty close), “Bill Clinton is destroying America, destroying our economy, and someone needs to do something!” Which is, as you alluded, just up to the line.
Gaah. Depressing.
Some good writing from Glenn Greenwald, back in 2006, on why outlawing hate speech is a bad idea. Ed Brayton also writes about it here and elsewhere.
I don’t trust libertarians on hate speech. At all.
Regarding that article on Harper’s government suppressing scientists, here’s a real gem from the G&M comments:
walton:
In the case of Horst Mahler, as far as I understand, it was not simply for publishing Holocaust denialist views, but because of related activities, like trying to organise a kind of pro-Nazi movement.
Also:
Depends on the country, I think. And of course, of the circumstances around the case: did the author of hate speech have links to the criminal or criminals, either personal or because they were member of a party or society? Did the murder(s) occur just after a meeting or radio broadcast or demonstration?
For instance, I can think of at least two cases in France where far-right politicians were held accountable as accessories in a murder or attempted murder investigation when they hadn’t directly participated, except by inflammatory speech:
1) In 1995, in Paris, a young Moroccan man, Brahim Bouarram, was killed by a member of the Front National who was just coming out of the ranks of one of their parades. He was sent to prison, but other members of the party were indicted for having fostered a climate of hate and blood-lust in their ranks.
2) In 2002, there was an attempt on the life of then president Chirac by a member of a little far-right party. The would-be murderer was condemned to jail and his party dissolved for inciting to political violence.
It’s also important to note that some countries have laws permitting to convict someone just for being a member of a what is deemed a criminal organisation. It’s a category also defined by law and it’s been used to against both criminal gangs like the Mafia and against terrorists, from the RAF to violent Islamist groups. When we hear that someone is condemned “just” for hate speech, it can actually mean that they are part of a group who both publishes inflammatory material AND carries out acts of violence.
I can agree that it’s by no means a perfect law, but then, no legal system is. The nearly absolute free speech policy in the USA has other adverse consequences too.
Ah, yes, and talking of adverse consequences, Second Cousin Ogvorbis #400 provided one with Rush Limbaugh and his “someone needs to do something” about Clinton… No wonder American presidents and many officials live under such security.
Not quite as funny as her comment about unvetted candidates, though! :D
–
*hug* for SallyStrange. And *Vicks™*.
–
visual
A weasel wearing a lacy sun hat sits at a table in a rose-covered gazebo. The wind gently wafts the strains of a string quartet, playing from behind an exquisitely-painted Chinese screen. A marmot enters from the left, bearing a silver tea service. The tea is poured out, and the marmot leaves.
The weasel raises the tea cup to her lips. *Sluuuurp!!
Rose petals fall with a graceless thump. The sun hat slumps forward over the weasel’s face. A loud dischord sounds from behind the screen. Theo enters, agitatedly, from the right.
“No, no, no! Wrong! Sip, delicately, you’re not a dehydrated elephant!”
/visual
–
Walton, just keep in mind how fucking unpleasant it is to be a grieving member of a funeral procession and seeing these jackals celebrating the deaths. I have seen these people in action.
Most of the police that I have seen, when they have a head’s up, place these people in one spot and direct the funeral goers through an other route so that the jackals are not seen.
Huh? Neither Glenn Greenwald nor Ed Brayton are libertarians, in the general sense of the word.* (They’re both civil libertarians, but that’s not the same thing.) And it wouldn’t matter if they were; people can be wrong on some issues and right on others, and an argument should be judged on its own merits, not on its source.
(*Ed, for instance, has been extremely critical of Ron Paul: see here, here and here, for instance. And rightly so, because Paul has a history of ties to far-right racist groups, and his policies on issues such as immigration and reproductive rights are appallingly illiberal; which is why no one who cares about progressive values should support him.)
You’re making my point for me. The fact that an otherwise-legal party can be shut down merely because one of its members engages in an act of violence, thus depriving all the other members of the party of their freedom of political participation, is bizarre and chilling. Again, while we might not have much sympathy for far-right hatemongering parties, imagine if the same laws were used to shut down, say, a socialist or communist party because one of the members decided to engage in lone “direct action”.
Which is terrifying, and such laws can easily be, and have been, used to suppress socialist, communist and anarchist parties which are deemed to be “subversive” or “threatening to public order”.
Walton, I may be wrong on Brayton, but Greenwald is a libertarian, not merely a civil libertarian.
There is a bill in New Hampshire that would allow people to refuse to serve LGBT couples.
Dammit, we should all be tolerant of the intolerant. Otherwise, we are just bigots.
theophontes,
I don’t know, because I don’t know whether this manifested as disgust. And since it’s not something particularly current for you, it’s hard to interrogate. But, a direct question and a few indirect:
Would the sight of blood, or the impending event of giving blood, cause you to feel anything you recognize as disgust?
Would the sight of a human hand preserved in a jar cause feelings similar to those you’d have about blood?
Would dissecting a cadaver, already drained of blood, cause feelings similar to those you’d have about blood?
Would the sight of other people’s spilled blood cause feelings similar to those you’d have about your own blood?
Would watching someone remove and replace their own glass eye cause feelings similar to those you’d have about blood?
Part 2 of Inbar’s study used the Implicit Association Test. You can do these yourself. If you want meaningful results, you’re going to have to take the same test many times over the course of several months, and average your results.
If you want to deliberately elicit the most prejudice from yourself, you should at minimum take the tests when you’re tired after a full day of work. Better still, when you’re already tired after work, make yourself do a resource depetion task, like a difficult crossword puzzle, or writing an essay without the letter N.
None of this is optimal, since you’ll know how the test works and you know why it’s being administered. But there isn’t a clearly better option that I know of.
@ Irene Delse
What has been surprising for me in all of this is that (at least in the case of South Africa) one really has to go quite far to get taken to court under hate speech regulations. I would have imagined they kick in far sooner. A lot of verbal bigotry just goes totally unquestioned. Here I guess it is our role, as good citizens, to tackle these situations by calling them out.
One argument for the free speech advocates is that if hate speech is to be enforced, we could conceivably end up with something like blasphemy laws. (The religious majority regarding it as quite beyond the pale.)
My argument against this is that we should be operating along the principles of protecting and enhancing basic human rights. This can be enforced constitutionally. But how to get to that point in the first place is beyond me in the American context, where many people are daily denied these basic rights.
Yes, he’s written and worked with the Cato Institute a few times. That does not, in itself, mean he buys into their entire agenda, nor does it discredit his work on civil liberties. Radley Balko wrote for Reason magazine, undoubtedly a libertarian publication, for years; does this discredit his (extremely valuable) work on exposing police brutality? It is possible for someone to be wrong on some issues and right on others.
Cato are sometimes catastrophically wrong – on global warming, for instance – and I don’t trust them as an institution (or indeed any corporate-funded think-tank). But let’s judge arguments on their own merits, rather than dismissing an argument completely because of who the author used to write for. I didn’t link to Greenwald because I think he’s some sort of infallible authority – no one is, and no one should ever be treated as such – but because I happen to agree with the arguments he makes in that piece.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/u-s-marine-spared-jail-time-in-iraq-killings-reuters-u-s-online-report-domestic-news/
Misdemeanor murder.
Yes. It’s worth reiterating that many (though not all) countries with hate speech laws also have laws on the books punishing blasphemy or denigration of religion. And if the US First Amendment were reinterpreted or amended to allow the legislature to enact laws against hate speech, there would undoubtedly be calls to outlaw anti-religious speech too. Allowing the legislature to decide which views are acceptable and which are not is, as I keep pointing out, a double-edged sword.
I don’t deny that. But there are many protests which are similarly offensive, hurtful and emotionally painful to a significant number of people. If we are serious about free speech, we have to protect even the most offensive and vile opinions; otherwise we shut down debate on the very issues that are most important to people.
I regard both Brayton and Greenwald to be left libertarians. (And not just civil libertarians.)
I despise their naive consorting with right-wingers, and can if necessary dredge up my old arguments for why left-wingers should not call themselves libertarians or make alliances with right-wing libertarians which will ultimately empower the two fronts of modern libertarianism, the Paul movement and the Libertarian Party.
In other words I think Brayton and Greenwald are doing a bad thing. But they are left-wingers, thus they are not the sort of libertarian which can be described with that one word and no qualifier.
I do, because the statements suggest different imperatives, and thus one is more likely to result in violence than the other.
It’s like saying “the USA should reduce its energy consumption” will have different effects than “you should reduce your energy consumption.”
Up to there I think you’re mostly right, which is why I don’t call myself “libertarian” any more. The term has been very much monopolized by the corporate-backed proponents of a specific agenda which prioritizes free-market economics above everything else. This isn’t surprising, because any political movement tends to serve its constituency; and since most backers of the libertarian movement are affluent white people and/or corporations, it’s not surprising that their concerns get talked about, while instances of state oppression that hurt the poor (like the racist criminal justice system, and immigration enforcement) receive less attention.
And of course America’s best-known “libertarian” today, Ron Paul, doesn’t remotely live up to his own hype about individual freedom; he supports anti-immigration laws and militarizing the border, opposes reproductive choice, and focuses his opposition on federal power while being happy to give state governments wider latitude to impose oppressive laws. Not to mention his past consorting with racist groups. He’s really an old-fashioned Southern paleoconservative who’s simply rebadged himself as a “libertarian” as a successful form of marketing.
While I understand why you take that stance, I also think there are issues on which the only way of achieving progress will be to ally with libertarians, and on which such an alliance can be productive.
Consider drugs, for instance. Legalizing and regulating the marijuana business, a policy on which plenty of progressives and plenty of libertarians agree, would be an enormous improvement over the status quo; in addition to reducing the prison population, it would vastly reduce border violence and the power of drug cartels. Of course a general legalization of drugs wouldn’t fix everything on its own – we’d still need to fix the broken mental healthcare system and do something about the appalling dearth of drug rehabilitation services, issues libertarians don’t talk about because the solutions may well involve government spending. But legalizing pot would be a good start, and it’s something that both progressives and libertarians can get behind.
Immigration is another issue on which such an alliance ought to work: any honest and consistent libertarian ought to be in favour of open-borders immigration (Milton Friedman and even Ayn Rand took unequivocal pro-immigration stances, for instance). I have less confidence that an alliance on that issue can be effective in modern America, though, principally because so many of the mainstream “libertarian” Paul-supporters are really just rebranded racist paleoconservatives. (And the “open immigration won’t work so long as we have a welfare state” right-wing meme, although it’s empirically false, has been very influential.)
Janine, thank you. I just wrote my reps about that bill, and I’ve also emailed its sponsor, Frank Saporeto, a few scathing comments. (Anyone else in NH who does not already know who their reps are can find them here).
Walton: I certainly do appreciate Radley Balko’s work on police brutality. It doesn’t mean I’d trust him as far as I could throw him on hate speech.
@ cicely
XDDDDDD
@ LM
More a sense of panic, light-headedness, lack of control. Fear and a sense of unreality at being in the situation. I would feel everything closing in on me. I still get some of this in a mild way but have pretty much overcome it. Now that you ask me, I don’t really think it was as much a case of disgust as fear.
To all of those other questions, I think I would have been a little creeped out. The cases where I have had to deal with blood, and been most terrified, have been my own blood. Either gushing or removed with a needle. I am not affected by fish blood or meat etc. (I actually haven’t thought much about those other conditions. I could never have become a doctor though.)
Hehehe, that is bizzare … and difficult I am sure. (The cure for hiccups: “run three times around a building without thinking of the word “wolf”.) I’ll give the test a whirl on the morrow.
Completely and totally off topic from anything currently being discussed, but I just wanted to inform the world that I really love NECCO Wafers! They don’t taste like anything specific, but I love ’em!
Made up where Walton is, too!
In English class, my senior year of high school, we were assigned an essay on one letter of the English language. I chose to do mine on ‘Q’ and ‘X’ arguing that they were superfluous and, other than adding points to Scrabble games, there was no reason for them. I then gave a list of words respelled without the offending letters: kwerty, koin, kwell, kween, skware, akse, maksi, eks-ray, etc. I got 98 out of a possible 100 points because I did mine on two letters, rather than one.
Rep. Joe Walsh, IL-R
I kinda wish I could remember something I did in my senior year of high school.
Anything.
Anything at all.
chigau,
Graduate?
uh Walton? What would be the problem with laws barring demonstrably false statements from being promoted as news? It seems to me that not doing so actually retards the market place of ideas and human rights? Why is it not ok to lie about say Henry Kissinger..but you can about say a group like gays?
Well, but look at it from her POV; if she’d done it while you were in the room, you’d have stopped her. Be fair!
:)
–
Hi, Minnie! :)
–
LM,
Took the weight test from those implicit association tests in a busy cafe, kind of neat how the whole thing is set up to confuse deliberation and spur response. Psychology fascinates me, at least as a participant. I don’t know as I am clever enough to think up such methods.
Hi cicely _o/
How are things at your neck of the woods?
Dhorvath
I have a certificate, so I guess I graduated.
Also they let me go to university.
Now that’s an interesting question. The general rule, for the tort of libel, is that individuals can be libelled, but groups, in general, cannot. So if someone makes a false and damaging allegation about me personally, I may be able to sue for libel (though there are additional requirements which I won’t go into here); by contrast, if someone makes a false and damaging allegation about a social group or category to which I belong (Britons, law students, bisexual men, etc.), I will not be able to sue for libel unless I can prove that the statements can reasonably be understood to refer to me as an individual. Some people have criticized this as incoherent; after all, damaging falsehoods directed against a group or class of people can be just as harmful as damaging falsehoods directed against a specific individual.
Interestingly, though, there have been such things as “group libel” laws. Illinois once had a statute making it a form of criminal libel (although libel is normally a tort rather than a crime, this particular statute was a criminal one) to “…manufacture, sell, or offer for sale, advertise or publish, present or exhibit in any public place in this state any lithograph, moving picture, play, drama or sketch, which publication or exhibition portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion which said publication or exhibition exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots.” The constitutionality of that statute was upheld by a majority of the Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952), although I’m not sure that the Court would reach the same conclusion today.
By pretending (probably to themselves first) that “xenophobia” is an adequate description of the anti-Muslim movement. It isn’t, any more than it’s an adequate description of antisemitism. You can’t deal effectively with a dangerous socio-political phenomenon, or even avoid encouraging it, if you’re busy denying what it’s about, what its appeal is, and what aspects of it might appeal to you – both through your ideals and through your privilege.
Because that is opinion, not a lie. It is the Christian guest who is giving the opinion that gays die 30 years sooner and molest children, he is not presenting it as fact.
When Faux News got sued when they flat out lied, they went to court with the defense that it was opinion, not news. And they won.
Walton you paroted back to me my observation but didn’t give any meaningful input of the ethics. I don’t see the coherance of acknowledging a person can be harmed by lies and should be protected but people can’t. It seems an undue protection to those in the public eye (so disproportionately the wealthy) while giving none to under privledged.
Sorry, Minnie, but that would mean I’d have to put clothes on around the house. I enjoy my naked freedom too much.
StarStuff
You haven’t read Minnie’s descriptions of her summer-time life, have you?
Ogvorbis:
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Next you’ll be telling us you really love Circus Peanuts.
Rev BDC, #424: I think Nelson Muntz has a word for that….
FWIW, US libel laws do make it very difficult for public figures to sue successfully for libel; and rightly so. (Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure bringing an action for libel must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant – i.e. that the defendant made the false statement knowing it to be false, or being reckless as to whether it was true or false. By contrast, a plaintiff who is not a public figure need not prove actual malice.) So the rich and famous face a higher bar if they want to sue for libel.
The tort of libel in the US is generally very restricted in its scope. And rightly so; in England, where it is much easier to sue for libel, libel actions are often abused as a tool to silence criticism.
As for whether there should be a doctrine of group libel, I don’t know. I understand what you’re saying about the apparent incoherence of limiting such actions to individuals but not groups. Then again, it could present administrative difficulties: would you say that if a broadcaster tells a malicious falsehood about group X (where group X is defined by racial or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.), all the members of group X should have the right to sue for libel? It might be hard to quantify actual damages to each individual member of the group. This is all speculative, of course, and it isn’t my area of expertise.
@Sailor, was it the toon or the tune that caused the reaction?
[And I apologise for having gotten you out of
bedbunk. :)]Chigau:
Indeed =)
@ chigau
No, I haven’t. But now I’m curious.
Mormon apostle, Boyd K. Packer, is continuing his anti-gay, anti-human campaign. PZ has called Elder Packer out for this behavior before, but the old “General Authority” of the LDS Church is too demented to learn anything.
He continues to toe the mormon line so closely that I can’t help but think that he’s going to be responsible for more suicides among mormons who are gay.
On January 22nd, Elder Packer was a featured speaker at an event celebrating 100 years of the LDS Church torturing teenagers by making them get up at 4:00 or 5:00 AM five days a week to attend what “seminary,” actually an hour-long session of indoctrination and of exposure to astoundingly insipid “lessons.”
Here are some excerpts from Packer’s talk (worst stuff starts at about point 42.00 in the video):
With that last sentence, Elder Packer extinguishes all hope that LDS Church leaders will get a clue.
Link (After a boringly long view of mormon temples, the video begins with scenes around the world of tortured teens going to seminary, including one kid who has to get up at 4:00 AM and paddle a boat down predator-infested waters — Elder Packer comes in later):
http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/
Hehe, reminds me about the story an acquaintance of mine once told. She didn’t like it that her adult son ran around the family home wearing only his undies. After asking him nicely to put on a T-shirt without success, she resorted to more drastic meassures.
Next time he came into the kitchen in his undies, she started to undress.
His face must have been priceless.
Sarstuff:
Finns are naturalists by nature, we invented the sauna after all. Also, having to spend the long, dark, cold winter wrapped up in bear skins and lichen makes one want to strip to the buff as soon as it’s warm enough (early June to late August, even longer if the weather’s good).
And my nifty new avatar seems to be working, at least until the Disney copyright police finds me.
If you’re referring to the legal action involving WTVT (a Fox News subsidiary) and Jane Akre, I just researched it to check whether you were right, and it seems that this is not quite what happened. Akre lost on a narrow technical ground of statutory interpretation, but WTVT did not claim in defence that the story was “opinion, not news”.
Rather, what happened in that case is that Akre and her husband got fired by WTVT for refusing to participate in making a news story about bovine growth hormone which, according to her claim, was being systematically distorted by the station in favour of Monsanto’s business interests. She threatened to complain to the FCC that the story breached an FCC policy against federally-licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. She later sued the station because she claimed, among other things, that her dismissal was in breach of a Florida state statute designed to protect “whistleblowers” from punitive dismissal. The statute prohibited retaliation against employees who expose the employer’s “violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” The question was whether the FCC policy was a “law, rule or regulation” within the meaning of the Florida statute.
Akre won at trial, and the jury awarded her damages, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the decision on the ground that the FCC policy against deliberately distorting the news was not a “law, rule or regulation”. This is because the FCC policy wasn’t a federal regulation, nor had it been promulgated by the agency as a definitive rule; rather, it was simply an agency policy that, in considering complaints against federally-licensed broadcasters, the FCC would take into account questions of deliberate news distortion. The Court held that this didn’t qualify as a “law, rule or regulation” within the meaning of the Florida statute, and so Akre didn’t qualify as a whistleblower.
Wet. It’s a good thing. Dreary-looking, though.
And this is, what? 6 months MRSA-free? Yay!
–
So the FCC can regulate tits but not truth.
Walton the USss priorities and regulations on free speech are messed up.
Very true. Pretty hard to deny how Muslim-specific this is.
Walton, I’m writing a little response to your response to my remarks about Namazie (you really don’t need to keep mentioning how much you respect her despite disagreeing with her on some issue – I doubt anyone thinks you don’t respect her, and it carries a slight though I’m sure unintended implication that when I’m disagreeing with her or Ophelia I’m suggesting that I don’t respect them), but meanwhile…:
It discredits him as an intelligent person.
A politician in Tennessee, Joe Ragan, is lobbying for a bill that will excuse bullying of homosexuals. Ragan also seems to think that it’s okay if homosexuals commit suicide.
Link at Daily Kos.
Here’s part of an essay Ragan wrote in support of what is being called by those with working brains the “License to Bully Bill”:
Ragan’s reasoning, or inability to reason, reminds me of mormons who say that God allows (encourages?) gays to kill themselves because dying is preferable to leading an unholy life. So, gay people should commit suicide, and if we can help them to come to that conclusion with constant bullying, so much the better. [sick now]
I didn’t mean to suggest that, of course, and I’m sorry if it carried that implication.
Even if that were true (and I don’t think it is), it doesn’t mean that his argument on this particular issue is necessarily wrong. I don’t understand why his affiliations are relevant at all; I was linking to him not as some kind of authority, but because I happen to agree with his argument against hate speech prohibitions, and think that he expressed it better than I could.
====
That’s not what the decision said. The FCC does have authority to regulate deliberate distortion of the news. The point of the decision was not that the FCC does not have such authority, but that, because it hadn’t adopted a formal rule to that effect, it wasn’t a “law, rule or regulation” under a specific Florida statute governing dismissal of employees. It was a narrow point of state statutory law.
FWIW I think the FCC’s authority to regulate television and radio content should be stripped. They’re worse than useless, they’re a censorious bunch of prudes who waste millions in taxpayer dollars going after networks when someone says “fuck.” The only power they should have to regulate content would pertain to false or libelous statements or incitement to violence.
Hello, my name is Simon. That may not mean much, but there’s a person called James here on this site who has made reference in these threads to a “friend” he was talking to about the Jessica Ahlquist case. Well, that person’s me. And I figured I’d come here so that I could directly defend myself.
If I’m being honest, the Ahlquist thing was more of a side-issue for me, more of a reactionary thing to something that disappointed me. See back when James Michaels was originally posting here as a Christian, he was making arguments about Atheism that I agreed with and which I don’t think got responded to adequately by members here. I actually helped him with his responses to the replies he got. Unfortunately, James decided that he suddenly couldn’t defend his beliefs anymore and jumped on the tiresome new atheist bandwagon.
So the reason I’m here today is because I want to demonstrate that actually, James was wrong to “quit” his faith in Christianity (for the record, while he and I don’t attend the same Church, we’ve met at multi-Church functions in the UK and where he lives and we are still fairly good friends despite his de-conversion) and so too were the respondents were wrong to claim what they did. So here goes…
So about morality existing before Christianity ever existing: Wasn’t the original point actually about morality coming from religion in GENERAL? I think the person who said this was guilty of switching the goal posts. In any case, here’s some examples of morality (positive, btw) established by religion:
Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land. – The oldest law code in existence flows directly from religion.
Don’t Lie – If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
Don’t steal – If any one steal the property he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.
Respect your parents – . If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
Treat Others how you would like to be treated – If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. (and many other rules)
Also on the more benign side of the same concept
I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place.
The roots of law come from religion … in reality.
2) about the “bad” moralities from religion that we don’t follow anymore: I’ll just say that I also see this at AXP and other places, but I commonly see stuff about witch burning, stoning to death raped daughters, and “thought crimes” especially from when the iron chariots wiki references the Sermon on the Mount.
Some of the penalties have changed but the morality behind the laws have not. Do not suffer a witch to live. The word Witch in the greek Gospels (earliest we have) is pharmakeia which has by some translated to mean herbalist and so is translated to latin and back with the negative use of the word poisoner since the 16th century. Now in our society today, if you poison people in the state of Texas (lets say children or strangers, what happens? That seems to be todays morality.
We no longer stone our daughters to death for being raped. We are Very hard on Rape victims but i’m asking for a cite from you guys here, I think you mean the stoning of adulterers, which is still a very western moral concept;. Many states in the union still have anti-adultery laws on the books and in almost every state adultery can be a mitigating factor in divorce proceedings leading to a clear punishment. The behavior is still punished.
The SotM and most of the NT isn’t ever intended to be law. Jesus repeatedly states that this isn’t his kingdom. Those “thought crimes” are frowned upon by society and its something we should all work to do. Are you trying to tell me that it is not a moral virtue in the West to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world?
3) About Roger Bacon and “needing a religious education”: There were plenty of people who were able to educationally question the belief in god in those early Christian universities. The majority of people teaching at Oxford were of the church. That is correct. It does not mean that there weren’t secular thinkers. They were just far less common then the churchmen
Bacon didn’t need to attend church and while you had to be a baptized Christian to attend Oxford (and many other universities funded by the church). You did not have to be dogmatically inclined. Heck why don’t you all research Nicholas of Autrecourt and try to tell me that unless you follow Dogma you were denied an education. Christian Mysticism was common (the beginnings of Deism). Where do you all think all the renaissance thought came from?
Do you all know that there is a Talmudic academy in Oxford? The original point made that Roger Bacon was a Monk and the responses said “well of course he was because he had to be religious”. There was no “straw manning” of shit in that exchange. Roger Bacon was a man of God and Father of the scientific method. William of Ockham was a friar. Im sure youve all parroted Occam’s Razor at some point. To highlight religious I have no intention of leaving out the great secular thinkers who disagreed with the church in this period. For example, Richard Kilvington and Walter Burley were not of the holy orders but yet were some of the prolific scholars of the time.
In fact, in most academic circles you could be stripped of your masters in theology. (as happened to Nicholas of Autrecourt) for teaching against dogma in theology.
4) About Tacitus: Tacitus seemed to have a much wider level of informants within Rome. Pliny was much more likely to use slave sources. Tacitus was on the other hand much more likely to use military and governmental sources. Do I have evidence that he had information independent of the gospels? Naturally: a) Pontius Pilate’s rank is not in the gospels. It is in Tacitus. b) His place in roman society was later confirmed by an inscription discovered in the 60s.
Almost every historian takes Tacitus’s ethnographic survey of the Roman Jews as the most accurate of the period but you all want to smear this as bullshit? Ugh. Well, I dunno where you read that secular historian who disagreed with him but almost all historians accept Tacitus’s workings as period accurate.
5) Constant claims I see about how the world would be better without religion and how we’d all totally be more rational if we didn’t had it and how the Christians apparently caused the Dark Ages: You can believe that all you want but it’s nonsensical. Dark Ages cause = nothing to do with religious factors.
It was an invasion by a source of less educated tribesmen which caused rapid destruction all over civilization (in other words the Roman Empire) by barbarians (IE uneducated tribespeople) . This widespread destruction causes the destruction of knowledge. Look at other invasions (Huns, Vikings, Mongols) and the damage it did to other societies and their knowledge. Without the church the light of knowledge would have guttered out. Atheists could argue that until the high middle ages, the infrastructure did not exist (due to war, language, and other purely secular causes ) to create the environment that in turn created the foundations for the renaissance. Id point you to the books of Edward Gibbon and Thomas B Constain to give you an understanding of the fall of Rome and the “Dark Ages”.
The Italian Renaissance does not happen without the High Middle Ages and its time of peace, allowing (among other things) the creation of a university system by the church which in turn birthed the Renaissance.
The Church trained the nobility and it trained both religious and lay members of the church. It did far more education in the high middle ages then all secular institutions combined. it trained everyone who could afford it.
A classic “special pleading” by atheists that is that “oh, we would have created other institutions” in the absence of religious ones. You act like the Romans didn’t have these institutions that were independent of churches. They did. What happened when the Roman Empire fell? They disappeared as a result of burning to the ground and those places did not survive the tumult. Same with the Eastern Empire and the Saracens. The Church survived and to some extent it flourished BECAUSE of education and knowledge and not in spite of it.
6) Atheism and Marxist Communism: I don’t even think people actually grasp what Marxist Communism is when they deny atheism has anything substantial to do with it. know the kind used by Mao Lenin Trotsky and most of Castro?
Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism. So who do you think is a bigger expert in Marxist Communism and what it entails? Is it I) Lenin or II) the Pharyngula/FTB blogs bunch?
Now to the main bit. Atheism is not without its totalitarian ideologies. Just because it is not your ideology does not mean it is not part of Atheism. Just like the Cult of Reason.
The vast majority of states where atheists became leaders promote of atheism by their government using active suppression of religious freedom and practice.
I mean in Maoism religion was seen equivalent of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use. Is this not Atheism in action?
7) The ever tiresome attacks on the Vatican for their “suppression” of Galileo and other scientists: Why don’t we REALLY analyse how the Vatican treated Galileo, and quit the “Galileo was innocent!” meme?
Pope Urban VIII was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published with formal authorization from the Inquisition and full papal ecclesiastical permission. So what happened?
I don’t think you all PROPERLY get the history. The Pope personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book. So in the book, he called Urban a simpleton and used satire to make a fool of him. Where did Galileo live? Well he lived in the Papal States. So what happened in the middle ages when you called an absolute monarch a simpleton, in print? Oh so the Papacy totally killed him amirite? Oh no, wait, they just stopped him from teaching in public. They placed him under house arrest and even allowed him to teach in his home. But yeah, basically what the papacy did was wrong. When did they remedy it? Time to shatter more myths I guess…
When Galileo died where was he buried? In the Basilica of Santa Croce. Whats in there now? A monument to Galileo. When was it built? 1737, Less than a hundred years after he died. The Catholic Church built a monument to him in the Papal states less then a hundred years after he died.
So when you badly try to flat out lie by claiming the Vatican didn’t apologize for their treatment of Galileo until the late 20th century, well you sound idiotic.
8) How atheism is a religion: you give those new atheist journalists preeminent place of scholarship, you give their opinions worship. You venerate science. You adore naturalistic philosophy as bastardised by Daniel Dennett and such. Is that not giving worth? Giving worth to prioritising morality is worship. This is adoration and veneration to a group and its concepts. This is done philosophically all the time, but you all classify stuff differently when you believe it. You cannot classify your way out of this one. All birds fly. A bat flies therefore a bat is a kind of bird.
Sorry Pharyngula, but you simply can’t say that your personal atheism is the only atheism. Bats are mammals and not avians. Marxist Communism is not a religion, it is a secular utopia.
9) Your objections to religion and obsession with lawsuits and “calling the religious out”: They constitute State Atheism.
You want the government to be able to control religion. In an Atheist state, this power is what causes the Maoist/Lenninist attacks on religion. In a theistic state, it causes the purges of the Heresy Acts of Queen Mary I.
You genuinely don’t see the hypocrisy you’re all preaching? Here’s your arguments, in a nutshell: “I want my kid to not be taught the religion that the majority of my community believes because I am the parent and the state shouldn’t have the power to reach into my home and teach my child something I don’t agree with. I want them to be able to reach into someone else’s home and prevent those parents from teaching their children what they believe”. Sound about right?
You are just like most Republicans who say we want less government and we don’t want the government to get between a person and their doctor … unless it involves abortion .. then we want the government to be able to get involved.
10) People who always claim what any intelligent loving God with the Three Os should be thinking: seriously, do you think we know the mind of God so well that we believe that this universe is the first? The last? The most recent? We know not the mind of God and the best we can do is attempt to live up to his expectations of us. It is the movement towards perfection. It is the journey and not the destination.
I am currently rereading Peter Hitchen’s book for a class I am taking this spring sem. Something I really miss about Christopher Hitchens is that every once and awhile, he would get so into thinking through his own points that he wouldn’t look at his own worldview to make sure it jived. I recommend you take a page from Hitchens book and try to look up apples to apples at Theism and Atheism. Also watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFCajfOJppI&feature=player_embedded
“The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
– Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1978
Simon Ganfield, Methodist Christian, Leeds
TLC –
yerba mate, drunk the traditional way using a gourd or similar plus a bombilla that everyone shares, one after another :-) (including by conservative and terminally uncool fogies of all ages)
(and it tastes good, too. Not that I wouldn’t often happily swap for a joint, though)
simonganfieldchristian:
TL : DR
It is a twelve point teal deer.
OpposableThumbs: Interesting, my brother is into that yerba mate stuff.
Finally got ahold of a dealer. My pot should be here shortly. And I put in my order for my cold steel trail hawk.
Hello Simon.
Please go fuck yourself.
Seriously, do you really think you’re going to say something we haven’t heard? Do you really think you’re going to change any minds here? If you do, then you’re dumber than I originally thought.
Really, no one wants to read your long, idiotic rant. No one here cares what you have to say (if they do, it’s probably just because they need a good laugh).
Obviously we’ve been on your mind a lot though, so maybe you’re a little shaky in your faith? I don’t know. What I do know is this: you can fuck off now.
I’m ignoring the “tl;dr”, but I have to ask:
… do you like to make drawings?
Although, maybe I should read a bit of simonherpderp’s long ass post. It might give me some examples of religious privilege for my Freethinkers meeting tonight (though I’m sure if it does it’s not intentional; I doubt s/he understands what religious privilege is).
Starstuff: This simon guy actually makes me me want to warm up more to James Michaels in the future, oddly enough.
Imagine if this blustering, bullying, self-righteous, long-winded asshole considered himself your ‘friend’ in real life- James Michaels needs all the support he can get.
James Michaels: If you see this, know that I and most of TET are here for you if you ever need to talk.
Thanks for the linked post, SC – a revealing collection of inter-connecting right-wing groups, including, I see, our old friend the Templeton Foundaiton.
Agreed. Especially in the Internet age, it’s a completely useless and anachronistic form of regulation. (I don’t have time to expand further as I have to go to class, but I will later.)
This is the deal, you make this argument and one can call you a supporting of Fransisco Franco and every other dictator who had the blessing of the Vatican.
Dear James: I offer you my sympathies for having to deal with this Simon person. Please enjoy this scotch-soaked chocolate cake which I am shoving through the USB port towards your computer.
Agreed, TLC. That sounds just awful.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/santorum-obamas-college-reforms-part-of-indoctrination-plot/
I have not said a word about James Michaels nor did I take part in any of the debates when he showed up. But count me as an other person who is impressed that he had the integrity to examine his faith, especial with friends like Simon around.
I do hope he can make a better class of friends and he feels better about himself.
simonganfieldchristian
You could try again, one topic at a time.
In case you do, learn this:
<blockquote>copypaste the stuff you’re quoting</blockquote>
Will result in this
and people may be more willing to read it.
Even if it is the same boring shite we’ve heard 1000+ times.
Simon the Christian bore,
I didn’t read most of your verbal diarrhoea, but this lie caught the eye:
Look, liar, if you care to look around Pharyngula, you’ll see that no-one’s opinions are given a free ride, including the blog owner, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, whoever. Everyone gets criticised. Science is respected, not venerated – but of course, you’re far too stupid to see the difference. If it was “venerated”, that would mean failing to recognise that science is a collection of useful but fallible methods, carried out by fallible people and leading to fallible conclusions. As for the last sentence I quote, what the fuck is it even supposed to mean?
I’m pleased to hear that James has woken from his religious trance – and maybe we played a part in that.
HOLY CRAP, DUDE THROW THE CROWN AWAY NOW!
No, it’s simply a barefaced lie. Come on, liar, quote where anything even resembling that is said on this blog.
All over you evil atheists who joke about feasting on babies.
An Oklahoma State Senator is on to you.
Yes, it is a bill to ban the use of fetuses in the food industry.
I fucking hate it when Onion headlines are true.
Really, can’t you do better than that? Look, moron, the question is not whether Marxism entails atheism; it’s whether atheism entails Marxism (let alone Maoism). It doesn’t.
janine makes a good point.
Almost all of those who voted for Hitler, and carried out his programme of war and genocide, were Christians. The Pope signed a concordat with him, following up the one he signed with Mussolini, which established the Vatican City State – the only fascist-established political entity that has survived continuously from that time. The Catholic Centre Party gave Hitler the votes he needed in the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act which made him dictator, above the law. Hitler chose Monsignor Tiso, a Catholic priest, to head the puppet government of Slovakia. The atorcities of the Catholic Croatian Ustashe, which Hitler placed in charge of that puppet state, are said to have made hardened SS officers sick. None of the Nazi leaders who were Catholics were excommunicated for their crimes, nor did the Pope ever call for resistance, active or passive, against the Nazis or Italian fascists. The Lutheran Church, with a few honourable exceptions, made no resistance. Hitler, indeed, greatly admired Luther, author of On the Jews and their Lies, in which he advocated many of the antisemitic measures enacted by the Nazis. It is, indeed, impossible to understand the Holocaust other than as the culmination of two millennia of Christian antisemitism.
‘Nother break between thunderstorms/tornado watches.
Another one for the file of intervening:
My partner told me about breaking up a fight in a parking lot last night. Two good ol’ boys cornered this woman and were screaming and threatening her; apparently she was a transwoman, from the slurs they used. Xe pointed out the security cameras and warned that xe’d call the police. The guys yelled slurs at my friend for a bit, then drove off. Xe asked the woman if she needed help, but she said no, took a few minutes to calm down and then left.
I should point out that while I call my partner “xe” as preferred, xe doesn’t LOOK ambiguous so xe wasn’t taking as big a risk in challenging gender-bigots as someone less conventional would. As for myself, I look ambiguous sometimes, but I give off a much more don’t-fuck-with-me vibe.
Meta note: I’m not posting these for accolades or anything, just to show a) what intervening looks like and b) that it happens all the time. This is because, back in fall, people asked me how the heck I found so many chances to help others. I really don’t think there’s anything special about ME, unless I’m just not editing it out of my consciousness when someone looks to need help.
One for all history buffs and SF/Fantasy fans – http://squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html (Never mind the Dr Who dissing at the beginning, it gets MUCH better.)
KG:
This is also someone who said (and I quote)
Logic apparently isn’t one of his strong suits.
Richard Austin: OOOOH I can play too!
All humans have thumbs. A bat has thumbs. Therefore a bat is a kind of human.
Re Simon: it’s a nice change to see a christian who can spell and use grammar. Well done.
Otherwise, *yawn*. A pretty standard mix of bullshit and lies; and on a blog comment, it’s far too long to be useful for discussion. Of course, no single one of those points is defensible. You may seem like you’re getting away with it by spewing so many, but the Gish Gallop doesn’t work so well in writing.
I’ll just do the self-refuting one: seriously, do you think we know the mind of God so well that we somehow know that the best we can do is attempt to live up to his expectations of us? (And what those expectations even are?) Seriously, do you think we know the mind of God so well that we somehow know that it is the movement towards perfection? Seriously, do you think we know the mind of God so well that we somehow know that it is the journey and not the destination?
No-one can know the mind of god, but I can tell you what he wants? Seriously, dude, learn to logic.
The only way you can “know the mind of god” enough to know those things is that you made him up. Authors know the minds of their characters.
Over on A Bad Case Of The Dates there was a story about a woman whose date got drunk and threatening and followed her out of the bar. She was able to catch a cab and get away because a complete stranger outside the bar saw what was going on, threw his arm around the drunk date’s shoulders, yelled “Buddy! How ya BEEN?” and distracted hm while she made her escape :)
Simon, all that time you spent typing out that wickerwork of strawmen, logical fallacies, and disinformation could have been spent doing something less harmful, like literal masturbation.
Also, I’d like to add my plaudit to the pile for James Michael for trying to seek out friends with a higher S/N ratio.
Janine, #473: I saw that headline this morning. It inspired me to fire up Photoshop.
I think the legislator in question must be a fan of Jill Stanek.
Unrelatedly, I am told that this photo appeared in last week’s Economist with the caption “Apparently it’s called a job application”.
<a href="http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-01-26/news/victoria-jackson-s-excellent-tea-party-adventure/So begins a look at inane insanity.
I borked that one. The link still works though.
Ms. Daisy Cutter, you are a sick and extremely wrong woman.
I like it!
Gosh, I don’t know what’s wrong with all of you. A 15-page screed on Christianity and Conservatism is something COMPLETELY NOVEL to me and Simon’s comprehensive, totally original and not at all tediously parroted arguments have shown me the error of my ways.
Yea, I renounce the false atheist religion, because one schmuck with a dubious understanding of comment threads has completely upturned my political and philosophical ideals and shown me the light!
Simon Ganfield, Methodist, Leeds: What you have written is largely superfluous. If there is no good reason to believe that the God of Moses exists*, there is no good reason that the Laws of Moses hold a special place in governance here and now.
*There isn’t a good reason…but you’ll have to excuse my slavish devotion to Reason. See, I’ve joined the Cult of Reason.
1) About morality existing before religion: If you define religion as the establishment of morality by laws, which you seem to, your point is trivial. I think that many people here regard morality as a set of behavioral norms that promote the quality of human interaction. In this regard, morality is certainly prehistoric (and pre-lingual) and had its origins in the norms exhibited by non-human ancestors.
2) Your argument in summary: “We punish people for wrongdoing! What’s wrong with religious proscription against wrongdoing?” Your abstruse examples non-withstanding, what constitutes “wrong-doing” isn’t really well agreed upon in all instances, is it? That’s the rub. Yeah, poisoning people is bad. Adultery is bad. This is because they represent a threat to other people in general. Having other gods before you doesn’t. Making graven images doesn’t. Breaking the Sabbath doesn’t. Covetousness doesn’t. Homosexuality and pre-marital sex don’t. Birth-control doesn’t. When deciding on what constitutes wrong-doing in a society that we share (if we were to share one), we can’t rely on revealed knowledge that isn’t accessible to just you. We need other standards.
3) Limited and personal secularism existed in the time of Bacon. Important thinkers were churchmen. Yes? Yes? What is your point?
4) If Tacitus wrote “I saw the risen Jesus with my own eyes”, that would still be very poor evidence for an event that goes against everything we know of human physiology. It wouldn’t explain anything. If I saw the risen Jesus with my own eyes, following your churchman, William of Occam, I would be forced to conclude that I was delusional. It requires fewer ad hoc assumptions than an actual resurrection.
5) Lots of factors contributed to the Dark Ages, the decimation of the populace due to disease being foremost. The only institution that weathered the dark ages was the church. Is it such a surprise to see that it was involved in picking up the pieces? For Jehovah’s sake, it was the only player left on the field. So what’s your point?
6)
So, Marxist Communism can’t be all bad, is what I read from this.
More importantly, where are you getting this “Atheism” with a capital “A”? As it turns out, I didn’t receive the manifesto with my decoder pin. Unlike, let’s say, religion we have no official dogma. We don’t have a leader. We don’t have a founding covenant or document or scripture that got the ball rolling. I have to admit that your “Cult of Reason” elicited a snigger from me. That’s like having a Cult of Tolerance. Or a Cult of Good Hygiene. What is so objectionable about reason that one should avoid devotion to it? Those who object to reason find themselves in a ticklish pickle when ensconced in argument.
7) Oh. I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that the church was so benevolent to Galileo. I hope they bury me someplace nice too. That would certainly make up for an indefinite period of house arrest. Shit. I wouldn’t even need an apology.
8) Lol wut?
9)
^This is built into our constitution.
Not at all. No one here would espouse that.
10)
See my earlier guffaw about the Cult of Reason, and your curious non-membership.
& cetera:
This may explain some things. What on earth are you studying?
You offered:
Oh. A quote duel
When asked what characteristics Nobel prize winners had in common, Enrico Fermi answered, “I cannot think of a single one, not even intelligence.”
But that was, like, just his opinion, man.
*Cult of Reason*
Joe.My.God. made use of this for the fetus as food story.
The best we can do is act randomly and hope it lines up with the thoughts of a mad man?
James, if you’re reading, I offer my sympathies as well in having to deal with Simon. You have integrity and intellectual honesty. Simon has flights of fancy.
Janine, you are making me blush. Forrealz. Thank you!
Jesus fucking Christ, Simon. I only got about halfway through your essay before I gave up.
Here’s my question (and it’s an easy one): why the fuck do you assume that we care about what you have to say?
Here’s a pro-tip to take to heart: I personally don’t give a flying pig fuck about how awesome you think religion is. And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that I’m not the only one.
No fetus tonight in my coffee
No fetus tonight in my tea
No fetus to stand beside me
No fetus to run with me
I am very sorry. Please, please, please forgive me.
A story for Pteryxx and paleontology/dino fans
Archaeopteryx had black adorned feathers
Janine:
I LOL’ed.
I stole this one from dK.
Fetuses tend to be over salted. It is not like you can make beef (baby) jerky out of it.
Oh, man, the JoeMyGod thread is full of awesome.
Précis in four powerpoint-friendly bullet points:
* J thought shit
* I thought shit, too, and egged him on
* J got a dose of reality
* I’m pissed
Reasonable?
It’s called honesty, kid.