This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
What is that?
chigau (違う)
Crabby
First thing to say is that, the campaign has already had profound effects – hundreds of thousands of people registering to vote, with registration now estimated at 97% of those eligible, and a turnout well over 80% predicted. Politics has become a daily topic of conversation for many people who had never taken any interest – particularly among the poor. I’m not sure anyone expected this.
About the nationalism? Not at all, I’d say, on the “Yes” side. Having lived here 16 years, I can confidently say the desire for independence has very little to do with antipathy to the English; rather, it’s mostly antipathy to Thatcherism and more generally, Westminster rule in the interests of the City of London, which is shared by many in rUK*. The SNP (I’m not a member or supporter) is very much a civic not an ethnic nationalist party**: there are Asian and gay SNP MSPs (and one from France, who I happen to know from Aberdeen CND). There’s an “English Scots for Yes” – I wear the badge, although I admit I don’t even know if it has meetings – and about 1/4 of those living in Scotland but born elsewhere in the UK are expected to vote “Yes”. I’ve been canvassing for RIC (Radical Independence Campaign) and have come across no anti-English feeling – but I suppose it might be different if I was campaigning for “No”!
Oddly, those in the UK who raise the spectre of nationalism completely overlook that there’s also a British nationalism involved in the issue. A few days ago there was an Orange Order march through Edinburgh – to give them credit, the main “No” organisation wanted nothing to do with it; but more generally, the only positive arguments “No” came up with, other than a panicky last-ditch promise of more devolution if there’s a “No” vote, were in effect British nationalist (or patriotic, if you want a softer term) tropes about how wonderful our democracy is, look how well we did in the Olympics, we saved the world from Hitler, blah, blah, blah…
A “Yes” vote will undoubtedly have profound consequences beyond Scotland or even the UK: both the EU and NATO would be heavily involved in the subsequent political struggles. i’ll write more about that tomorrow (or Saturday) if we win! A narrow “No” would still leave London-based politicians with the need for some high-class backpedaling, to get out of their “vow” to transfer major new powers. Whichever side loses will obviously feel bad about it, but I think in different ways: the “No”s will be anxious, angry or both, while the “Yes” side would lose a lot of people to returning political apathy and hopelessness after feeling, for a while, that they had a say in their future.
As to the result: a couple of weeks ago I was pretty sure it would be “No”, a week ago I thought it would probably be “Yes”, now I’m slightly leaning to “No” again: recent polls consistently show a small lead for “No”. They could all be wrong, and polling for a unique vote is always tricky, but of course they could have got it wrong in either direction. Some in the “Yes” camp mutter darkly about deliberate bias, but the polling companies need a reputation for accuracy. FWIW, bets placed with bookmakers also favour “No”.
*One of the “No” arguments from those sections of the left opposed to independence is that we shouldn’t desert those in the rUK who share our politics. But a neighbouring example of an alternative to oligarchy – if we can construct one – would be an enormous boost to their cause.
**This was not always so: there’s a murky history of Scottish nationalists of the 1930s and 40s supporting fascism.
I’m so glad i’m not an atheist.
Atheism is a bleak concept backed up by little science
Many atheists have been programmed to think a certain way
::hurl::
I just find it really odd that my daughter might lose one of her passports tonight and her mom isn’t even allowed to vote on it (they both live in Switzerland)! I’m a bit worried about the travel logistics if there’s a yes vote and Scotland can’t join the EU for a while.
On the one hand Czechoslovakia didn’t have too many problems breaking apart; on the other hand, Yugoslavia. What with other situations like Catalunya (or Flanders vs. Wallonia), the situation does raise a really interesting question: what’s a country for? What’s the right size?
As a Catholic from Glasgow obviously my initial though was to vote yes for independance but i’ve realised I have more respect for the unionist/orange types than the secular/liberal elite bully types who have hijacked the yes movement, so it is a no vote from me and lets face, no will win, everyone knows that
#4 II II:
You’re absolutely right. In fact, it about time to refresh my programinnasdfa;lkdnf sERROR ERROR ERROR RESTART RESTART
(in other words, you’re a knucklehead)
Adults only please Derek
Hm, wasn’t there an early version of the national anthem that disrespected the Scots? Considering the tradition of marginalising minorities, I am surprised Thatcher did not re-introduce that version.
— — — —
BTW, which party will be representing a new, grassroots vision for the people of Scotland after the independence is achieved? Not labour, and SNP is focused on independence but maybe not much more. I am concerned that the desire for change will run out of steam once Scotland is independent.
That’s exactly the reply your post #4 deserved. Write like an adult, I’ll reply like an adult. Write like a dope, and you’ll be mocked.
You seem like a dope yourself Des
Re@ 4:
Reality is bleak. There is no Santa Claus. On the other hand , there is no hell, and no gods with arbitrary decrees. The universe is not actively hostile, merely uncaring.
#10: birgerjohansson
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save The King.
Apparently started in the 1740’s and was never an ‘official’ verse (and indeed the Scots had a mirror version).
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
birger – how do you know?
Derek, Iit is a pity Spitting Image did not do a version of that verse!
I get visions of Jeremy Thorpe and Thatcher stomping on Scotsmen with jackboots.
(You may recall the version they made of that religious hymn: “…till we have built Jerusalem,
and made it look like Milton Keynes”)
II II represents the intellectual calibre of the “no” campaign pretty accurately.
nick – you seem to represent to putdown culture of the yes campaign, you are losing btw?
My favorite bit with Rule Brittania is how we trolled the UK and turned it into an American patriotic song as well. Never really got into Spitting Image – I moved to Holland from the US in ’94, so most of the issues they talked about were, well, foreign to me…
That’s always a good thing, although as you said it may not last long if the “No” vote wins.
Thanks for the rest, too. A lot of that confirms what I had gathered in bits and pieces elsewhere. I’ll be cautiously optimistic.
I’m trying to picture a US election with 80% turnout. I can’t even grasp it.
Adam Lee on Dawkins:
Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery.
Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us. If the atheist movement is going to thrive and make a difference in our society, it needs to grow beyond its largely older, largely male, largely white roots. Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about.
In the long run, however, the reputation Dawkins will damage the most is his own.
@drst: Look up “the Battle of Aspen” on Wiki to get a possible idea.
Why? Do you have any reason to be glad that you believe in a cosmic tyrant with magical powers?
That’s better than being refuted by a lot of science. And I don’t find it bleak at all.
Meanwhile, other atheists have been programmed to think a different way.
News at 11.
consciousness razor – the but where you imply atheism is a positive, is certainly true for some people yes
News at 12.
Also true: gods don’t exist.
How you feel about that fact? Well, whatever that feeling is, you’ve given me no reason to care. Is there going to be a more general trend of you saying lots and lots of unreasonable shit endlessly? Because I’m preparing myself for a lot of incoming stupidity.
US Presidential elections had turnout in the 70 – 80% range between 1840 and 1890. That’s something, I guess.
Interesting! According to wikipedia, at least in the 2008 election there was a direct relationship between income and voter turnout – the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote.
The turnout could also have a lot to do with people’s perception of the impact of their vote and the importance of the issue – there’s a lot of folks in the States who figure their vote doesn’t count or that there’s little enough difference between the two parties to make it not matter.
Re. @ 16
Although I was not personally present during the Big Bang, we can -just like CSI- work out what happened. No divine interventions necessary.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Scandinavia is quite empty of the Aesir and Vanir. Not even Israel/Palestine can provide TV coverage of El/Jahwe doing direct interventions, not a burning bush nor stone tablets materialising. Japan has no current sightings of the Shinto gods. For powerful entities, they seem curiously powerless.
Derek @28
Of course people with more money vote. They’re the ones who can get out of work early or be late coming in so they can go to the polls, who can afford child care and transportation to polling places, who know they have all the required ID so they’re not afraid of being turned away, who aren’t disenfranchised by criminal convictions, who don’t have mobility and literacy obstacles when voting, who have time to read up on issues and prepare for voting, etc. Then there’s the entitlement factor, rich people voting because they feel it’s their right to make choices about how the world is run, since after all they’re rich so they must deserve it.
(Why yes I have some significantly Marxist tendencies, why do you ask.)
Oh, sure – and they have more of a vested interest (consciously or unconsciously) to maintain the status quo. I was just surprised at how direct the correlation was.
(link, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#mediaviewer/File:Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png)
Derek Vandivere @6:
As small as possible.
ll ll, #4/7
We see you trolling
We hating, patrolling the thread to say you’re typing dirty
It’s difficult to compare current election turn-outs with the past, because in the past.
1. Women couldn’t vote (it is STILL less than 100 years since women got the right to vote)
2. Blacks and other minorities were systematically (and quasi-legally) disenfranchised.
3. Voting was something that white male property owners “did” to protect their position at the apex of the privilege pyramid.
That certainly seems to be the trend – but that does lead to a lot of issues. Smaller population base means it’s a lot more difficult to manage a national economy and do things like big infrastructure projects. I suspect it would also lead to the death of multiculturalism, as the ‘natural’ size for a country might end up being ethnic group.
Here in Europe, I suspect we’ll end up with more countries and a stronger federated system in the next several decades, but that may just be because I’m an American and that’s the system I grew up in.
Interesting times, anyway.
II II @4
Oh for pity’s sake.
Everyone’s raised in some sort of way that frames their thinking, whether that lasts or not. “Bleak” can be applied to a helluva lot of religious teaching, too. It isn’t a given for either set of beliefs (or non-beliefs, whichever way people frame it).
NB I’m not atheist either, but oy, you’re talking twaddle here.
ll ll #4
The bleakness or non-bleakness of a world-view has nothing to do with its truth-content.
It is, indeed, notoriously hard to prove a negative. Perhaps you’d like to discuss the heaps of evidence you presumably have in support of your positive claim?
How many, who are they, and what is this “certain way”?
Re. @ 29
This depends on what you regard as extraordinary. Most people say they have experienced believe in a soul. In that sense, it is ordinary. The claim that most people are deludedextraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?”
The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared). lol
daz – you are obviously not the sharpest tool in the box but negatives are proved all the time, it is not difficult expect for atheists
II II @4 – BLEAK? read the book of Jeremiah, for cryin’ out loud!!
Theist also, btw. And I can’t finish that book at all – it’s too depressing. Jeremiah didn’t just have a bleak book, he had a bleak damn life.
I can find problems with atheism, but I’m certainly not going to deny that some people need to be at peace in a secular life that’s far LESS bleak than their experience with religion. Religion is not the answer for everybody. I’ll probably go to hell for that one, but I’ll leave that between me and big G.
That big-bang stuff is such clap-trap!
A world from nothing is utter crap!
It makes much more sense that a gert big chap
Said some magic words, made a finger-snap,
And the world appeared, in a lightning-zap,
From nothing.
Infinite regression, a fun game for all the family.
ll ll @ 39
The evidence for that is all of reality behaving as though there are no gods.
ll ll #40
Look, old chap, you’re the one making a positive claim; that a god exists. I’m assuming that you make further claims dependent from that: that a particular book contains the received wisdom of and some proclamations from this god; that your interpretation of this book is reasonably accurate, and that the god in question is a morally good being who is worthy of our obedience.
So. Evidence please.
Most people say they have experienced believe in a soul. In that sense, it is ordinary. The claim that most people are deludedextraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?”At the tale of the the claim, show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity (which is a delusion if not real), evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush.
No physical evidence, no deity, believing in deities is delusion. QED.
Dang, borked the blockquotes for #45. It should read:
At the tale of the claim, show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity (which is a delusion if not real), evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush.
No physical evidence, no deity, believing in deities is delusion. QED.
#44 / Daz: If ii ii can’t even write a proper English sentence, I doubt he’ll understand logic.
Oh yeah, and before 1865…well…you know…the people who owned people wouldn’t let the people that they owned vote. Funny that.
What the fuck are you saying? Use English, or at least comprehensible grammar in any natural language you like.
They experienced a belief in a soul? Or do they have some experience of souleyness? Or is it detecting souls/ghosts/spirits/etc. through ordinary sensory experiences? Or something else?
We’ll get to talking about the plausibility of various explanations of the phenomenon, as soon as you can say clear what exactly it is that we’re supposed to explain. Right now, you’re talking about nothing.
In any case, we have plenty of physics which already shows no supernatural funny business is happening inside of people’s brains. This was old fucking news a hundred years ago. If souls (or any supernatural entities) have any interaction whatsoever with brains (or any part of the universe), we must have already have seen that physical evidence. But there is no such evidence. This is not merely a “negative” proposition floating around in ideological space, which can’t be touched no matter how hard anybody tries. They’re a real thing which supposedly does real stuff in reality. We’ve looked and haven’t found them. So they aren’t there, which means they don’t exist.Tell us to look for something else, in some other place, and we’ll look for that.
There’s absolutely no reason to believe the Big Bang is a violation of the conservation laws. Physicists aren’t complete fucking idiots and trolls, unlike people like you. But I will make a note of ignorance and pretensions and general unreasonableness. It helps your “cause” (whatever the fuck you think that is) a whole lot. I’m sure you can be very glad that the situation isn’t too bleak, with people like you fighting so desperately for it.
A Fundamentalist Mormon Was Allowed to Keep Silent About Child Labor Violations Due to (Wait For It…) Hobby Lobby
II II, #40,
Ffffff… blockquote will be the death of me
I’m going to cut you a little slack because thinking is not your first language.
ll ll @39:
In general relativity, that depends on how you define ‘energy’ and ‘conservation’, which is not as obvious as it is in classical or quantum physics. Plenty of cosmologists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have no problem saying energy is not conserved in general relativity.
@ II II
I have sitting next to me a cat. It is a friendly cat, very fat, playful, lazy …. but I don’t want to tell you about that cat. I want to tell you about my Imaginary Cat ™ . My Imaginary Cat ™ is a friendly cat, very fat, playful, lazy… I know so much about my Imaginary Cat ™ even though I can’t see Her. I know all these things because I believe in Her. And I have evidence too: She is a cat!
You cannot prove my Imaginary Cat ™ doesn’t exist, even though “negatives are proved all the time”.
Therefore QED, my Imaginary Cat ™ is real. Now join me in worshipping Her Feline Loveliness.
‘rupt
No wi fi
How are things?
Obviously, belief in a soul is quite ordinary. People interpreting entirely mundane experiences as proof of a soul is likewise quite ordinary. However actual evidence of a soul is nowhere to be found, and that’s the part that’s actually relevant.
Beatrice
See, this is bullshit. There’s absolutely no bloody excuse for not having civic wifi in this day and age. Yes, I know, I know, hardly anywhere actually does, but that doesn’t mean they’ve got a valid excuse for it.
Since gaming came up again, I’d like to amend and reiterate my argument:
1. Hardcore gamers, aka people who have knowledge of gaming history and industry as opposed to merely playing the latest title, are less sexist than casual gamers or fanbois.
2. Experience and knowledge is built over time. That means you’re more likely to find hardcore gamers among older gamers.
Please tell me if it’s still stupid.
rq (from previous thread)
Get the full image here. Download it if it’s still not showing in full.
Beatrice
Things are bad. Dawkings went full frontal misogynist and others have joined him.
Has anyone read IQ84 by Haruki Murakami? I’m not much into dystopian novels, but this looked interesting.
Iyéska #61
No, but someone was really bending my arm about “You just have to read this,” the other day, so it’s on the Ever-Growing Reading List.
Daz @ 62, ah, thanks. I have the book, came across it in a thrift/charity shop yesterday, so it will get read at some point. I will say it’s a lot of dystopian novel, at 924 pages.
Iyéska #63
Yeesh! is that just Book 1, or an omnibus?
@39 II II…
So sorry, old chap. Your understanding of physics is … well … abominable.
1. The total energy of the universe is increasing as the universe expands. That’s what all the “dark energy” thing is about. Discovered in 1998, resulting in a 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. Do try to keep up.
2. With the confirmation of the Higgs boson (and the Higgs field), the standard model of particle physics is complete. And according to the standard model of particle physics, there can be no such thing as “the soul”.
If there were such a thing, it would be detectable (and already detected). We have detected all of the fields and particles that interact with “normal” matter (you and me). Nothing that interacts with “normal” matter (you and me) can escape the laws of physics–a supernatural thing in order to interact with “normal” matter (you and me) would of necessity have to be detectable. So you don’t get that ‘out’.
The “soul” is completely missing, and there is not even a way that you can hypothetically resurrect it without overturning the standard model of particle physics. Trust me, scientists would be jumping all over themselves to win the Nobel Prize if they could find the thing. Absence of evidence in this case is evidence of its absence.
My prediction: You will now say something even more bizarrely wrong about a scientific subject you obviously have not studied even to the level of “interested layperson”.
Daz @ 64:
Just the one book. I found the hardcover at a Goodwill, and way happy to pay 6 dollars as opposed to 30 dollars, but yeah, the book is huge. Something I’d much rather read electronically, but…I’ve set it out as a ‘recliner’ book.
I did finally get enough sense to look at my library thing, and there are 180 reviews of the book there, most of which seem to be positive.
From an email I just got at work about the requirement for employees to get their flu vaccines:
Firstly, of course that’s harmful bullshit.
But second: How, I wonder, will they assess someone’s claim that it’s against their religion? The preceding two pages of the email talked about the importance of getting the shot and how awesome it is, so surely they won’t take people claiming exemptions lightly and will want to make sure the claims really are true. In other words, they won’t just take my word for it that I have had Guillain-Barre.
Iyéska
Oooooooh! I love dystopians. I’ll add that to my list. It coincides well with my lounge discussion of another dystopian that failed world building badly while being set in China. (You’ve actually read and mentioned it previously but I haven’t said the name or author since I’ll be reviewing it under another nym shortly)
Of course, I’ve since realized that my reading list has several Japanese books but nothing else set in other Asian countries so I’m still looking out for others to broaden my reading experience in that regard, if anyone has any suggestions.
I shall never eat haggis again.
Given that, as far as I know, I’ve never eaten haggis I think I can reliably maintain this stricture.
I worked on a ward that had a young man, late 20s, that had Guillain-Barre. The first days he could walk with minimal help. A few days later, he couldn’t. The paralysis advanced up his body until he needed a respirator to breath for him. And then the paralysis slowly receded. When they wheeled him out he was just starting to walk again.
Talk was that this case was linked to nothing in particular. This was in the 90s and the doctors seemed to know little about the cause/s. The one thing they knew was that the general course was that the paralysis would rise, and if he didn’t die, odds are it would recede. They kept telling him that many patients returned to something resembling their previous normal. The nurses, while presenting an optimistic front, were concerned about the odds of life-long disabilities remaining in a man so young and active.
It struck me that this young, active and athletic man experienced this slow-motion tide that came from nowhere and then slowly went away. The treatment was supportive. In other words, to hunker down and hang on, and hope things didn’t get too bad, until the disease passed. No wonder people take up belief in the supernatural.
JAL
You might try the Detective Inspector Chen novels, starting with Snake Agent, by Liz Williams set in ‘Singapore 3’, the title character is the Singapore PD’s detective for crimes involving demons and magic. Kylie Chen’s linked series Dark Heavens and Journey to Wudang take place in a fantastic modern day Hong Kong, with over the top martial arts, demons, gods, and immortals. I’d also recommend finding a translation of Journey to the West
Moving over to India:
Alan Dean Foster’s Sagramanda takes place in a cyberpunkish near-future India, while S.M. Stirling’s The Peshawar Lancers is set in an alternate history where a 19th century cometary impact devastated the Northern Hemisphere, particularly the Atlantic, and the remnants of the British Empire are now just one more caste (albeit a high-ranking one) in an India like and unlike the one we know. The Detective Joe Sandilands series, from The Last Kashmiri Rose through The Bee’s Kiss take place in India in the 1920s in the last days of the Raj. Ashok K Banker did a very nice version of the Ramayan.
More as I think of them, there’s a couple others that are tickling my brain, but not coming up right now.
JAL @ 68, you mean the Lunar Cycle stories by Marissa Meyer? I thought those stories were good, and I’ve come to keep my disappointment regarding world building limited when it comes to new authors. I tend to do a ‘wait and see’ thing. Not always though – if my complimentary copy of The Hunger Games hadn’t been digital, I would have tossed it out a window.
Those who are adept at world building, like N.K. Jemisin or Max Gladstone, get insta-love.
Iyéska
Ah, but I’ve read all three books so no pass from me. Subsequent books just really add “Africa’s a wild, uncivilized place” in spades and generic farm town in France with just as little descriptions but it’s not as problematic as her treatment of New Beijing.
I thought the stories were good too but the world building was lacking until I started thinking and reading about it more (Chinese reviewers mostly) and then I just got really mad.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy
Thank you!
Oh duh, meant to link: Review One and Review Two. The second one goes in depth with the honorific issues but I feel differently on other parts of the book.
My sister just told me to add her thumbs-up for this series.
Has anyone read IQ84 by Haruki Murakami?
I have. But I wouldn’t really call it dystopian. It’s set in an alternate universe, sort of? (I mean it is, but it’s not the wacky, everything’s different! kind, it’s… subtle, and psychological as much as anything). I’ve read most of his novels, and I’d put this one in the middle of the pack. He’s an author with a definite set of themes, and some of them are included here in a way that gave me the impression of “working through” the treatment he gave them (the themes) in earlier work, especially Kafka on the Shore. If you’ve read other Murakami and you liked it, I’d recommend it. But, partly due to the length, and it being somewhat methodical in execution, it wouldn’t be my recommendation for the place to start.
The Wind-up Bird Chronicle is by far his best novel, IMO. Mind-altering.
Relating to the various threads on misogyny in gaming, I wonder what ridiculous mental gymnastics the gamerbros will go into to try to explain how the character of Quiet from the forthcoming Metal Gear Solid 5 game is totes not sexist at all.
As you can see from the latest trailer (this is a youtube video and the comments are pretty much what you would expect from youtube; only read them at your own risk to your faith in humanity), the latest style for women in combat zones isn’t anything so boringly practical and potentially life saving as body armour or conventional camoflage, but rather a bikini paired with ripped tights. Don’t worry about camoflage issues though, because she can turn invisible, which I imagine might be handy, but doesn’t explain the weirdly sexualised character design at all.
Kojima is a repeat offender when it comes to this kind of thing, and this is just another example of gross and uneccessary sexualisation within gaming that proves Anita Sarkeesian’s point.
*raises hand*
I read 1Q84, in the complete-trilogy edition (so, as one book). Quite hefty, but the individual books are, if I remember correctly, much shorter.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it dystopian as such – it’s simply a slightly alternate universe, with… some weirdness(es). Also, I would warn in advance for, basically, child rape and cult practices as plot points.
It was an engaging read, and I’ve been meaning to read more by the same author (ah, time, where are you?). I did get a profound sense of loneliness from the book(s). I’m not sure how else to describe them, without revealing too much about the story. I liked the characters and I liked the writing, even though it was a slow(ish) pace for someone who likes to read fast. Worth it, though.
The ending left me somewhat unsatisfied, though. It’s a perfectly fine ending, but with a slight feeling of incompleteness. That might vary from person to person, though.
Anyway, yes. It’s a good one.
AlexanderZ @ 60
I don’t see the actual argument? What is your reason for thinking that hardcore gamers would be less sexist?
Iyéska #61
I’ve read it recently (all three books). I think the categorization of dystopia is a bit misleading. I’d consider it more as magical realism; people being put into a world where the rules are slightly different and trying to cope with that.
It’s rather difficult to describe the whole thing. The main point is that it’s a strange set of circumstances as viewed by a set of characters. I found it quite interesting, but difficult to recommend because it’s frankly a bit weird and rather aimless. It doesn’t have a clear purpose or meaning, as far as I can tell. You could read a lot into it, but I’m not sure if all those meanings were intended.
That said, I enjoyed reading it, so take that for what it’s worth.
@Rossignol
It was in last Thunderdome, comments 375 to 472
rq #78
I can see that. One of the themes of the book(s) is how people connect with each other and understand what other people are all about. The point of the Town of Cats seems to be alienation and similarly Tengo’s relatioship with his father. Also, we never actually get inside the sakigake compound. Everything we learn is from people telling us about it from the outside. As such, we’re always at a distance.
LykeX #80:
Your second paragraph is a fair summary of Murakami’s entire body of work. It’s not going to make any back-cover blurbs, but I think “frankly a bit weird and rather aimless” says it quite well. As long as “aimless” is taken in the best possible sense, like a meandering stroll on a lazy afternoon through an overgrown and abandoned garden, or something. Not pointless, just not obviously goal-oriented.
Thank you, everyone!
soogeeoh #81:
I read the thread and I still don’t see any actual argument or evidence. Just an assertion that hardcore gamers, the real ones, the REALLY REAL FOR REAL ONES are not sexist, it’s just all those loud young’ns (who are obviously too young to be REAL HARDCORE GAMERS.)
SURVEY! Gender diversity in gaming!! Gamers and developers participate! (Crossposting to Lounge.)
From the CBC
“I have had a lot of Liberals come up to me and say, ‘I don’t quite understand, isn’t the Liberal party about freedom and about defending people’s rights?'” Trudeau said in an interview with CBC’s The Sunday Edition with Michael Enright.
“Absolutely it is. And the rights that women have fought for over decades to be in control of their own bodies and to control their own reproductive health is not a right I’m going to brush aside to defend the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote a particular way for an MP.”
Trudeau has said that any Liberal MP, regardless of their personal beliefs, would have to vote against any proposed legislation that could limit a woman’s right to an abortion.
“If they vote in favour of restricting women’s access to abortion, that’s taking away their rights. And that is something that we will not accept in the Liberal party. We are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that’s a serious, serious position that Liberals have to defend.
“It’s time the Liberal party actually defended rights,” he said.
Asked if his pro-choice policy would essentially kiss off the Catholic vote, Trudeau said that he too is Catholic, and that lots of Catholics were upset when previous Liberal governments legalized divorce and decriminalized homosexuality.
(and on Twitter from CBC)
Justin Trudeau, MP ✔ @JustinTrudeau
The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights.
4:26 PM – 18 Sep 2014”
CJO @ 76, special thanks for the mini-rundown on Murakami. I have not read this author before, so I’ll read one of the other works before tackling IQ84.
I’ve just set up a Society6 page to sell my art prints. There’s not much on there yet, but hopefully it will reap in a humble source of income over time:
http://society6.com/brandonspilcher
If you want to see more of my art without spending a dime, visit here:
http://tyrannoninja.wordpress.com/
Oh wait, did I post in the wrong thread? What is the difference between the Lounge and Thunderdome threads?
Brandon, Thunderdome is mostly for debate/thread continuation/thread derail preservation. Lounge is social chitchat.
OK, let me repost my self-promotion in the Lounge.
theophontes @56
Are you dissing on Ceiling Cat? Shame, shame! ::clutches pearls::
I may not be too quick, but I am slow.
I just realized that Iyéska is Caine/Inaji.
I am so sorry. I was wondering who it was who was writing as if xe had known me for years. My bad.
===========
Thanks for the support. The death of Tom was a shock. How and why, not so much. He was an authoritarian (I think he was the only middle-of-the-road authoritarian I ever knew). Very progressive on human rights and race relations, very regressive on sexism, and a gun nut. He would never admit he was wrong. Ever. And I suspect that is what happened.
===========
Tomorrow I am taking OgvorbiWife out to dinner for her birthday. I got her a couple of mums (which we will plant tomorrow) and some Black Watch Plaid heavy duty flannel sheets. And we made a McIntosh Apple pie in lieu of cake.
@2kittehs
Heretic!
Ceiling Cat is what is known in the religiosphere as a “false god”. Someone took a photo of their kitteh peaking through a hole in the ceiling and then ‘shopped it. So, you see, the so-called “Ceiling Cat” is in reality a flesh-and-blood kitteh, posing as a deity.
My Imaginary Cat ™ is Real. There are no pictures of it, because it is invisible. We also know it is a Real Goddess because it is imaginary!
There are as many worshippers of My Imaginary Cat ™ as there are Roman Catholics. It is just that they are more discrete and shun ostentation.
I suggest you ditch that little upstart and follow the One True Religion.
Also, I have four boxes of Jaffa Cakes. Life is om nom om nom good. Oh yes.
I have seen theophontes’ Imaginary Cat™ and I’m sorry to say theophontes is mistaken. It’s actually an Imaginary Yorkshire Terrier™.
*Or at least, I imagine it is. Umm.
God I want to puke. I’m writing a blog post on the idea that the United States is a bastion and symbol of ‘liberty and justice for all’. Refuting that is hardly difficult. In looking for several examples, I learned about the (Trigger Warning) Sand Creek Massacre.
Liberty and justice for all, my ass.
Ogvorbis:
No worries, Ogvorbis. Your plans sound wonderful, Happy Birthday to Ms. Ogvorbis!
Brandon Pilcher:
You’re fine! Those of us who hang primarily in Teadome like to know what’s happening, too. :D Both are open threads, however kindness and niceness must be maintained in the lounge. Teadome functions more like the old TET (The Endless Thread*) and there’s no need to be kind if you aren’t feeling it. People hang out and chat here, much like in the lounge.
*Which actually started out as a way to keep smacking a creationist around, after a thread got absurdly long.
It’s the Imaginary Sabretooth Ceiling Cat thankyavewwymuch. Sheesh, you people and your false religions. Glad I know the truth.
Also, Brandon, best of luck with your venture!
Theophontes:
Which, as everyone knows, is following the Great Cosmic Rodent. Sorry, but you should all know that rats rule.
Iyéska @102:
I see you’ve made one of your rare offerings to Tpyos :)
Tut! What of the Heavenly Hamster, eh?
I believe the Heavenly Hamster was last seen traversing the heavens in one of those cute spinning hamster balls.*
*I had several gerbils as a child and watching them run around in the Hamster Balls were soooo much fun. They got around!
****
Having been recently enworked again (finally), I may have failed to notice, but has PZ commented on Nugent’s (not Ted, but that made me ::snorfle::) “rebuttal”?
theophontes, HA! I used to LIVE with the Imaginary Cat. Who was a real cat, but dubbed the Imaginary Cat by friends who never saw him, ‘cos he was always under the bed when they visited. Proof, proof I say!
Anyways it’s no use calling Ceiling Cat a little upstart. All cats are little upstarts. It’s part of their long game.
Tony!
I believe you may have just invented the Hamster Space-Drive.
The Nugent post: I’ve a feeling this was written, in part at least, with that in mind.
Scotland’s vote so far: 55% No, 45% Yes.
I’m not sure if this will work, but let’s give it a try:
You can keep your Heavenly Hamster. I have a Flying Hamster of Doom. *cackles maniacally*
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/pgdavis/Anne/Hamster.jpg
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH run for your lives!
*evil laugh* and with that, I’m off to bed. Sweet dreams, my pretties.
2kittehs:
Where is the complaint department? I haz an issue with false advertising. Your nym says 2 kittehs, but your gravatar shows only 1.
Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I do not consider ignorance an excuse when it results in negative effects to someone else.
Yes, I am referring to the misogynist wing of atheism. I am pretty sure that many of them are quite socially inept. No, this does not excuse their filth; in fact, it makes me dislike them more, as it is harder to make them see reason just because their social ineptitude is so massive.
Where the fuck is seversky? I want the snotnuggett to see another example of how harmful pregnancy can be to women (trigger warning).
Looks like another example of black lives not mattering.
ll ll @9:
You’re assuming children or teenagers couldn’t effectively refute your nonsense. Your assumption is incorrect. Run along little troll, you aren’t ready for this place.
I am not pleased with the pop-up ads.
Daz
Nope
In more get off the world awful news.
(warning for harassing photography)
A Texas court just ruled that upskirt photography is free speech.
Salon, Jezebel (quoting the latter)
Daz @ 108,
GODDAMIT!!!!!!!
Re. the Mercun’ flag in the clouds at Ed Brayton’s blog (Dispatches from the culture wars), it looks like the (first) Confederate flag, not the flag of the Union. So god likes slavery?
Pteryxx @ 119;
Leaving aside all jokes about not expecting any more from the Lone Star state, bastion of misogynist arsehats, this is nothing short of disgusting and horrifying in equal measure. This court has essentially declared women’s bodies to be peep shows for public consumption, and that women consent to this merely by being out in public while female.
This amounts to a harrasser’s charter, all justified in the name of free speech absolutism. And yet, somehow, people still manage to convince themselves that we live in a post-sexist society.
Pteryxx @ 119
Erm…so people take photographs with their minds apparently, no human constructed tools required? Why wasn’t I ever taught how to do this?
Black Widow Octopuses – what is the world coming to?
I can understand judges being wary of putting restrictions on free speech rights, but there ought to be some kind of privacy protection for people, even when in public. We’re not talking about subjects of compelling public interest, after all; these guys aren’t out documenting government corruption or corporate illegalities. We’re talking about creepy perverts getting off on violating women’s privacy. The violation is the whole point for these people. I don’t think that’s a kind of behavior that needs to be protected and I fail to see what horrible consequences will follow if we put a stop to it.
There may be an argument about exactly how such laws should be phrased, to avoid unintended consequences, but it seems obvious to me that this behavior is something we’ve all got an interest in preventing.
I wonder, if somebody followed these judges around and took pictures of them, how long before they’d call the police?
LykeX @ 125
I’m gonna go with “not very”.
#99 / Tony – Yeah, I know. The gap between the theoretical America and reality is really depressing. If you haven’t read A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, you might find it enlightening. It’s a really interesting retelling of American history through the eyes of, well, progressives.
acetylcholine @ 114:
On top of that, as someone with Asperger’s and general anxiety disorder, I’m offended when people try to cover their indefensible actions as “I’m socially awkward.” I’m EXTREMELY socially awkward and I still manage to not be a total shit. It’s really not that difficult.
@124 LykeX.
The US Supreme Court has ruled countless times that when you go out in public, you do not have an expectation of privacy. No one does. Jackie Kennedy Onassis tried and failed to protect herself from the paparazzi, basically launching the stalkerazzi industry we have now. Aside from being able to enforce a limit on how close one especially obsessed photographer could come, the courts ruled against her.
The legal concept is pretty simple. Public is not private. It therefore is impossible to “invade someone’s privacy” in a public place.
The same concept allows all of those traffic cams and other video monitoring devices you see everywhere.
If you start peeling off exceptions (creepy guys, mainly), you’re left with a morass where the law has to judge intent, not just actions. You want today’s cops making those calls?
A few years ago, I got a new camera and was testing it out by taking pictures in the park, including purely innocent pictures of kids playing in the playground (swing sets and such). One nanny came up to me and scolded me for taking pictures. Well, I wasn’t all that interested in the kids as anything other than moving objects to test the auto-focus feature, so I quit. But the thing is, the nanny was wrong. I was perfectly within my legal rights to take those photos.
I’m going to a college football game tomorrow, and you can be sure I’ll be taking photos of the cheerleaders. Does that make me a “creep”? No, it makes me a person who takes pictures at football games.
You may wish it were otherwise–and frankly, I agree with you to a point. Upskirt photos and such are ethically wrong and evidence of some pretty weird fetishes. But I don’t see legally how you accomplish a goal of banning them merely by inserting a privacy claim where one does not now currently exist. Of course, a different court in a different setting may rule otherwise — Massachusetts passed a different “upskirt” law after the previous one was overturned. We’ll see how the courts ultimately rule. My sense is that the change will have to come from public/cultural sensibilities, and not the law.
To take off from Earth’s gravity, hamsters are not enough. Capybaras?
— — — — — — — —
Violence rates can be halved in just 30 years, say leading experts http://phys.org/news/2014-09-violence-halved-years-experts.html
— — — — — — —
Chemists modify antibiotic to vanquish resistant bacteria http://phys.org/news/2014-09-chemists-antibiotic-vanquish-resistant-bacteria.html
(except for the special bacteria my company created before releasing this new antibiotic. People will have to pay extra to get the antidote. BWAHAHAHAHA!)
— — — —
Hospital infection: In mice, vaccine stops urinary tract infections linked to catheters http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-mice-vaccine-urinary-tract-infections.html
So life support for astronauts in suspended animation can rely on catheters for providing nutrients? That is good news.
— — — —
Electronic alerts significantly reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-08-electronic-significantly-catheter-associated-urinary-tract.html
Global population may boom well beyond the year 2050 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html
(not when I get started on my next weapons project, it bloody won’t)
Kevin Kehres @129,
So, according to you, women in public have no right to privacy even of the body parts covered by our clothes. If we don’t want to be upskirt photographed, what, should we only go out if we’re wearing burkas, or just never go out at all? Do you also consider it your constitutional right to put spy cameras in public bathrooms? They are, after all, a public space.
You need to give your stance a little more thought, I think.
Kevin @129:
I was under the impression that applies to public figures, like politicians and celebrities, not the average person on the street.
This is from Carolyn Wright, an attorney who works for photographers:
Hmm, I guess I was wrong, although there are still limitations on photographing people in public places.
There’s this as well:
http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/
Anne @132:
My reading was that Kevin was speaking of the legality of public photography, rather than the ethics.
Tony! I read his post twice, and it still reads to me that he’s saying that upskirt photos are legal if the woman is in a public space because
So, according to the law as Kevin reads it, upskirt photos are legal because a woman in public has no right to privacy even under her clothes. Yeah, no. It’s one thing if she flashes the photographer – taking a photo then would be tacky, but technically legal, I suppose. But sneaking a camera under her skirt is an invasion of her privacy.
I’ve got to get slaying today’s usefuls now, but I’ll check back later.
Tony! – keep in mind, per the discussion of harassing upskirt photography re TAM a couple years back, the fans of the photography involved were seriously, literally, discussing whether the space under a girl’s or woman’s skirt is considered public. It’s another case of women’s bodies and genitals being public property instead of their own.
It’s also a triggering topic for some survivors here, so have a care when talking about it.
Pteryxx @137:
I understand and apologize for a lack of clarity on my part. I neither support, nor endorse, but rather wholly condemn invasions of privacy such as upskirt photography.
That’s one reason I sought out the information @133:
Kevin @129:
Are you assuming that simply bc the law might be technically on your side that doing such is ethical? Just bc the law says people can’t expect the same level of privacy in public doesn’t mean they ought to have *no* expectation of privacy.
Kevin #129
I tend to distrust slippery slope arguments, as looking very much like an argument that we can’t do anything about anything. And let’s be clear here, we’re not likely to be talking of a single possibly-accidental photograph. As with child-porn, the much more likely scenario is a shit-ton of similar photographs on a hard-drive or the like, and/or equipment such as the shoe-mounted camera used at TAM, which is plainly designed for taking such pictures.
Now I see what I did wrong in reading Kevin’s comment.
Kevin:
Your use of the legalities of photographing people in public helps provide cover for those who would argue that they have a right to take invasive photos of others. Just bc you have the right to do something (and in this case, as I pointed out @133, that is questionable), doesn’t mean you ought to do it.
People have taken advantage of laws to perform horrible acts, so please don’t provide cover for such.
Pteryxx, #137:
I have to agree with this too. Not wanting someone’s camera a foot or so away from your underwear is a very, very reasonable expectation of privacy.
Well. My heart’s pounding and I can feel myself edging into a panic attack after being triggered by a fucking liar who keeps fucking lying, so I think I’m going to go listen to cheesy pop music and remember how to breathe.
(Steve, I’m talking about you and your misrepresentations of everyone in that thread. You goddamn asshat.)
Kevin, sorry, but you’re full of shit – I’m a photographer and there are limits on public photography. There’s also this thing called being a decent human being, and not using a camera as a creep cover, eh?
#141 / Tony: But the whole sub-thread started from a court ruling saying that upskirts are protected speech! Seems obvious to me that Kevin’s talking about tactics for how to make them illegal given the context of that ruling. It’s the Texas Supreme Court who’s enabling people by overturning the law. Nobody’s saying they’re morally or ethically acceptable, or even if that they ought to be legally acceptable.
This is men trying to photograph women’s genitals. To put a camera under our clothes, to see our private parts – remember that phrase? – without consent.
You’re saying we’ve no right to the basic bodily privacy of clothing. That we’re things on display, by virtue of being out of the house. That we don’t get the basic right of not being sexually preyed on.
Fuck you.
Kevin @129
SCOTUS has said you can be photographed in public. It has not said someone can insert a camera under your clothing and take pictures of your body under your clothes. There is absolutely a right to privacy under your clothing, so your argument is, frankly, bullshit, as is the Texas court’s.
In the Massachusetts case the court was stuck because the law as written was restricted only to places like bathrooms and dressing rooms, so the court had to rule that the photographs were not illegal. The court did not say “yes it’s perfectly legal and okay to do this” they were ruling based on current law as written. Not the same thing.
Dawkins is tweeting that Adam Lee is a liar, and his ardent defenders are coming up with gems like this:
TMM @ 143, take care of yourself. Steve has gone beyond the pale, and has no business doing anything outside of shutting the fuck up.
Right wing vultures start to circle #GamerGate
I ‘ll have to catch up this wekend.right now I’m on the bus (wirh wifi), on my way home.
Since I slept for about 3 hours last night and then had anoter busy day, I hope to sleep away the next 4 hours.
*hugs* for Mellow Monkey
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/convicted-rapist-used-skype-to-urge-teen-victim-to-kill-herself-while-he-watched/
Police in Savannah, Georgia, fatally shot a handcuffed man who they say kicked out a patrol car window and tried to escape with a gun.
Thank you, all of you who understood what I was getting at. Tony!, that includes you, because you thought about it and reconsidered.
Just one more thing to consider: a man is wearing a kilt, in public. By Kevin’s standard, I can sneak up and take an upkilt photo of his privates, and he can’t complain because he’s wearing a skirt in public. I wonder if Kevin and the rest of the upskirt photo apologists would agree, or if it’s different if it happens to a man?
TMM, *hugs*
Actually, Anne, let me tweak your statement slightly.
If Kevin was running around in a kilt and a gay man took an up-kilt photo of his genitals, would Kevin agree that this is appropriate?
I’ve often noted that many straight men get seriously uncomfortable at the idea of being treated as sexual objects in the “male” pattern (of course, women are perfectly capable of sexually objectifying someone, but the sexual gaze of men is incredibly socially powerful), so bringing up a hypothetical in which they are the object has a way of focusing.
Esteleth yes, I agree, that’s even better!
Esteleth:
If Kevin was running around in a kilt, and a gay man took an up-kilt photo his genitals, which he was going to mastubate to, and also share around, and upload it to the net, would Kevin agree that this is appropriate?
Some of us haven’t forgotten the upskirt tumblr (or was it reddit?), and other various fora for sharing such things.
It’s not enough that a gang of 12 post Catholic High School grads beat a gay couple who were out for pizza.
It’s not enough that one of the men was beaten so badly that he has his jaw wired shut and will have to drink from a straw for several months.
It’s not enough that one of the men saw his partner hit the ground-hard-and was fearful that he’d been killed.
No, now those fucking fuckers have the goddamned audacity to motherfucking claim they were acting in goddamn SELF DEFENSE??!
I’m fucking livid right now. I’m crying. This shit pushes every one of my buttons. Fucking bigotry. This is the kind of shit that religious beliefs help support.
Goddamit! Just out for pizza and their lives were changed.
Just out for pizza, enjoying each others’ company.
6 years together and they just wanted some dinner. Fucking scumbags changed the course of these men’s lives.
I can’t even…
Fuck. Sometimes I hate humanity.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/philly_hate_attack_mob_claiming_self_defense_after_brutalizing_sends_gay_man_to_hospital
Where’s the middle finger button for acetylcholine?
Hey, you know what rape survivors don’t want to talk about? Boners and rape and just how gosh-darned “boggling” you find a rape boner. Fucking hell, acetylcholine.
This is just a day of assholes.
Iyéska
I left some *hugs* for you in the Lounge, if you would like, since they’re not allowed in the T-dome.
Hot tea also available.
Some for you too, TMM.
Pillow fort. Lounge. Tea and chocolate and books. Join me?
TMM:
*Trigger Warning*
No shit. Well, I did vomit, and am now trying to breathe the nausea away. Yeah, doesn’t work all that well. Bad enough to have my own experiences echoing about, but also those of a friend, who was raped with a coke bottle, then had it broken inside her. Christ. I need tea and rats.
Also, before I go off for rat therapy, if you happen by, acetylcholine, someone who wants details of a rape is a tell. A tell of a skeevy, creepy asshole who has zero interest in understanding the problem of rape culture, and has no interest at all in those who survive a rape.
Kind of ‘rupt, not focusing that well as i’ve not been sleeping too well these few days. General *hugs* and boiled sweets all ’round.
Gregory Greenwood #77
Google her and you’ll know. The general defense is that a. everyone does it (accompanied by naked women from other games) and b. if real-life women are allowed to get naked then so do the computer characters.
The worst part is that it’s not even Metal Gear Solid V’s lowest point. The previous installment (Ground Zeroes) had child rape.
Rossignol #85
I don’t have evidence. I’m trying to make sense of my experiences.
I’ve been with hardcore gamers since the early Home of the Underdogs days (back before it died) and am now on MobyGames*. Neither of those sites had any harassment policy other places or obvious progressive leanings like Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and yet there weren’t any misogynistic, or otherwise hateful statements, as I see on other forums.
I’m trying to understand what would make those places different from others. Is it just luck? Or is it something else?
I’m focusing on defining and re-defining gamers because those places are different than general gaming forums or sites. Instead of focusing on news in gaming or certain genres, those sites focus on documenting gaming from any time and any console. The people who were/are active there are walking encyclopedias of gaming – from the earliest of games to modern ones. They don’t have fanboish arguments over which latest installment of SHOOTAS’ is the best one, instead their longest discussions are about what makes a game genre and how to differentiate it from others.
Shouldn’t the people that know the most about gaming (and I do mean the most – we are talking about people with thousands of games in their repertoire) be the most worried about the fictional “war on gaming” by Sarkeesian? Turns out that no – they can see through the bullshit. I think that’s relevant.
rq #86
Thanks for the link!
Iyéska
I’ve visited your blog (beautiful photos!) and looked at your old posts a few days ago.
All your talk about rats and it appears you have cats and dogs as well! Your two cats look just like my own, but much younger.
Hugs for Tony!, The Mellow Monkey, Anne and Iyéska.
For those from the Thought leaders thread, I give you a war puppy.
Also, a selection of pictures and another video of our dachshund doing cute things.
Seven of Mine
About my Chakotay comment:
Chakotay is a typical “white man’s Indian”. He is nothing but a collection of white, US, new age stereotypes. The character himself is based on “research” of Jamake Highwater – an Armenian American conman who presented himself as an authority on Native Americans.
This is offensive, stupid, and harmful to everyone involved – the audience, the idiotic producers and the franchise as a whole. Not that it’s unheard of in the franchise; the Ferengi are a parody of Jews, and let’s not forget the lily white new Khan.
I present for your analysis, the new “Jennifer Lopez/Iggy Azalea” music video.
Have we hit a new low here?
smh
holy crap what a great idea!
it is rather time we had more sophisticated vote buttons for forums besides up and down.
someone is going to invent that, and make a fortune with it I’ll bet.
If there is no right to personal privacy, there there is also no right for governments to legislate it.
ergo, if that right doesn’t exist, there is no legal basis for enforcing any of us wear clothes to begin with. public “indecency” laws be damned.
Tony, I don’t know you very well, but I like you very much. Hugs for your distress. I hope those “grads” don’t get away with this shit. I know how you feel . . . sometimes it’s very hard not to hate humanity. I struggle with that feeling often ,and am so glad I know that there are good people here at Pharyngula.
Okay. I’m about to fucking exploded from that damn Gaming thread. So I’m posting here what’s been asked to stop and ranting away since it’s not like they are listening to me there. Maybe once I post it, I can finally get over it because I did walk away from the thread, slept and everything and it’s still going on, which is making me rather disturbingly angry.
#142 markbrown
You are so misreading me, it’s starting to feel delibrate. I wasn’t saying they aren’t gamers, they don’t say they’re gamers. I won’t call someone a gamer if they don’t identify the label but that doesn’t mean I think those that play app games and such aren’t gamers if they choose that label. Good fucking grief.
Clearly, since I’ve repeated said “those who identify as gamers” my definition is someone who identifies as a gamer. That’s it. This has been repeated used by others in this thread as well. What definition you’re working with, I dunno. That’s never been stated. You’ve just bristled at the word and whined about those who can’t possibly poke their heads out of their caves to find out what’s going on.
Further, Giliell made a general point about not reliquinshing the label. That’s not an endorsement of forcing people to don the label or labeling them as gamers against their wishes. Just like some have stopped calling themselves feminists because of the awful man-hating type lies but still advocate feminist social justice. I’m still a feminist and don’t think the label should be abandonded but I’m not going to force (primarily) women into using it.
Are you under the impression we’re trying to force it down people’s throats after invading their caves and march them into forums to argue against misogynists? Good fucking lord.
The point is to get the word out loudly from those who do know enough so those that don’t find out. It’s grown enough that Cracked now as two articles on Gamergate, where there’s plenty of people (some of them gamers(self-labeled obviously) are saying that’s the first they’ve heard of it. For all the complaints about saying gamers, the issue and message is spreading already. The only people I’ve seen bring up who’s a gamer and who’s not is the defensive fuckers who spell out their #NotAllGamers. (Really, check Cracked, it’s everywhere last I checked)
And you.
All you’ve complained about is how the majority can’t be expected to know and not everyone’s informed. So goddamn what? The majority of anything is usually fucking stupid, stubborn, and unwilling when it comes to social justice issues. Even if they aren’t playing anything other than Angry Birds or whatever, they can still join the chorus saying it’s fucked up. That’s pressure. That’s good. Even if the abusive fuckers don’t consider them gamers and they aren’t on whateverthefuck forums, outside pressure will still make a difference. Even if not to them, it’ll sure as fuck matter when women affected this shit in online games and come out and get support from a fuckload of people rather than being subjected to more bullshit.
Besides all that, there’s the point that those other than white boys have been routinely put down and shoved out of gaming. You know they’ve redefined it to keep us out. Now, women are being seen and making noise only to receive bomb and death threats. Suddenly, gamers is just too wide when women and POC didn’t fit in before. Fucking convenient nonsense.
Gamers created this problem by shoving us out and staying silent across the board. So it’s their responsi
Doesn’t matter if you’ve found a hidey hole away from the “drama”. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t cause the problem by harassing women. Silence gives the fuckers power and gamers do need to call it out. So much so that even app players immune to social media, blogs and have no gamer friends, family etc, hopefully hear about it to join in with supporting making gaming diverse and inclusive. Because as it is, even with apps and indies, it is not enough. It’s not nearly enough. We shouldn’t be shoved off the mainstream and forced to find safe havens like fucking refuges. Honestly, I’m really goddamn sick of specifying apps and indies like there isn’t anything problematic there either.
Oh, and EnlightenedLiberal and others saying “we gamers are defensive” If you’re going to complain about being specific, start doing it yourself. You mean primarily privileged gamers are fucking defensive over it because as stated before I’m a gamer too like Anita and other commenters on that fucking thread. People of your community are calling on the whole because it’s not been worked on and fixed enough, because there isn’t enough support from game devs (etc) and players. Stop being oblivious and excluding us again like fucking always.
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Ok. I don’t think that’s a reasonable reading or reaction to what I wrote. I agreed with you on nearly every point.
I’m not doing personally. I am speaking out against it. I amm working to change that. I don’t know what more I can reasonably do. I don’t see how I can be rightly called “oblivious”.
Well, it hasn’t been the Enlightenment for a couple centuries, so…. How do I put this? If you’re not oblivious and have noticed a few things have changed since then, what the fuck is that about?
@consciousness razor
Because the moral philosophy I identify with the strongest was the Enlightenment, and I have not yet read better? John Stuart Mill might be a little late to call Enlightenment, but he is my personal hero. (Yes, I also know even his opus “On Liberty” contains some rather choice horrible bits.)
Not sure what this has to do with the earlier point where I was called oblivious about the problems in (online) gaming culture.
Like all vote buttons, I think that would be useless. I think those things are a handy way to avoid discussion. Anyway, there’s something seriously…off about acetylcholine. When they first started posting, it was all retaliation fantasy stuff, and when called on it, they’d disappear from the thread, only to pop up with retaliatory stuff in a different thread, lather, rinse, repeat. Now, when they try to stick around for an actual discussion, and got called out for ‘let’s talk about rape boners!’, played strawVulcan, and a not so subtle “FTB bullies!!1!”.
There’s something off about the whole thing.
Jeff S:
Stop using that royal we. Speak for yourself.
Enlightenment Liberal:
Generally speaking, when someone is being oblivious, they don’t see it. That would be the point, y’see. When that happens, the oblivious person should stop talking (typing), and seriously listen to what other people are saying. (read and comprehend.) Also, lose the fucking scare quotes. Having read many of your posts on various subjects, I’d say you’re oblivious on various subjects, and not overly prone to actually understanding what other people are saying to you about said subjects.
So today I learned that Caleb Hannan, the colosostomy bag of a human being who drove an innocent woman to suicide just because he thought it’d make a good story, is back on twitter, utterly unapologetic, and writing for Slate and Politico.
You have no idea how angry this makes me.
AlexanderZ @ 167, I have five cats, and two monster dogs. Rats still rule.
Dalillama @ 169, awesomeness. Mister does chainmaille, I wonder how long it would take for him to do one of those for the monster dogs.
In my professional opinion, the music sucks and the editing is worse. I’m surprised the sequencer didn’t fall asleep after the first five minutes in production.
@Iyéska
Not scare quotes. Sorry. Was not my intention.
What you call oblivious in other categories, I probably find it to an agreement on the particular ills, suggesting not oblivious, but which is hidden by a disagreement on the proper policy to fix it due to a disagreement over the effectiveness of the policy, alternatives, and the extent of possible negative side effects. Of course, please continue to just say I’m oblivious in a way which I cannot possibly defend myself nor learn to be a better person. That kind of character assassination is very productive.
ElightenmentLiberal,
The portion directly towards you was your use of “we gamers are defensive…” because you endorsed Marcus Ramen’s “stop saying gamers” then go on to speak for all fucking gamers or get specific for all online gamers. Then go on with that repeated bullshit dealt with earlier of “Are you gonna make us?” and “Oh woes, what are we do to? We try, don’t we get a cookie?” nonsense.
So yeah, oblivious.
Sorry, that should read
“…or specifically online gamers but really it’s just the defensive, privileged one like you, which completely ignores ones like me. I included everyone when I say gamers but you pointedly exclude me and other victims.”
samihawkins, it may be likely that the person that Caleb Hannan was investigating was involved in fraud but Hannan changed the focus of his story when he found that the person he was investigating was a trans woman. This was the more “shocking” thing about her (I hated how he stated that his “spine felt a chill” when he found out about it.) then maybe being involved in a swindle.
What I hated was all of the transphobic shits yammering about Hannan was justified (A lot of the members of the Slymepit called him a “hero”.) because being trans was an indication that fraud is involved.
So after a few months, people seem to think it is safe for Hannan to crawl back out from under a rock.
Don’t read philosophers, but rather read for your self, and most importantly, think your yourself. Start with the concept of the golden rule. Follow it out, and keep asking “what does more harm” when confronted with choices. You’re like the fundies. If it’s old, it must be wiser than the present day….
@JAL
Honest question – what would you say to the following? The following are quotes taken from that page, with “gamer” replaced with “atheist”.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/18/how-to-protect-journalistic-integrity-in-gaming/comment-page-1/
I can see people saying all of that about atheism and atheists because of Thunderfoot and the like. I also think it’s flawed to say that of gamers for exactly the same reason it’s flawed to say those things about atheists.
I believe one of the commenters quoted above is wrong – it is just a few bad apples. When I read that comment, it is an attack on most or all gamers, which I feel is off the mark, just like how I feel an attack on most or all atheists because of the shit Thunderfoot does is off the mark. Fairly applying that standard would mean we would have to swarm MRA forums. Depending on the definition of “swarm”, I don’t know if that would be effective, moral, or legal (possible DDOS).
The problem is that I’m not just replying to you JAL. I’m also replying to many other people in that thread.
Father charged in accidental shooting of young son
Ah, if only he had been a *responsible* gun owner!
At least he’s being charged.
@Nerd of Redhead
Please. I explained why I chose the name. Names like this are about communication. If it’s the most accurate and descriptive name, then I’ll use it.
Horrible idea. That gets way too much credit. It’s good baby philosophy, but it’s actual miserable. Imagine the standard Christian fundie. How do they want to be treated? They want to be coddled and controlled. They want to be imprisoned if they blaspheme. Golden rule failure.
No, actually the good starting point is John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle: If a group of consenting informed adults are doing some activity without negative repercussion on you, and if they are not otherwise violating some of their duties to society, then they should be allowed to do what they damn well want. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” For the summary, see:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
As far as I know, the first person to clearly describe this principle is Mill, and that is why he is my hero. Not my god. Not my role model. Not my authority. Merely my hero. Heroes can be wrong. Heroes are not authorities.
And because Mill is the first person to clearly describe this fundamental principle of liberty, morality, justice, etc., and because IMHO this is indicative of the European Enlightenment – perhaps even a summary of many of its important principles – I will use that name. It’s good communication. It communicates what I believe, and that’s why I chose this name.
Enlightenment Liberal:
This ^ sort of word salad is not helpful. You seriously suck at communication. Try brief, clear, concise, with no effort at sounding like you swallowed a thesaurus and simply enjoy regurgitating it. One problem is that you seldom stop typing enough to take anything else on board.
The only one assassinating your character is you. You might want to lose the hyperbole, too, before you land outright on witch hunts, lynching, and thought police. Much like being ignorant, being oblivious is not the worst thing, as both conditions are rather easily corrected. Rather than figure that out though, you are doing what you usually do, typing mass amounts of oblivious word salad damn near non-stop. Take a break from all the typing, and read for comprehension. Then, take time to think. You might learn something.
JAL:
That’s Marcus Ranum. Though you have now made me think about cooking up some Ramen. :D
@Iyéska
I could have been clearer.
When you see oblivousness, I likely see this: I see agreement on the particular ills (which suggests that I’m not oblivious). I also see a disagreement on the proper policy to fix those ills, and that hides the acknowledgment of the ills, which makes it seem like I’m oblivious, but not really.
And I’ll say it again, if you want to call me oblivious based on the content of some unspecified other posts in unspecified other threads, I have no response. There is no possibility for me to learn, read for comprehension, and think. You should either get specific, or knock it off.
EnlightenmentLiberal
[1] Yep. With the faces of atheism and organizations leading the way, it’s clear the mainstream atheism movements looks completely fucked. I’m an atheist but I’m here and have nothing to do with that bullshit. I won’t work with rape apologists.
[2] Don’t blame you. I’ve wanted to throw in the towel and I’m not going to pressure you to do otherwise. Take care of yourself.
[3] Well, with bomb and death threats, yep.
[4] I read this original comment as joking. If I thought they were serious, I’d make mention and link to show it’s entitlement and societal privilege, shit like that.
[5] Yep. I don’t care about hurt fee-fees either. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Silence supports status quo, so if they aren’t vocally opposed, it’s clear which side they’re on.
[6] Well, since it’s gamers and atheists that are trying to fix the problem and getting targeted for it, I’d point to them but obviously they mean the everyday people, so I’d point ‘em to places like this (not a clue where you’d find that in gaming) and agree that there’s not enough push back yet. It’s certainly not the majority or in high profile places like IGN or Dawkin’s website/twitter feed.
I disagree with ALL of this. So. Much. I don’t even know where to start or how to hit it all.
I think saying it’s just a few bad apples, maybe true if you’re strictly referring to bomb threats. But considering how sexist and accepting society is at large, you’d have to be fucking stupid, oblivious, or naïve to assume most gamers are progressive against this shit. Most still use rape as reference to being beaten hard and don’t care about calling women bitches/sluts/etc. Dear lord, have you seen how people on Twitch treat women streamers? Even the better streams (as far as followers/commenters goes) lash out against them and one in particular hardcore. It’s despicable.
As far as going to MRA forums: It’s calling for more people on Steam, Twitch, League, IGN and such places. MRA forums are their getaways, but not where you find the leaders like Dawkins, his fanbois, accommodators, and most mainstream people. Why cede that to them? Why assume we’ve got to hit Stormfront’s ilk to make a difference or call this shit out? It’s literally everywhere. Why avoid most people and the game devs and shit to hit the terrorist section? Ugh. And really DDOS? God, me and others on the thread have mentioned everyone speaking out and pressuring big wigs to do better games and shit and you go for that tactic, like that’s at all reasonable given what’s been said and from ginmar’s comment.
And I’ve been speaking to you, clearly. Don’t pull this condescending, smarmy bullshit because I disagree. I’m not fucking stupid. With this and your further ignoring my suggestion to speak out in League rather than being silent (FUNNY THAT) and your other bullshit in #188 of the Gaming thread, I’m fucking done with you. So goddamn done. This is fucking pointless, I have better shit to do and I’d killfile you if I could. You are part of the problem in gaming and with gamers. Congratulations, asshole. Go fuck yourself.
EnlightenmentLiberal
[1] Yep. With the faces of atheism and organizations leading the way, it’s clear the mainstream atheism movements looks completely fucked. I’m an atheist but I’m here and have nothing to do with that bullshit. I won’t work with rape apologists.
[2] Don’t blame you. I’ve wanted to throw in the towel and I’m not going to pressure you to do otherwise. Take care of yourself.
[3] Well, with bomb and death threats, yep.
[4] I read this original comment as joking. If I thought they were serious, I’d make mention and link to show it’s entitlement and societal privilege, shit like that.
[5] Yep. I don’t care about hurt fee-fees either. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Silence supports status quo, so if they aren’t vocally opposed, it’s clear which side they’re on.
[6] Well, since it’s gamers and atheists that are trying to fix the problem and getting targeted for it, I’d point to them but obviously they mean the everyday people, so I’d point ‘em to places like this (not a clue where you’d find that in gaming beyond Feminist Frequency) and agree that there’s not enough push back yet. It’s certainly not the majority or in high profile places like IGN or Dawkin’s website/twitter feed.
I disagree with ALL of this. So. Much. I don’t even know where to start or how to hit it all.
I think saying it’s just a few bad apples, maybe true if you’re strictly referring to bomb threats. But considering how sexist and accepting society is at large, you’d have to be fucking stupid, oblivious, or naïve to assume most gamers are progressive against this shit. Most still use rape as reference to being beaten hard and don’t care about calling women bitches/sluts/etc. Dear lord, have you seen how people on Twitch treat women streamers? Even the better streams (as far as followers/commenters goes) lash out against them and one in particular hardcore. It’s despicable. Most gamers should be be attacked for this shit.
As far as going to MRA forums: It’s calling for more people on Steam, Twitch, League, IGN and such places. MRA forums are their getaways, but not where you find the leaders like Dawkins, his fanbois, accommodators, and most mainstream people. Why cede that to them? Why assume we’ve got to hit Stormfront’s ilk to make a difference or call this shit out? It’s literally everywhere. Why avoid most people and the game devs and shit to hit the terrorist section? Ugh. And really DDOS? God, me and others on the thread have mentioned everyone speaking out and pressuring big wigs to do better games and shit and you go for that tactic, like that’s at all reasonable given what’s been said and from ginmar’s comment.
And I’ve been speaking to you, clearly. Don’t pull this condescending, smarmy bullshit because I disagree. I’m not fucking stupid. With this and your further ignoring my suggestion to speak out in League rather than being silent (FUNNY THAT) and your other bullshit in #188 of the Gaming thread, I’m fucking done with you. So goddamn done. This is fucking pointless, I have better shit to do and I’d killfile you if I could. You are part of the problem in gaming and with gamers. Congratulations, asshole. Go fuck yourself.
EnlightenmentLiberal
[1] Yep. With the faces of atheism and organizations leading the way, it’s clear the mainstream atheism movements looks completely fucked. I’m an atheist but I’m here and have nothing to do with that bullshit. I won’t work with rape apologists.
[2] Don’t blame you. I’ve wanted to throw in the towel and I’m not going to pressure you to do otherwise. Take care of yourself.
[3] Well, with bomb and death threats, yep.
[4] I read this original comment as joking. If I thought they were serious, I’d make mention and link to show it’s entitlement and societal privilege, shit like that.
[5] Yep. I don’t care about hurt fee-fees either. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Silence supports status quo, so if they aren’t vocally opposed, it’s clear which side they’re on.
[6] Well, since it’s gamers and atheists that are trying to fix the problem and getting targeted for it, I’d point to them but obviously they mean the everyday people, so I’d point ‘em to places like this (not a clue where you’d find that in gaming beyond Feminist Frequency) and agree that there’s not enough push back yet. It’s certainly not the majority or in high profile places like IGN or Dawkin’s website/twitter feed.
I disagree with ALL of this. So. Much. I don’t even know where to start or how to hit it all.
I think saying it’s just a few bad apples, maybe true if you’re strictly referring to bomb threats. But considering how sexist and accepting society is at large, you’d have to be fucking stupid, oblivious, or naïve to assume most gamers are progressive against this shit. Most still use rape as reference to being beaten hard and don’t care about calling women b***hes/s***s/etc. Dear lord, have you seen how people on Twitch treat women streamers? Even the better streams (as far as followers/commenters goes) lash out against them and one in particular hardcore. It’s despicable. Most gamers should be be attacked for this shit.
As far as going to MRA forums: It’s calling for more people on Steam, Twitch, League, IGN and such places. MRA forums are their getaways, but not where you find the leaders like Dawkins, his fanbois, accommodators, and most mainstream people. Why cede that to them? Why assume we’ve got to hit Stormfront’s ilk to make a difference or call this shit out? It’s literally everywhere. Why avoid most people and the game devs and shit to hit the terrorist section? Ugh. And really DDOS? God, me and others on the thread have mentioned everyone speaking out and pressuring big wigs to do better games and shit and you go for that tactic, like that’s at all reasonable given what’s been said and from ginmar’s comment.
And I’ve been speaking to you, clearly. Don’t pull this condescending, smarmy bullshit because I disagree. I’m not fucking stupid. With this and your further ignoring my suggestion to speak out in League rather than being silent (FUNNY THAT) and your other bullshit in #188 of the Gaming thread, I’m fucking done with you. So goddamn done. This is fucking pointless, I have better shit to do and I’d killfile you if I could. You are part of the problem in gaming and with gamers. Congratulations, asshole. Go fuck yourself.
(Sorry got caught in spam filter, forgot to asterisk examples of word usage.)
Iyéska
Oh damn! My apologies Marcus. I’m hear you Iyeska, my oven should be preheated now so I’m off to make dinner. Being angry and hungry is messing with my writing. I also accidently wrote “enlightenment” instead of “entitlement” in my last comment, but at least I caught that one, lol.
Tony! @ 158, long distance hugs. Lots of them. I don’t even.
Dalillama, your war puppy has all the cute!
Hugs for everyone needing them, actually. Looks like some horrible shit happened while I was asleep.
Oh look, another douchecanoe who thinks a philosophy quote makes them so much more logical than those silly women type people who are objecting to being harassed and threatened.
Should I be surprised that said douchecanoe just assumes that since they personally haven’t experienced negative repercussions like sexism, it doesn’t really exist? “Stop being viciously attacked for pointing out the sexism SJW’s, John Stuart Mills says [ blah blah blah] therefore you are simply imagining that you are being oppressed.” Enlightenment liberal gets an F in reading comprehension, communication, philosophy, logic, and ethics.
Mr.Canoehead
I’d say that a group indulging in misogyny or racism or whatever *are* violating their duties to society, whether they’re doing it in private or not. They’re practising bigotries that don’t end when they turn off their computers.
As for “without negative repercussion on you,” well, call me naive but I’d have thought living in a society where those things are allowed or accepted has negative repercussions on everyone, even those at the top of the heap.
It comes down to Lt General David Morrison’s words again: the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
srsly
It’s not like I haven’t done this before…
alot
why am I sooo annoyed that he is packing at the last minute?
EnlightenmentLiberal (from the gaming thread):
Really?
So when I posted my complaint in this thread (@158), it wasn’t productive of me to not offer ideas for how to fix the problem of bigots beating gay people? I should have been thinking of fixes while I was complaining?
Do you really want to go there?
Hey hey hey, former Dawkins fans. Didn’t Dawkins apologize for “Dear Muslima”? I don’t think he meant that apology.
Why? Because he’s at it again.
Wait, I’ve seen people defending Dawkins by reminiscing on the influence he had on them. Since The God Delusion was a big part of me becoming atheist, and I no longer respect him or look up to him as I did, does this mean I’m a confused agnostic again?
Nah, fuckit. No Heroes.
Tony:
At least you aren’t EL, who only shows up to complain about the complainers, while never having any fixes at all, and sneering at fixes presented by more thoughtful people.
Iyéska:
How are you doing my friend? I know you were triggered earlier by that asshole. I hope things are better for you.
I hope I haven’t forgotten anything important.
Tony, I’m doing better, thank you. How about you, doing better now?
Chigau, where are you off to now?
Iyéska:
Quite a bit better, thanks. Now that I’m finally employed again (after nearly 4 months unemployed), I was able to go to work and take my mind off things. Even though I was irritated for a short time after arriving, since we’re a new restaurant, it got so busy that I completely forgot about being pissed off and had to focus on working. Thus, by the time I got home, I was back to my normal mood. I returned to that thread and was able to share my thoughts a bit more rationally.
chigau,
You’ve got a wallet (with money and documents) and a towel?
Two things I’m usually at most risk forgetting are pajamas and toothbrush and/or toothpaste.
Tony, I’m glad the restaurant finally started working.
Good luck!
Did you all hear about what Ron Lindsay had to say about Harris’ recent statements?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_latest_harris_book_the_latest_harris_controversy/
Yet another person who seems incapable of understanding the criticisms being expressed about Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Of course, this being Ron Lindsay, I am so totally completely NOT surprised.
(hat tip to my fellow blogger Iris Vander Pluym)
Shorter Lindsay: Hysterical b*tches need to calm the fuck down
gmacs @205
Colour me surprised … not.
I like this reply to Dawkins’s latest turd:
“I know mate. You live in/perpetuate one.”
We’re going to Japan.
RE: Ron Lindsay’s response
I made a comment over on one of Ophelia’s threads about how these people just actually don’t know how to reason and that what they do when they think they’re reasoning is just describing their thought process. And that’s exactly what Lindsay’s response is. “Here let me be the 409348573409587509348574th person to try to reword Sam Harris’s thought process as if that’s where the misunderstanding lies.” We understand the thought process. What we’re trying to explain to all you self-important douchecanoes is that your thought process and correct reasoning are not the same fucking thing.
Referring to :”Even worse for rape victims, in some societies women are blamed, shunned & even prosecuted for BEING RAPED. No wonder they don’t report it.”
I don’t think it’s as bad as Dear Muslima. It doesn’t say which societies, after all.
Another possible followup (anyone with a twitter account, please feel free to use this or some variant.):
“Yes; societies including, but by no means limited to, the activist atheist society.”
Owlmirror,
Well, no. But if you’re reading this in the context of his other tweets and statements, the implications are obvious.
Found a new blog, thanks to a Facebook friend (there is shit I don’t like about FB, but then there’s stuff like this, that I’d likely never come across without it).
Gender & Society– a peer reviewed journal focused on, well, gender in society.
Here’s a recent entry on Americans’ knowledge of abortion and reproductive health services:
On Michael Nugent’s blog, Dawkins supporters are using the tweet as some kind of vindication of his position.
My response:
How does one get through to such people?
…
@ 2kittehs
Short, sharp and to the point. I like it.
Tony!, here’s a bit of happiness: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/watch-teen-comes-out-to-his-mother-and-she-surprises-him-with-her-own-confession/
NFL commissioner Goodell promises changes to personal conduct rules
A pro gay mosque opens in Capetown:
Iyéska @224:
Thanks. I remember seeing that headline somewhere, and meant to check it out but forgot. Need to rectify that.
****
Trigger Warning: Rape
Student used as bait to capture a rapist.
Steve LaBonne
Except I didn’t say that. I said they had to be sure that their invisible friend agreed with them, or that they agreed with him. I said, and I quote, “because my invisible friend thinks those things,” not “because my invisible friend told me to.” I surely don’t mind people disagreeing with me; but it would be rather spiffing if you’d disagree with what I actually say.
My problem with god-based thinking isn’t that most people who aren’t fundies are acting on perceived orders; they’re plainly not. It’s that people are checking their ideas not against reality, or at least not only against reality, but against the alleged proclamations of a mythological authority-figure. Arguments from authority are bad enough. They’re worse when the authority has to be taken on faith.
Are you saying that most honest believers, no matter how vague and wishy-washy their belief, would knowingly hold to an idea they were convinced their god strongly disagreed with?
#175 JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Sorry for the slow response, the last few days have been a bit hectic.
That was more me writing my thoughts down, than specifically addressing a point you’d made. It was late, I was rambling, I apologise.
I’m not under that impression no. However, people were asking where all the good gamers were, and I was trying to explain why many wouldn’t be aware of GamerGate or other scandals when they erupt on the internet. I will hasten to add that I was trying to explain this, not as an excuse to those people who are unaware, but rather for information purposes, and possibly to discuss how to reach these people and bring them into the fight with us.
This was also the point i was trying to make. Looking back on my posts I could have been much clearer, and for that I again apologise.
It’s good that these issues are starting to show up in mainstream reporting, and on sites like Cracked. It’s definitely a step in the right direction in getting the word out to the whole gaming community, instead of just those who frequent gaming media. I still think there is much room for improvement in raising awareness, but this and things like Tropes vs Women are definitely encouraging and a step in the right direction. Now we need to keep this momentum going.
That wasn’t my intention. When asked the why of something, I tried to explain the why. The reason I was troubled with the responses I was getting was because by explaining the why, people were suggesting I was condoning the why, and using it as an excuse. That certainly wasn’t the case, and again I blame myself for not making it clearer, but do also believe people were too quick to jump to that conclusion.
Dammit, messed up the final blockquote. The final two paragraphs are my own, and not a quote.
The bullriding is going on today, for some reason, instead of happening over labour day weekend. The announcer is seriously loud.
And in case anyone is wondering: bullriding (slideshow). And yes, to get good shots, you have to be on the ground, right on the other side of the corral. I’ve had the clowns land on my head, riders do the same, and been charged by a bull more than once. Fun. It’s also the best way to get a lens absolutely filthy.
Iyéska
I’d was going to say I’d like to see someone revive Bull-dancing, but apparently someone has
Dalillama, that actually looks less dangerous than bullriding. People will do stupid shit with bulls. Me, I just try to stay out of their way. (There’s a huge bull, lives on a farm just outside of town, who decides to wander in every now and then, and hang out in front of the Muddy Creek saloon. His name is Ed.)
It’s kind of hard to rate the relative danger of the various sports involving close contact with pissed-off bulls, to my mind. It’s an impressive performance, though.
Of course, riding steers are also a thing.
Dear Steve Labonne,
Greetings from the Thunderdome.
You are a self absorbed, derailing jackass. Shut the fuck up already.
Dalillama, once having found myself in a situation where it was necessary to vault over a bull, rather than being steamrollered by one, I feel fairly confident in the idea that going over a bull is less likely to piss them off than landing on them.
Wowsa, Scott Hatfield showed up. It’s been a long time.
Beatrice
Best way to paraphrase the “Horseman” (and Thunderf00t [and, often, Bill Maher]):
“How can I possibly be sexist or misogynist? I’m not Muslim.”
re: Scott Hatfield-is this a good thing or bad?
日本にいます。
I’d like to stay awake until 9 or 10.
It’s not quite 8PM.
seems unlikely
chigau
Yooooooo caaannnn dooooooo eeeeeeeet!
@ Alexander Z
Yeah, I saw that too. Go ZA!
News24 linky.
@ chigau
.
.
.
BOOOH!!!
Tony, Scott Hatfield was a regular years ago and very much respected. So, yeah, it is a good thing.
I am about to ask a very silly and stupid question. And it would be nice if someone answered it.
(Yeah, I am a bit fucking miffed that I am pretty much ignored anymore.)
Because of a combination of these factors; my memory not being the greatest, I do not have an obsession about old trolls and one cannot do a search of the old SB Pharyngula archives; I cannot recall what kind of troll drosera was.
Thank you.
gmacs
I love it. That’s exactly what it is. I’d just add that it’s not just the big names, it’s the fanbois too.
Tony, Scott Hatfield is a theist, and one of the first people Mollied, back in ’07. It’s a good thing.
Janine, Drosera was a deliberately obtuse, sexist troll. Commented in some of the sexism threads here at FTB before finally disappearing. I think he was finally banned.
Thank you, Iyéska. I ask because he is now part of the crowd at Jerry Coyne’s blog, trying (and failing) to point out lies Adam Lee made about our esteemed white male atheist.
I remembered his name, and the fact that I regularly insulted him, but little else.
theophontes
Apparently there already is a LGBT-friendly (everyone writes “gay”, but it’s not true – they’re inclusive for everyone, not least of whom are women) in Canada and a similar prayer room in Paris.
It looks like the beginning of a movement. Can’t wait for it to spread.
In other news: Israel surveils and blackmails gay Palestinians to make them informants:
chigau #241
My relatives were there more than five years ago. They returned with a programmable toilet seat.
Goodbye Enemy Janine
That’s why I prefer a site specific search on Google. You can do it like this:
drosera site:http://freethoughtblogs.comAlexanderZ, that is fine but the main problem (as many of the long time regulars can also point out) is that most of the comments at the ScienceBlog version of Pharyngula are now gone. (Yes, I know one can search the cached versions.)
Janine, Drosera was banned.
Memories…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/20/relief-for-the-heartsick/
A real Richard Dawkins fanboi, whose hero could do no wrong, no matter what the evidence was. Always twisting facts to show RD was an angel, who was simply misunderstood. An utterly hypocritical tone troll on top of it all.
Gad, the heartsick thread was all about Dawkins, too.
Iyéska, I would say that I had damned good reasons to purge that from my memories.
Good to see that he has welcome nest at Jerry Coyne’s most very civil blog.
Janine:
Yeah, me too. An early round of “Dawkins can do no wrong, you witless meanies!” Oy.
Iyéska #253
He’s right about your ‘nym being polymorphic ;)
AlexanderZ:
As in changeable? Actually, back in 2012, he had that wrong, too. I was always Caine. The descriptor tag changed, as most people’s did, but not my nym. Drosera wasn’t the greatest thinker. At any rate, polymorphic is hardly an insult, which is what he was aiming for, to be sure.
And drosera. Damn, so much about him that I so quickly forgot. Like that I dubbed him an Elevator Truther.
And in a few days, I will not even remember that. I guess it is a good thing.
Al Franken, unsurprisingly, sends the best fundraising e-mails.
======================
Dear David,
It’s been a rough day here at the Al Franken Center for Innovation in Fundraising Emails.
See, we just got this new machine. Real cutting-edge. The salesman said it could fill inboxes faster than ever before. He didn’t look too happy about selling it to us. I guess he’s on our list, too.
The first couple emails it spat out were pretty good. But then we started inputting all the recent developments in our race: the new attack ad from my Republican opponent, the new Super PAC devoted to defeating me, and the four straight polls showing this race in single digits.
We even reminded the machine that there were only 9 days left to reach our September goal in the hopes that it would come up with some snazzy fundraising links like this one.
If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:
Express Donate: $5
Express Donate: $10
Express Donate: $25
Or donate another amount.
Anyway, I guess it was too much, because the machine started cranking out some really weird stuff. A chapter from The Great Gatsby. Directions to a gas station in Wabasha County. A bunch of Minnesota Twins box scores from 1984.
Eventually, the machine started emitting a sort of bluish smoke, along with a poem about Lake Beltrami. The poem wasn’t bad, but the smoke smelled awful.
Then it exploded.
Fortunately, it’s still under warranty, but we’re back to writing these things manually. And, really, with so much going on in our race, it shouldn’t take a start-of-the-art email-generating machine to make the case for why we need your help.
We’re fighting back against the special interests, but we can’t do it without you. Please click here to get us $5 closer to our September goal!
Here at the Franken Center, we’ve got a lot of machine parts to clean up. But our campaign has work to do, too — special-interest-fighting, attack-ad-rebutting, grassroots-field-program-building work. And we really need your help to do it.
Thanks for everything,
Al
P.S.: The machine really seemed to think you’d be convinced to make a contribution if we told you that Tom Brunansky hit a home run to help the Twins beat the White Sox on June 10, 1984. But I’m pretty sure it would be more convincing to point out that our race is tightening fast, our opponent and his allies are spending big on attack ads, and we’re still $60,002 away from our September goal. Either way, would you click here to donate $5 right now?
Paid for and authorized by Al Franken for Senate 2014
P.O. Box 583144 | Minneapolis, MN 55458-3144
======================
In case you live in the US and actually want to donate now, a link that isn’t personalized to me should be somewhere at alfranken.com. ^_^
theophontes
BOOOH!!!
huh?
@David Marjanović, #261:
That is indeed a thing of beauty.
@ AlexanderZ
Indeed. It will be fascinating to see how this all develops.
@ chigau
Nothing like a mischievous tardigrade yelling “BOOOOH!” to wake you up!
I’m awake.
The SO ain’t.
Should I go to the party without him?
@ chigau
Nothing like a blood-curdling yell to wake SO up! Sheer terror is even better than a triple esspresso.
More rape apologia in the form of ‘but what about the false accusations’.
I gather that Dan Savage (of The Stranger in Seattle) has already been awful for a long time, but this might be a new low for him – linking his fans to a piece in Slate about how feminists have gone too far and men are at risk of being falsely accused.
Savage: It Is a Terrible and Traumatizing Thing to Be Raped
(Nice passive voice. After a couple more disclaimers comes the “But…”)
Cathy Young for Slate XX blog: False rape accusations: why must we pretend they never happen?
(the not-so-distant past, as in, THE PRESENT? /churchladyvoice)
That’d be this Cathy Young: (Marcotte)
Le Sigh…Texas:
Argh – all the warnings for apologia, anyone who clicks through to that Slate article. Young tries to cast doubt on Lisak’s false allegation analysis *and* engages in alcohol-implies-consent blaming.
Seriously, (warning) for the bit I’m going to quote here. Watch for Leaders of Atheism to start amplifying this if they haven’t already.
From Pteryxx’s quote at 267:
And accusations of false rape accusations stem from a variety of reasons:
— The survivor is convinced by family, friends, clergy, coaches that having this nice young man charged with rape will destroy his future so the survivor recants and, viola, a false rape accusation.
— The survivor is told by another scout leader that no one will believe you, no one will think that this father, this pillar of the community, would do such a thing so the survivor is sent in to apologize to the rapist for spreading false stories and voila, another rape and another false rape accusation.
— The defense attorney, in a rare case that actually makes it to trial, shows what that licentious 13-year-old girl was wearing, the jury acquits, and, viola, another false rape accusation.
All of these would count as false rape accusations. Which is bullshit. And wrong.
Oh…fuckety. Fuck. Mister has to change his schedule for the next 6 months or so, working Tuesday through Friday, but I have the pain clinic tomorrow, so he’ll be working Saturday, so I won’t be able to get my meds…aauugh.
Appeal to the Horde.
Would anyone be interested in helping me with this. I have a creationist arguing that protein homochirality means goddidit, and it’s way over my head (I’m no scientist). Perhaps steer me in the right direction to answer?
This is his answer to my last comment:
“Your statements that homochirality, is not the process of chance, but are “LIKELY” resulted from a selection process; and that a simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left-and right-handed fragments is absolutely counterfeit. (I will now stop you there, the key word in this sentence is LIKELY). This is yet Another example of the evolutionist exhorting a scientific sampling that is clearly limited in scope, and then attempting to equate it with postulated scientific evidence.!! More evolutionist folly as biased researchers, ignoring science protocol, make huge “leaps” from unproven hypothesis and limited testing and then substitute the term “Likely” for scientific postulated findings..!!
Your entire “Cut and Paste” monologue is chalk full of terms like, “May Have”, “Likely”. “Might Also” and “might Occur”. Hardly the hard science that a science professional would produce. You have been exposed sir.!! LOL.
Please don’t tell me that this feckless information that you provided to me is the gold standard for proof of abiogenesis.!!
This is where legitimate scientific study morphs into the atheist researcher reading “evolution” into the process and is nothing more than pure assumption and conjecture.!!! Your lengthy Wikipedia monologue was an ill conceived attempt at providing evidence of abiogenesis..!!!
By the way, your hypothesis that some astrophysical pathway occurred leading to a naturalistic pathway for life on earth is a pure canard.!! The only source for generating nontrivial quantities of homochirality resides in the circularly polarized ultraviolet light emanating from black holes and neutron stars. Even this source produces, at best. only a few percent greater of one configuration over the other. Even worse, other radiation sources emanating from black holes and neutron stars would break down rather than build up pre-biotic molecules. It doesn’t take as science major to understand that the deadly vacuum of space and the killer radiation that encompasses it would destroy any hope for microscopic life surviving on one of your meteorites. LOL. Nice try however.!!
Rowanese.
You seem convinced that abiogenesis is possible. You know that any scientific phenomena must be postulated in order to be seriously considered relevant in the science community.
Please provide the following. Provide postulated scientific evidence that abiogenesis (naturalistic pathway) actually occurred?
Three Postulates tested.
(1). What phenomena was observed that leads science to conclude the abiogenesis occurred? What were the names of the researchers that observed said phenomena. In what scientific publications can we find the results in? What were the dates?
(2). The phenomena must be repeatable.!! What was observed multiple times that led researchers to conclude the abiogenesis occurred? What were the names of the researchers? In what scientific publication can the results be found? What were the dates?
(3). What falsification tests were administered that allowed science to conclude that abiogenesis occurred? What were the results of each test passed and what conclusions were drawn from the researchers. List the test results and how they clearly indicate abiogenesis occurred? What were the names of the researchers? What were the dates the tests were administered since such news would change Darwinian Evolution as we know it.!”
Thanks, in advance to anyone willing to help me with this.
procyon, I’m not able to help, but I question whether or not you’d really get anywhere with someone who is so dependent on multiple exclamations and LOLs.
I’m also not up enough on the science to help you with homochirality but I did notice they went from “evolutionist” to “abiogenesis” in the space of about 3 sentences. Conflation of those two terms is a hallmark of someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Procyon
This should be changed to “what falsification tests were administered to allow you to conclude that your creator/designer isn’t imaginary, and where is the documentation of said tests?
@ Iyéska
Eish, I hope that doesn’t cause problems for you.
@ Crip Dyke & Sundry Legal Eagles
Is there anything we could do if Alison Smith decided to take the whole issue to court? Could one bung money in an envelope and post to her lawyer? How does such a thing work in that neck of the woods?
Theophontes:
Thanks, it will get straightened out. Mister’s boss is having knee surgery, so he has to take over, so no more weekend shift for the foreseeable future. It’s going to be very strange, being able to go into town on the weekend.
You should bring the goddist and their argument here if you expect anything to be done about it here. We’ve had issues with people plagiarizing and misrepresenting themselves (and us) on other sites before. You could at least link the location of this and direct our attention to it, instead of some Copypasta From Nowhere. We are also not a living, breathing version of AskJeeves. We have lives and jobs and such, and this is a place to communicate with us, not for us to provide (not much-needed) “help” so random people across the globe will “win” their online creationist-bashing battles. It’s kind of inconsiderate, if you think about it.
Anyway, my ranting aside, this is free. I’m not a biologist, but just ask yourself what’s more likely, given homochirality?
-All living things share a common ancestor.
-Magic man done it.
There’s no need at all for a Magic Man to make things that way, so that piece of evidence doesn’t make a god more or less likely. However, if all living things are evolved from a common ancestor, that is exactly the sort of thing I would expect see: commonalities in them at the molecular scale where DNA works all of its “magic.”
So, that’s zero Bayesian bonus points for Magic Man and one for evolution. Not hard to get at all.
We think abiogenesis occurred, because our solar system (and galaxy) haven’t been around forever, and earlier periods in the universe’s history were nowhere near hospitable for life. So, it goes like this: (1) life is around now, (2) it hasn’t always been that way, so (3) it must have started at some finite time in the past. Originating on Earth is a fuckload more likely than elsewhere. Since there’s no evidence that any of it requires magic, the Magic Man again gets zero points. The creationist’s best bet is probably just blithering nonsense about how much Jesus loves you. They always get points that way.
I don’t really feel like getting into the middle of a discussion, but the basic evolutionary explanation for the bias in chirality is the fact that enzymes care about chirality. Any kind of biosynthesis will likely only produce one chiral form. A given active site will not likely be able to accommodate both.
As a result, whichever version the first enzyme favors will be propagated and all following enzymes that use that version will be favored over those that use the other, less common variety. In other words, the first step decides the rest of the path. Once you’ve taken one step in one direction, all following steps in that direction become easier, whereas all steps in the opposite direction face stiffer competition. That’s the short version.
If his argument is simply that you haven’t demonstrated that the evolutionary model is true, I’d simply ask him what his model is. We don’t need to prove our model if the only competition is “goddidit”. A plausible (but unproven) model is better than no model at all.
and if I hadn’t linked to enough blatant rape apologia this morning.
(More warnings for Police or GTFO BSery)
Via Shakesville: a National Review article by Kevin Williamson, titled “The Rape Epidemic Is A Fiction”.
Reasoning – because surveyed men who answer ‘yes’ to ‘have you ever had sex with an unconscious partner?’ and similar say they aren’t rapists, and similarly, surveyed women may not report being sexually assaulted or call it by the words ‘assault’ or ‘rape’.
Iyéska(From the Stephen King thread)
It’s actually highly questionable whether anyone‘s actually been helped by AA, regardless of their belief structures. [1], [2]. Numerous studies indicate that it’s not detectably more effective than no treatment at all, and possibly less so.
Dalillama:
Yes, that I won’t argue. I just get seriously annoyed when someone wants to jump on the AA cult thing, because atheists have made it work for them, especially back in the day when there really wasn’t any other help to be had. I think today, with other options in place, it’s a bad choice.
Procyon,
The creationist isn’t arguing from facts, but from presupposition. A Google search of “radioactivity and chirality” turned up papers like these:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738911/
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/labam2013/pdf/1030.pdf
And a Google of “Chirality of meteorite amino acids” turns up:
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/meteoritescomets-and-asteroids/meteorites-may-answer-lifes-chirality-question/
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jbailey/chirality.html
Now, where is the equivalent scientifically documented evidence for their imaginary creator/designer. Keep reminding them evidence is a two-way street, and they don’t have any….
@Dalillama, #281:
Oh, I think AA has helped some folks.
The thing about that data is that you can get the same result with AA having no effect and AA having a different effect for some than others, like a mild negative effect for the majority, but a major positive effect for a certain small population.
You could conceivably run a test for this as well, but you’d need to be studying the standard deviations of the control group and the AA group. That’s not often done. Has it been done for AA? You could even propose to test in advance the means & medians and SDs **within each quartile**, and that might be useful as well – though I’m sure that there are problems I’m not considering.
In any case, the data is clear that unless and until we learn how to identify in advance people who belong to a population more likely to benefit from AA (if such a population exists), recommending AA is a bad strategy, and mandating is certainly a bad strategy. Any people who have benefited however (and it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that literally no one has – think of people who meet in AA & partner up who then help each other over a lifetime: that’s happened), are such an overwhelmed minority that there’s no detectable positive population effect.
I meant to post this yesterday, but excuses:
I was going through my music listening to some older stuff, when I noticed the date on one of them. After a quick wiki-lookup I discovered Just a Girl by No Doubt {caution: autoplay, youtube} was released as a single 19 years ago [yesterday]. People have been conceived, born, got a a driver’s license, and started (maybe graduated) college in that time. And yet, in all that time I can’t see that all that much has changed – I think some maybe in degree, both ways, but not so much in kind. There are almost certainly older songs of a similar nature, but this was one of the hits when I was growing up, so it has some particular salience to me.
However, I’m a guy, and not a particularly socially involved one, so I was wondering: Is my impression correct? Is it still more of the same, in perhaps just a different guise? Or has it overall gotten better, or worse? Or something else?
Also, any older examples of good songs on the same theme?
Oops, I forgot one part:
I know one thing has changed though: I’m a lot more aware of what the song’s talking about, and the use of girl has a significance to me it didn’t in the past. For which I’d like to thank, among others, PZ and the Pharyngula community for helping to open my eyes.
totally ‘rupt and not even going to try catch-up
so *hugs* all around.
We’re going to Matsumoto, Nagano.
After many discussions with my partner about our disinterest in diamond rings or precious metals, I have finally chosen the proper gift exchange for engagement. I want to go seriously old school and use livestock: angora goats!
And instead of being an annoying and unwanted bit of mineral stuck on my finger, these will eventually lead to sweaters and rugs! I may be willing to give him some chickens or rabbits instead if he’s not into it, but I definitely need an engagement goat.
Now I just need to talk him into it…
TMM @ 288, I didn’t know you were engaged, congratulations! So, did you sort out that to sprog or not to sprog question?
Angora goats, eeeeeeeee. However, keep in mind, they are goats. Goats are excellent artful dodgers and escape artists, and they will eat everything.
TMM
Congratulations!
Iyéska @ 289, we did settle it pretty well, I think. I’m not entirely certain about being childfree and he’s not entirely certain about parenthood, so we simply aren’t going to sprog without both of us being entirely certain about it, entirely free of pressure. And I think that’s the safest and most ethical choice for us.
And, oh, yes, goats are difficult beasties. Goats won’t be happening for some time yet, until we’ve got things actually financially secure to some vague degree. This publishing contract is just going to make everything so much more possible now. I could cry with relief.
Daz @ 290, thanks!
…ah. I’ve been told he requires an engagement sheep. Yes, this will be a fibrous union.
@ chigau
Stuck in the traffic in Beijing.
@ TMM
Giant Conga Rats too!
@ Iyéska
[animals]
We now have seven (7!) kittehz.
TMM:
I don’t see a problem, you get him an engagement sheep, he gets you an engagement goat.
Theophontes:
That’s a lot of cat! Has Ms. Molly gone mommy?
theophontes
ALL THE ENVY
5040? Where do you keep all those cats?
@ Iyéska
No, Ms Molly has not seen the new kittehz yet.
CUTE ALERT: Image.
(The red text translates as: “DANGER!”)
@ 2kittehs
Imagine… You would have to change your name to 7kittehs !
“Is this the world’s most radical president? ” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/-sp-is-this-worlds-most-radical-president-uruguay-jose-mujica Uruguay’s José Mujica lives in a tiny house rather than the presidential palace, and gives away 90% of his salary.
theophontes
I IZ DED OF CUTE
Yes! Yes! I would!
Everything about this sounds wonderful, including the publishing contract :-) I’m so happy for you!
The exchange of gifts you actually want, the way you have had the sproggening discussion, everything. Many many happy conga rats to you. And imagine the mixed-fibre fabrics you might create – made of win!
@ Beatrice
I’m rusty…
.
.
{creak}
.
.
.
*PLINK!!!*
(The penny drops.) ———-> Factorial.
@ birgerjohansson
I recall reading about that person. Pretty frikkin’ cool.
atheist, over on the “perception matters” thread, be like: “I mean, it’s just obvious that communism and socialism are the right thing to be, because, DUH, capitalism be a religion and people be worshiping capitalists”
0__o
Well, some people do seem to have a quasi-religious veneration for the Almighty Invisible Hand of Free Market Forces or whatever it’s called.
@303
I’m aware.
I didn’t want to derail the Openly Secular video thread, but how fucking awesome is Barney Frank:
Barney Frank on hypocritical Republicans
I wish he posted here.
Maybe “atheist” was just semantically ambiguous. Maybe the only “capitalism” they were referring to was the “free market” worshiping variety. And so maybe they lumped all other varieties in with “socialism”.
Dear antepopro, I’m so hurt. Not.
The problem is not at all one of tone, a misconstrual that’s very convenient for enabling people to avoid really examining the problems of Gnu/New- much easier to cry “Tone troll! Derail!” than to actually think. It’s one of ignorance and self-righteousness that hampers rather than promotes the advance of secularism, and that is *not at all unrelated* to the prevalence of misogynist dudebro libertarian assholes in movement atheism- it’s a movement that was *created and led* in very large measure by such people (often, like Dawkins, only now being recognized for what they were all along) and that cannot be fixed just by jettisoning some bad dudes. Here’s a philosopher who can explain the problem much better than I can. You can take it as read that I agree with him pretty much across the board.
Steve LaBonne:
What your philosopher buddy has to say:
This claim is false and frankly absurd. All four of the horsemen have written extensively about it (some more than others). They do not in any sense “exclude” meanings and values. Those are four out of the six people who are (or were recently) alive and mentioned by name in the article, and apparently the primary targets.
Massimo Pigliucci (who he seems to distance from “New Atheists,” as a critic of “their” scientism) is the fifth, and he’s some kind of non-realist about value. But that does not mean he excludes it from his understanding of the world; he has a different understanding of what they are than a realist one (although I’d say “impoverished” is fair). Bill Maher is the last, mentioned for his anti-Muslim bigotry, but he’s a fucking piss-poor comedian and whatever his views on the subject of values or meta-ethics might be they’re almost certainly incoherent. (He in no way represents atheists, or New Atheists, and I don’t think he even identifies as one — again, in some kind of coherent statement to that effect, because he’s got a general fucking problem saying things that make no fucking sense.)
He makes no case for this. Why “should” it be insignificant? Does it have any implications about the world? What are they? Why are those not significant? What is it about gods, in particular, that makes them different from anything else?
False and confused and counterproductive. There’s nothing special about it as a category — you test it or you don’t. And you could easily invent “natural” entities that evade detection/testing. That does not make them what they fucking are.
The reputation of Pharyngula as an evil hive of wretched scum and villainy is simply not going to work if it’s most vicious thread is filled with people socializing, being kind, and engaging in thoughtful discussion. Hooray for Mellow Monkey, their betrothed, and various engagement livestock! I love every aspect of that idea. I also want to thank Steve LaBonne since I was unyielding in holding his feet to the fire in the RD thread. Welcome into T-dome, it is noted and appreciated that you are here.
All my ads this morning are in Japanese.
Actually, you’re the one begging the question in your next sentence where you say:
And you are just wrong. Learn how to actually reason about whether somehting is likely to be true or not. Go learn Bayesian Reasoning. It can be applied to religious truth claims as well!
Mellow Monkey:
You’re engaged? Congratulations! I’m very happy for you!
I’ll tag back in for a moment. For anyone interested….
Here are some good videos by philosopher John Hawthorne, on “Theism, Atheism and Bayesianism.” (Specifically, they’re mostly focused on fine-tuning arguments and whether they even make sense…. spoiler: they don’t). It might sound boring and dry, but I think he makes it fairly entertaining (I guess part of that’s just being a sort of funny/awkward British guy). Both are about 40-45, and there are also some short Q&A vids following up each, which are easy to find on that channel or in the related videos sidebar.
Part 1
Part 2
In honor of Halloween-I found this short video quite funny.
theophontes, opposablethumbs, Tethys, and Tony!: Thanks! It occurs to me it’s kind of odd to announce it in the Thunderdome, but…eh! It’s been a long, twisty journey to get here. We’ve been together for four years and known each other for seven years, but shared friends from the time we were teenagers and somehow managed to never cross paths until we were both firmly entrenched in our twenties.
brianpansky
Arguably there are versions of all three that qualify, but religious capitalism is far and away predominant in the modern world, and not just in the U.S. Just to clarify definitions, especially of the latter two, which are often conflated, in a capitalist economy, the means of production are owned by capitalists; private individuals who accumulate legal control over/personal ownership of large amounts of capital, be it financial, physical*, natural, or, in many cases, human. Most extant economies are functionally capitalist. In a socialist economy, meanwhile, such capital is principally or entirely owned by organs of the state; the Soviet Union was an example of this type of economy, and the PRC has been at times as well, although frankly I’m not at all sure how to describe the current economic system there; possibly an extremely badly run mixed socialist/capitalist economy (which, combined with certain political indicators also found in the PRC, amounts very closely to Fascism). The only remaining states that are meaningfully socialist are Cuba and possibly North Korea. A Communist economy, meanwhile, is one where the ownership of capital lies in the hands of, colloquially, the workers, which is to say those who employ said capital to productive ends. There is not, and has not to my knowledge, been a state with a meaningfully communist economy, although the Italian province of Emilia-Romagna has maintained such an economy for above 60 years, with excellent results, to wit that they have consistently shown higher wages and standards of living than comparable jurisdictions elsewhere in Europe over those decades.
Note that I did not, at any time in those definitions, mention anything about political organization, because these are economic terms. It’s perfectly possible, for instance, to have a democratic government and a capitalist economy; most of Europe has, for instance. It’s also possible to have an absolute dictatorship and a capitalist economy; see Pinochet’s Chile. Similarly, there was a considerable period post WWII where Japan had a heavily socialized economy (the government partially or completely owned many major industries), combined with a democratic government, while the Soviet Union had dictatorship and a socialist economy. I suppose it’s theoretically possible for an autocratic government to coexist with a communist economy, but since economic democracy is one of the precepts of pretty much all modern flavors of communism, I’m not sure how it would come about.
Ogvorbis
Infrastructure ≠ socialism. Infrastructure is ancillary to the means of production, and necessary for a functioning economy of any type whatsoever.
michael kellymiecielica
Marxism < Communism. There are many, many other communist theoreticians, before, after, and concurrent with Marx. Pure Marxism has a number of flaws, the Labor Theory of Value being only one of them, but I'm not aware of anyone advocating for it, so that's pretty irrelevant.
Congratulations, The Mellow Monkey!!
—
I was reading Popehat and it seems the entire coverage of the Texas upskirt law was wrong. The judges actually thought such a law would be legal:
They ruled against the law because it was badly written and poorly defended (paraphrased by Popehat):
TMM
Yay for engagement textile livestock.
Dalillama #316
That’s an interesting point. How would you describe the different approaches to government spending? Is there a proper definition?
“Big government” vs “small government” sounds pretty dumb and “Laissez-faire” vs “reality” is not accurate, so what’s left?
I’m curious about this too. Those obviously aren’t identical, but “the means of production” covers a lot of ground; and it matters who has ownership/control over the kinds of “property” or “transactions” or what-have-you that are considered “infrastructure.”
You can also claim that lots of things are “necessary” for any economy, but that isn’t literally true: you certainly could have a functioning society without roads. It would be a very badly-organized society, which is “functioning” for at least somebody. And China (or the US, or really pick any country) is an example of a very badly-organized society, yet despite that its system still counts as a valid one for some (still unknown) reason.
But I wouldn’t agree with the stuff about “pragmatism” (a word I generally loathe). It matters to me what’s in the best interests of everyone in the society and in other societies. I think that certain bits of “property,” “production,” “labor,” etc., ought to be owned by (or in control of) everyone, because excluding certain people from their ownership/control has negative consequences. I don’t distinguish between whether it’s “infrastructure” or not — indeed, schools and police forces and health care systems and parks and so on really stretch the metaphor of “infrastructure” way beyond its literal meaning. But that’s not even on my mind.
Ugh, it should read this way:
That’s important. For example, I want everyone to have control over the police department’s activities, not the other way around.
Although the bit about science and religious claims is not the part of Wells’s piece that interests me he is correct as far as he goes. A real miracle- a one-time exception to the laws of nature- would be something that science is inherently not designed to deal with. Of course he might have gone on to point out that we can use the tools provided by Hume’s “On Miracles” to point out that there is no good reason to believe that miracles have ever occurred. The whole topic is really not worth more attention than that, which is the main point Wells was making and in which I entirely concurm
Steve LaBonne @322:
??
Something happens to reality and scientists can’t deal with it? Won’t that something/miracle/whatever have some sort of measurable effect on reality? What makes you think the effect can’t be dealt with?
No, he really isn’t.
And you didn’t talk about any parts earlier. I quote:
So, pretty much across the part of the board? Which part?
Brian Pasky, where’s that paper you linked about testing supernatural claims?
Anyway, while we wait on that: this isn’t even coherent. I’m going to let you sort out for yourself why that’s the case.
What do you mean by a “law of nature”? Note that I’m not asking about what science is allegedly equipped or unequipped for (inherently or not). Just tell me what a “law of nature” is. What’s required for something to be a law or not be a law, and what exactly is this sort of thing?
Huh? Were you not paying attention, when religious people do anything other than talk about miracles?
Here, I found it. Gobs and gobs of good philosophy in there, with no exclusion of meaning/values, no scientism, and no bigotry. Should be right up your alley, except for the part that it’s not lying about people.
“Atheists” post was just really bad*. The very concept of a better version of capitalism is enough to show his argument to be very silly. Or he may have been sloppy with disambiguating the terms. And the present day ratio of which economic theory is held more religiously also does not argue for his favored economic theory being immune from this pitfall were the two kinds of economy to be swapped, so that capitalism was rare in an alternative world full of communism or socialism.
*or maybe his post was more hypothetical, to demonstrate simply the law of averages when people no longer limit themselves to one possible position to choose from.
I have never agreed that supernaturalism is empirically testable, for the simple reason that it’s not even a coherent concept. Again, a genuine one-off event would not be accessible to probabilistic reasoning and therefore to science (unless it’s something like the Big Bang which is not genuinely singular since it does obey universal physical laws and has observable consequences which do as well. On the other hand, any “supernatural” phenomenon that occurred regularly would be nothing of the kind but simply a natural phenomenon accessible to science that is not yet understood. And that is already more words than the whole subject is worth. I don’t waste time refuting the existence of unicorn l, either. People adhering to “traditional” religions that make absurd claims need to be prevented from interfering with secular society more than they need to be argued with. And liberal religious people are natural and powerful allies of atheists in that endeavor, not enemies.
Steve LaBonne @327:
Is this comment in response to someone in particular? If so, I’ve no clue.
I don’t think that’s true. Granted I’m not completely in the “oh, I get it” crowd, the comments by consciousness razor and brianpansky-as well as the latter’s link to Richard Carriers post on defining the supernatural-have greatly helped me understand what is meant by ‘supernatural’. I don’t completely grok it, as I’m having to think in ways I haven’t had to in almost 20 years, but I think I’m *almost* there.
Perhaps you ought to try reading Carrier’s post.
Just think: you could’ve “contributed” this baseless assumption of yours in the recent naturalism thread, where the coherence of the concept was an issue which was discussed at length. Every single point you made in #327 was roundly refuted (multiple times, in some cases!), and I don’t feel like repeating myself.
Well, there is also this — it didn’t come up in the other thread — which is not a fact, but something you just made up:
Good job, making up some “science” for yourself!
I’m guessing (hoping) by “deal with” you merely mean something like predict. It’s something that science cannot predict (and, really, no other reasonable thinking could predict it either).
For instance, science could fail to predict some future one-time event. Or (for the case of an event having happened in the past) it could fail to conclude that some past one-time event (that actually occured) very likely truly occured, at least before some extrordinary evidence surfaces that the specific event in question occured.
AlexanderZ
I don’t know of a formal one offhand, but for the most part it boils down to ‘people who understand macroeconomics’ and ‘people who don’t understand macroeconomics at all, and are selfish gits to boot’. The latter category usually describe themselves as ‘fiscal conservatives’, ‘free-market advocates’, ‘Laissez-faire’, etc. For the most part, their actual goals are only tangentially economic; part of ‘fiscal conservatism’ involves tilting the economy and crippling infrastructure to maintain traditional patterns of privilege, while the rest has to do with ensuring that government can’t actually enforce laws intended to directly attack such patterns, e.g. civil rights law and the like (although there’s lots of overlap between these categories of fiscally hamstringing government.
Yes, it actually is. “Laissez-faire” is a perfect example of an economic concept (markets) elevated to religious status; it doesn’t work and doesn’t have anything to offer in any discussions of reality.
consciousness razor
Clearly; that’s why I used such a general term for it.
It certainly does; for instance, when they’re owned by private, for profit entities, they work poorly and are very expensive, or oftentimes don’t exist at all. When they’re run by totalitarian governments, likewise. That’s why, pragmatically, having them run by democratic government institutions with provisions for transparency and preventing corruption in place is really the best option.
Yes, it is literally true. What’s necessary varies depending on what kind of economy you’re after, and what sort of outputs you expect to see out of it, but generally speaking, the more complex the economy the more infrastructure you need. An economy that consists of a few hundred individuals and a dozen or so goods, such as existed on certain small and isolated islands in the past (and even one or two today), can get by with no infrastructure to speak of beyond shared language and traditions (which are going to exist in pretty much any population of humans regardless), but any bigger than that and you begin to see laws and treaties (or close equivalents), which are the fundamental infrastructure that underlie any economy.
You can, and many societies have, especially ones that were quite small and/or had large rivers handy (water transport being much cheaper than overland), but you can’t have a 21st century technical economy without them, and I more or less presume that all of my interlocutors here on these boards enjoy the benefits of such an economy, based on the way that they’re posting on an internet forum and all that.
Note how much the Chinese economy sucks for the average Chinese person compared to the U.S. one. Notice how bad the U.S. economy sucks for the average Yank compared to those of Europe. Look at the differences in infrastructure between these economies. Draw the obvious conclusions.
Yes, that’s my goal too. Notice how I highlighted standard of living in my paean to communist economies. Pragmatism, like efficiency, is a much maligned word because it is a much misused one. Neither can exist in a vacuum, but must be used in the context of some goal, which can then be sought in a pragmatic and efficient manner. I want people to be proseperous, healthy, and have peaceful lives. Pragmatism says, look at where people have those things, and make things more like that.
Yes, these things are called…Infrastructure, and should be built and maintained by a democratic state.
Kind of odd, given that you’re usually willing to go to the barricades for precision in language.
From Wiki:
Also see the bits about soft vs hard infrastructure.
A real miracle would by definition be something that could not be predicted, or accommodated in a scientific explanation. Fortunately there is no good reason to believe that such things occur and, as Hume successfully argued, evidence sufficient to establish that one had occurred would be very hard to come by indeed. Arguing against invisible pink unicorns may be an enjoyable pastime for some but it’s kind of like using a jackhammer to hammer a nail- not particularly useful. Or interesting.
Your definitions of naturakl and supernatural are apparently different from those that I think are most correct.
Yet even still, you are not being internally consistent here. Nothing about your definition excludes such events from having observable consequences which obey “physical laws”.
And what is “regularly”? More than once? Four? Over nine thousand? Twelve times in the cambrian years? Then suddenly it changes from supernatural to natural?
I’ll stick to my definitions of those terms.
I don’t have any definition of “supernatural” because I don’t believe it’s a coherent conecpt. When religions make claims of any kind that impact the observable universe- about gods, spirits, souls, whatever- they are making claims that are perfectly within the domain of naturalism, and are obviously false because they are ruled out by vast amounts of firmly established science.
Well, that’s kind of what I’m doing, if you look at it from a different angle.
I don’t see why a (rather arbitrary) label about certain kinds of things makes a difference to whether or not it is an instance of “socialism,” because socialism is not (or I don’t think should be) defined in terms of that arbitrary boundary. You seemed to be saying that a country with “privatized infrastructure” would be every bit as “socialistic” as one with “socialized infrastructure,” because that’s not the “means of production” (in your sense) since these are “necessary” for a “good” economy. (Lots o’ scare-quotes!) That’s just way too many leaps for me to make in one go, but it seems to make socialism only about the bits that aren’t “necessary,” which I think is not an accurate/fair description of what socialism is meant to be about. It may (at least) include infrastructure, but isn’t merely limited to that.
So, two criteria.
The prediction criteria is bad because many scientific discoveries, and events, could not be predicted beforehand. They were big surprizes. Also, many supernatural events could be predicted if only a reliable prophet or spirit told you it would happen. Unless you want to play the semantic game and simply stop calling them supernatural at that point, no matter how varied and one-time they are.
The second criteria is vague but seems to describe the concept of a Brute Fact.
In any case, once again what’s actually important is simply to keep nonsense out of the public sphere. Nobody contributes more to that effort than Americans United, and that fact sufficiently points up the folly of treating liberal religious people as enemies, or lunatics who need to be cured, rather than valuable friends. That’s the point I’m most concerned to take from Tom Wells’s piece: the rest is logic chopping in which I have limited interest.
Definitions! Beliefs! Oh my! So, all of this depends on you deciding, prior to any experience of the actual world we live in, what’s “real” and “scientific” and what “can” happen, then insisting to everyone else that you’re right about that, because it’s your definition/belief.
And the alternatives are “incoherent,” which doesn’t actually mean it doesn’t cohere (as in being contradictory) but that it doesn’t conform to your definition. Because — you guessed it! — that’s apparently how you define “incoherent.”
Here’s a picture I bet you’ll like, Steve LaBonne. Lots and lots of circles.
Well, this is a sloppy thing to say because you clearly use the word, and you clearly believe some things are suddenly not supernatural once they are regular occurences.
But I kind of agree with you that trying to define specific words isn’t the most important thing here. As long as we can say whether some described thing is likely to be true.
@CR
That’s not what it looks like to me, CR, unless I’m missing something.
The idea that there is no coherent conecpt of “supernatural” is hardly original with me. In any case it’s a side issue that I’m not concerned to get very involved in defending. The naive theology of conservative religion is boringly false, and the intellectual contortions of liberal theology are a harmless pastime like doing crossword puzzles. The point is to defend secularism, and knowing who your friends and enemies are in that effort is much more important than producing the umpteenth refutation of religion.
It doesn’t look like viciously circular a priori reasoning to you?
Honestly, I’m not sure if Steve LaBonne is really thinking through this much at all right now. I think he just wants to quickly get back to the point where he can talk about what kind of “alliance” we ought to have with “liberal theists.” But to the extent he really is reasoning about the rest on his own, that seems pretty accurate.
Gee, I’m most interested in discussing what I believe to be most important. So does CR. They don’t happen to be the same thing. What else is new? I live in a country in which secularism is very much not a settled issue and is currently under serious attack, and I belong to a movement, Unitarian Universalism, which gives me constant examples of what unbelievers and various kinds of mild believers can accomplish when they work together in comity. So yes, that’s where my interest is.
I’m not criticizing your interests, Steve. I’m trying to explain (to myself, at least) why your thinking is total shit on numerous subjects, one after the other in quick succession: you’re “distracted” (to be really charitable) because you want to get to this other stuff which you think is really the “important” point. Doesn’t that make sense?
Given that, should I simply not take any of your claims seriously, because you’re not taking them seriously either? What do you think I’m supposed to say? “You’re so totally right about everything”? Am I not supposed to have a bad case of SIWOTI-syndrome? (Inconceivable!)
And what happens to the atheist contribution when all folks see is the UU banners? That is the problem you don’t address, which is getting good deeds by the atheist community in front of the public. Hide behind UU, and they take all the credit….
Steve Labonne sure likes to go on and on about what bores him or what he lacks interest in and so on and so on.
Here’s a tip Steve: We don’t care that you don’t care.
Don’t put words in my mouth, Nerd. I never suggested any such thing. I am not at all a closeted atheist in or out of my congregation. But there are smart and dumb ways of presenting atheism. Certainly few here would now defend Dawkins’s way.
You don’t really get this whole Intertubes thing, do you, antepopro. Pro tip: you’re free to ignore what doesn’t interested you. And this is Thunderdome, where everything is on topic.
And now I’m going to sleep, because I have to get up for work in 8 hours. Talk amongst yourselves.
No, only the definitions of the labels are circular and silly. The articulation about what is actually true and what is not is completely correct. The dissagreement is merely what to call that.
Think of it this way, dou you think Steve is saying:
“well, the supernatural simply becomes the natural when it is common, therefore if irreducible minds are common they suddenly become reducible to the non-mental”
?
No he isn’t. :)
Semantic quibbles and terminology barriers like that are one reason why rationalist taboo was invented.
Fun Fact, Steve!
I am a member of a community (the Society of Friends, aka Quakers) who are firm believers in rabble-rousing and going out there and (peacefully!) getting in people’s faces in the name of justice.
Seems to be working rather well. But then, I’m biased.
Not everyone has the urge or desire to hang out with UUs, or the Friends. And your insistence that everyone should, and that the meanie atheists should be quiet and let the grown-ups hash things out is flatly disgusting. Get over yourself. I am not tolerated in this community (Pharyngula) because I have beliefs/practices that are atypical for the membership, but largely in spite of them. Of course, I also don’t hesitate about saying that I have zero belief in any deity and that I lay a large amount of problems (historical and modern) at the feet of religion.
And for the record, I do not see any internal contradictions in what I’ve typed here.
Get over yourself.
No, not that. He’s apparently not even recognizing that there is such a definition. He’s got a better one, you see (having something to do with a thing that’s “incoherent”), and no time to read our “uninteresting” garbage. But he is talking about what “exists” and doesn’t, in terms of what’s supposedly “natural” and “observable” and “scientific” so on…
It’s a different circle than the one you gave (about our supposed epistemic circumstances, not what supposedly becomes what), but they all have the same shape. ;)
Steve Labonne:
Irony AND fucking illiteracy. It’s not that I am not interested, it is that you are utterly asinine. The kind of annoying apathist who is just so loud and proud about being apathetic. Though honestly, I probably should just stop giving a shit about your self-important and contentless huffing and puffing. We’ll see.
@CR
Well, at least you weren’t confused about what I though tyou were confused about…
^But I don’t see how he’s doing this either…
My brain is melted (Pain Clinic day), so trying to absorb the conversation here is, uh, interesting.
Brian:
I’d try to explain my interpretation of his whole line of thought, but it’s hard to put it into condensed form, especially with so many contradictory and confusing statements/assertions/evasions/etc. And it’s not really worth it, given Steve’s don’t-give-a-fuck attitude.
Also, I’m probably just being paranoid, but I have to admit it seems like he might have actually read the other thread and is trolling us by just repeating a bunch of that same nonsense. More likely, these are some strong memes that haven’t been challenged much in Internet Atheist Land, so most everyone says that same shit reflexively (maybe because they “work” for creationist-bashing or something like that). Anyway, since that was all thoroughly addressed (unfortunately, because it distracted from some of the more interesting points that could’ve been made about the article), I just can’t dredge up the desire to do the same thing all over again here.
Iyéska
I found that thread brain-melting all by itself and gave up trying to make sense of it way back.
Non-contact-hugs, if they’re wanted, for pain clinic day.
2kittehs:
Thank you. I’m good, just a galaxy or so beyond space cadet. Good meds and stuff. :D
Aw geez, what word or words did I include in my post that caused it to get caught in the filter this time?
@ AlexanderZ
Some bad news from South Africa: Cape Town shuts South Africa’s pro-gay mosque
As much as I feel for Taj Hargey and his predicament, I can’t really imagine any malicious intent on the part of the Cape Town City Council. I have dealt with them a lot in the past, and struggled against them. All the way to the supreme court. They are very sticky about their rules, and perhaps this is better for the city in the long run, as it has prevented a lot of bad planning.
On the other hand, I see this as a huge setback of a really fantastic initiative. Billions of dollars are being spent on both fighting, and supporting, radical islam, Yet here is an opportunity to undermine the fanatics while supporting moderate Muslims and counteracting discrimination. It would be amazing if some organisation with the resources and financial means, could help them find an appropriate venue until these issues are properly resolved.
Imagine if a prominent atheist, with $135 million to spare, would step in and do good by Muslims, women and gay people all in one fell swoop. Now that would be sending a positive message for a change!
@ Iyéska
Gentle Hug Vouchers ™ are hereby proffered.
(Note: These may also be exchanged for Rat Scritches ™ )
@ Iyéska
Something like this kitty, then?
(I did look for an equivalent rat picture, but alas, didn’t see any.)
Iyéska, a beyond-space-cadet rat for you. Hope you like zir!
Esteleth
Yup, no you’re not tolerated – you’re (figuratively) embraced and definitely appreciated :-)
Yup, see my futile attempts to talk to people at Rationalwiki about it. They just threw an endless stream of misunderstandings, assertions, non-arguments, and stuff at me, and they really seemed to be pretending to forget everything I said previously in the conversation.
Yeah, Brian, that’s just … sad.
And if you go to the naturalism page (which you might expect to contain fewer absurdities), you immediately get pummeled with this:
Which is just plain stupid. It’s not about claiming they’re “impossible” (as if it’s a matter of pure logic, that was “disproven”) but simply that they don’t exist (as an empirical fact). And neither of those is in contrast to the existence of any “ways of knowing,” but opposed to supernatural things themselves. So what are those, and for that matter, what’s nature? Nowhere to be found on rationalwiki (except the talk pages, I guess).
2kittehs
Is it my imagination or is that rat wearing a tutu?
LykeX
Not your imagination! I found a pic of a rat in a green tutu and HAD to use it. :)
Did the James Randi foundation just pull the plug entirely on its forums?
Apparently not. The forums appear to be up again.
Those that are claiming equivalence in the offensive language on either side of the DEEP RIFTS, should take the time to examine things in more detail. Look not just at the number of instances in each case, but how the word is used … here, LMGTFY:
http://bit.ly/1pddWRh
vs
http://bit.ly/1yr3xej
Steve LaBonne #341
That is indeed a point. It’s not in any way “the” point though.
On a less (though not completely un-)political, more social level, there’s also the need to pull the pedestal out from under religious ideas and institutions. The taboo on discussion of them, the expectation that they should be treated with unearned respect and deference, the idea that a holder of such ideas is necessarily a morally upstanding person merely because they hold them. There’s also the problem that religion, in general, promotes—indeed has to promote—bad ideas of what constitute logic and evidence, in order to further itself.
If your own major concern is church/state issues, then I can see how our earlier disagreement came about. My concern, and I suspect those of many other here, is not limited to that. I’d also point out that if that pedestal of unearned privilege is left in place, we’ll be forever re-fighting the church/state battle. because people and organisations with privileges will attempt to use them to their own advantage, as surely as water flows downhill.
Dalillama #331
Thanks.
theophontes #361
Sad, but not entirely unexpected.
I trust your experience completely. I do have one question – the BBC reports:
Did the Muslim councillors really were in favor of the mosque? Despite the supposed violations?
If so then it’s excellent! I didn’t imagine this would get any support from any Muslim authority figures at all. I see this as quite a silver lining.
No, no, no… Muslima exists for his benefit – not the other way around.
New policy.
It is time to ignore people with the last name of Nugent.
I apologize to all Nugents not named Ted and Micheal, I realize it is not fair to you.
I am sorry.
So, apparently Ally Fogg has weighed in on the Emma Watson debacle, and found the phrasing in her pledge to not be inclusive enough.
This man could get a gold medal in missing the point
Seriously, He posts this with the Title “Five little words that betrayed Emma Watson” and then spends all his time in the comments about how he “doesn’t have a problem with Watson’s speech.”
Oh, and Pitchguest and Schala are doing their usual “AHBLAHBLAHMENZWHATABOUTMENZWHYARENTTHEREMENZAHHHHHHHHHHMISANDRYFEMINAZI” Thang. It kinda feels like we decided to just put a slyme-garden here, and roped it off with a copious banlist…
It has been a long time since I have seen a vintage Pitchguest whinefest.
Oh, wait, it has not been long enough.
Janine@376
Seriously. Pitchguest is the human equivalent of a shit-sprinkler, vomiting feces at things that offend their horribly sensitive feelers.
Heating panels behind bathroom mirrors are really good idea.
Hee, thank you for those, 2kittehs! :D
I’ve just learned a lovely new way to describe flouncing. Playing the insulted liver-sausage.
consciousness razor
I’m not at all clear on why not, though. Infrastructure has a perfectly clear meaning, which I gave upthread, and it refers to particular classes of stuff, notably stuff which does not directly produce anything*, but which allows a greater variety of things to be produced. That stuff is infrastructure; roads, rails, laws, libraries, schools, etc. The, there’s stuff that can be used to produce things** directly; factories, tools, computers, farms etc. Then there’s things that aren’t either one; toys, games, movies, etc. This stuff is among the outputs of the second category of stuff (the first category of stuff is also, for the most part, an output of the second category of stuff).
Assuming you somehow had a country where the state owned all the factories, farms, etc. but didn’t own any of the roads, phone lines, and so forth, then yes, such a place could be described as socialist but with privatised infrastructure. As with the case of a country that had a communist economy combined with a dictatorship, though, I have some difficulty in envisioning just how you’d get to such an arrangement, or indeed why anyone would try. It’s also worth noting that Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism don’t encompass all possible economic modes, but none of the others I know of are even vaguely practical for a society on the scale that nations operate on these days, let alone and industrial economy.
Your scarequotes, not mine. It’s a plain fact that industries need to be able to get raw materials, move products to where people want them, create new and better ways to do things, have some kind of structure to determine who gets to use what stuff, etc. etc. etc. The more complex and specialized an industry is, the more of that kind of thing it needs.
As I’ve noted above, pure socialism is pretty crap. Partial socialism, as was practiced in Japan and South Korea in the mid to late 20th century, can be an excellent way to boost needed industries and jumpstart an economy, but pure socialism leads inevitably to a planned economy, and those are, as mentioned, crap.
My point is that infrastructure is not a thing that is unique to socialism, nor is a desire to have good infrastructure a sign that someone is a socialist, or advocates for actual socialist ideas. I know people who advocate for actual socialism, as I have defined it above. They are well-meaning, but misguided, but they are not the same as the people who, say, want the U.S. to fix the highway system, install high-speed rail, put in civic broadband, or otherwise invest in the infrastructure that’s needed so that even our current economic system can continue to limp along in a way that results in more people than not having food and roof over their heads. It’s bad enough as things stand, but it’s only going to get worse as the infrastructure deteriorates.
brianpansky
Technically, capitalism per se does not require this belief. Believing that capitalism will bring about general prosperity, or that it will result in anything other than a bloated oligarchy, however, does require a belief in the Invisible Hand.
@381 Dalilamma
eh, I my criticism was supposed to be more directed at the “free market” ideology, such as laissez faire stuff. I don’t know enough about these subjects to comment on the invisible hand.
*directed at the claim that capitalism demands a “free market” ideology
That’s not what I was asking about. You have two countries. If one country was entirely privatized, including infrastructure, while the other had socialized infrastructure but everything else in it was privatized, would you say those are “equally socialistic”? Is the latter not even a step in the direction toward socialism? Should a term like “mixed economy” not be used in that case, but only when talking about industry and the like? Is infrastructure, even if it (always?) affects “market” aspects of the economy more “indirectly,” not important enough to even talk about it in those terms — or if it’s important enough what exactly is the reasoning behind this supposed to be? I mean, I agree with basically everything else you’re saying, but that part of it just doesn’t make any sense to me.
But we’re not talking about whether it simply exists or is “good,” but whether it is publicly owned and operated. If that’s the case, I’d call it “socialized.” (That’s no guarantee that it’ll be “good,” although privatizing it is almost always detrimental).
Brianpansky:
Wait, what? It should be the same thing….
All Knowing Wikipedia sez:
Iyéska
My pleasure and you’re welcome! It was fun making up the dancing space ratteh. :D
consciousness razor
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, that is precisely what I was getting it in my initial comment about infrastructure and socialism not being the same thing. As I explained to AlexanderZ, both of those countries have a capitalist economy, but one has a government that understands macroeconomics, while the other has a government composed of people who don’t understand it, and are selfish jerks. The capitalist economy of the latter nation will produce much worse outcomes than the capitalist economy of the former.
Not really, no. Any economy with competent people in charge of the government will have state-owned infrastructure, regardless of whether it’s capitalist, socialist, communist, or otherwise. In my experience, people who advocate for socialism and communism are less likely to be selfish jerks than people who advocate for capitalism, mostly because of the outcomes of capitalism noted in my #381.
That is correct. Calling a functioning infrastructure ‘socialism’ and a ‘mixed economy’ is , along with continued demonization of socialism and communism generally, part and parcel of conservative efforts to hamstring same in order to preserve traditional privileges (as I noted in my #331). It is social conservatism advanced by economic means, rather than an economic decision per se, as is ‘fiscal conservatism’ generally.
On the contrary, it’s too important to talk about in those terms. It fundamentally underlies the very existence of an economy, and an economy in turn underlies the meeting of the material and mental needs of a human population. Without infrastructure of some kind, civilization (in the most fundamental sense i.e. the building and habitation of cities or indeed population centers of any kind whatsoever) is totally impossible, as is the existence of any technology more complex than flint axes.
I don’t understand the question. The reasoning behind what? Infrastructure is a fundamental fucking principle of macroeconomics, and people who don’t understand the importance of it and how it runs don’t, in fact, understand macroeconomics. The only people who advocate for privatized infrastructure, ever, in any economy, are people who a)don’t understand macroeconomics at all, and/or b)do understand it, but consider a broken economy an acceptable price for keeping certain portions of the population mired in misery and/or allow the advocate to lord it over a bunch of peons who have to dance and beg for their amusement. There is no other reason to advocate for privatized infrastructure beyond those two.
Oops, misspelled Dalillama’s name O:
@anteprepro
hmmm, maybe you’re right.
My understanding was that people hypothesize an invisible hand (type thing?) will occur in a capitalist system even if it is not a total free market. Such as a mixed system. That can still be called capitalism.
Setting my confusion aside:
If you’re right, I simply don’t need to “direct my criticism” at the one, I can do so for both. And I think the point of my criticism stands, that there is very much such a thing as Capitalism that does not demand the items the person claimed it does. According to my links. And these versions of capitalism seem much less ridiculous. And more common (I think?).
Whether this will still necissarily or probably result in a bloated oligarchy, I do not know.
日本のヒールが美味しいだよ。
I just checked my spam queue on my blog and noticed a comment from ‘ericatkinson’ where they informed me that I am PZ’s house N*GG**.
Wow. The shit these people spew.
I remember him. A self-appointed conservative [un]conscious viewpoint that couldn’t argue its way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it. Pitiful.
I completely agree. This doesn’t mean that some (or all) of the infrastructure can’t be owned privately. It will almost certainly be bad, and we can argue against that, but those evaluations are separate from simply describing what the thing is and who (if not everyone) or what owns/controls it. That’s what you’re doing when you describe other parts of the economy as “capitalistic” or “socialistic” or whatever, and that can just as reasonably be done in the case of things we’d categorize as infrastructure. If anything, I’d say there are more reasons, because of how utterly critical it is to a successful economy, just as you were saying.
Let me give a concrete example (excuse the pun): a turnpike owned by some company or another. That’s infrastructure, and it’s not “socialized infrastructure” (in my terms) because it is owned privately instead of publicly. That’s a distinction you can make about it, as a simple matter of empirical fact: this person or company owns the thing, not every person in that country/state/municipality/etc. Being privately owned obviously doesn’t mean it’s non-infrastructure or that it’s nonexistent. So what to call it? If you really want to press the issue, there are in fact such people who do one or both of the things you describe above, and the actual result (the real, privately-owned turnpikes you can find in lots of places) is what I would call “privatized infrastructure.”
And that is bad; you’ll get no argument from me about that. On the other hand, if it’s owned by the state (assuming this represents the population, which leads us into talking about political instead of economic structures), then it’s “socialized.” It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that, as far as I can tell.
I suppose there is a point to be made about dishonest conservatives confusing that sort of thing with “socialism” itself as a broader economic structure (you know what I’m talking about: screaming about “socialized healthcare” and such, like it was a sign of the End Times), but the confusion should stay with them. One way of making it not such a dirty word, I think, would be to simply recognize it for what it is, without shying away from that fact: this thing X happens to be a socialized institution, in our economy which otherwise doesn’t have all that many socialized institutions in it. They might start jabbering about slippery slopes or whatever; but you won’t hear any but the most extreme right-wing loons complaining about things like publicly-owned roads, fire departments, etc. By talking about it straightforwardly that way, we might get more people comfortable with the notion that (even though they didn’t realize it before) they do indeed support “socialistic” economic policies/institutions in at least some cases. And they can clearly see why we/they care about the best interests of everyone, how useful that perspective is (so much more than a capitalist one). Then we’re not constantly on their side of the fence, talking about whether it turns a profit for somebody somehow and how we should/shouldn’t be “free” to do so — that whole line of thought is just a distraction from what’s really at stake.
I’m sure PZ will see this news soon and post it, but this is disgusting. Do we have any Pennsylvanians here?
Source: State Attorney General blames victim for rape
I don’t even know what to say. Is it unrealistically optimistic to think anything will happen to this asshole?
This can happen to any of us, and this could be our government’s response to it.
If there’s an active force regulating the market, it’s hardly an “invisible” hand any more.
The point of the invisible hand metaphor is that the market automagically rights itself towards the optimal outcome AS IF there’s a hand guiding it, even though there isn’t.
If the woman had jammed a ballpoint pen into his eye-socket…
Ohhhh now I’ve done it… Went and commented on Ally’s Emma Watson thread. And now I’m going to be curious about responses. And I’m going to go back and check. And it’s going to be a bunch of “I don’t understand how words work” bullshit. Why do I do this to myself? *headdesk*
consciousness razor
It can be, but suggesting that it should be is an intrinsically bad and stupid idea.
Yes, but doing so in terms of ‘socialism’ is essentially playing directly into the frames of the right, and I’m sick unto goddamned death of having to explain why supporting functional (i.e. state-run) fucking infrastructure is not a step towards the fucking Soviet Union (i.e. socialism). Because, in fact, describing it as socialism leads to discussions like this one right here. Also, state-run infrastructure works pretty well, in the main, while state run industry, which is to say socialism, tends to work pretty poorly, and I’d really like to be able to advocate for the one without people accusing me of supporting the other.
But the thing is, these are actually different discussions. Even if you want a capitalist economy because it allows for the possibility of accumulating stupidly huge amount of personal wealth, say, you’re still cutting your own economic throat if you advocate for private infrastructure. You’ll only support it if a) you don’t understand what’s going on, and/or b) what you want isn’t wealth per se but rather the ability to fuck over people you don’t approve of and jerk folks around at your whim.
I call it a damnfool idea, is what I call it . Rank stupidity from incompetent hacks in legislature (toll roads in general are, actually, but having them owned/run by private companies takes it to another level). Especially since AFAICT every damn one of the things in the U.S. was built on the state’s dime in the first goddamn place (indeed, it appears as though all of the significant turnpikes in the U.S. are, in fact, state-owned, although a couple are operated by contractors in one of those dumbass ‘public-private partnerships’ that republicans love so much..
So indeed would I. The other kind would be public or civic infrastructure. It would not, however, be socialism, which describes something else, which is orthagonal to the discussion of infrastructure in the same way that discussions of government type are. Ownership of the infrastructure has no more to do with whether an economy is capitalist or not than whether the government’s an oligarchy, a democracy, or a dictatorship, all of which are, as noted, compatible with a capitalistic economy. They’re separate, although related, things.
Which are, as I’ve noted, orthogonal to this discussion. I personally favor democratic regimes, for practical as well as philosophical reasons, but that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.
It does, for reasons explained above.
Which is why I flatly refuse, under any circumstances whatsoever, to refer to functioning infrastructure as socialism.
But it kind of is. Limited socialization for specified economic development purposes, yes, but overall planned economies are crap.
Then there’s apparently a whole lot of extreme right-wing loons out there, ‘cos I hear that shit all the time.
But they don’t, and largely shouldn’t.
But the socialist perspective, as I’ve persistently noted, isn’t actually in the best interests of everyone; it’s actually pretty crap.
Yes, it is. That is, once again, what I’ve been arguing the whole time.
I was reading a commentary on the Emma Watson UN speech here:
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/09/im-really-emma-watsons-feminism-speech-u-n/
And came to this section:
So, for the her second example (pay inequity), it seems at least plausible to treat wages as a zero sum game — if women are paid more, men will be paid less, and therefore, men are benefiting from gender-inequality, and if we (successfully) work with women on erasing wage-inequality, we may have to put up with harm to our personal income.
But for the 1st example, isn’t it problematic to conflate privilege with benefit? I.e. if men hop on board the #heforshe campaign and work on violence against women, the privilege gap with respect to sexual violence may diminish — but that doesn’t equate to harm. Men won’t be harmed, at least as measured by these two statistics. Or am I thinking about the issue wrong, or misunderstanding what the heck she’s getting at?
Seven of Mine @397:
Morbid curiosity?
Ally was trying to say that the pledge was the same as if he said he would pour a cup of tea for all the men on his thread. The clear implication was that he’s not going to pour a cup of tea for the women.
I asked what if you added the context that all the women on the thread already have a cup of tea? Because you know that’s a much more accurate analogy given that the vast majority of power in the world is in the hands of men and that, all other things being equal, men are usually better off than women. So what Ally is doing is flouncing from the tea party because the host wants to pour a cup of tea for the men before pouring a 2nd cup for the women.
First 2 responses: Only some men are powerful. Men can be poor too, etc. Words! How do they work?!
That was the last I checked.
Tony:
Well, according to someone over at Coyne’s blog, you and SallyStrange are compleat Clock Tower (meaning you’re the types to head up to a clock tower and start shooting.) I’d say you have arrived, Tony.
Ya, Seven of Mine, it’s pretty silly over there. Someone sait that “he4she” is…wait for it…
heteronormative.
Because, apparently, it must be asking men to be solely sexually attracted to women! Oh wait, it doesn’t do that.
@402
I was wondering about that. I remember I think thare was a troll pretending to be Sally over at Patheos, and this troll had previously pretended to be someone else from pharyngula as well (tony perhapse?). So maybe that commenter had been fooled by the troll.
Fuck trolls.
@myself in 403
well, it wouldn’t have to ask men to solely be attracted to women, there are other heteronormative things it could have said…but it didn’t say anything heteronormative as far as I can tell. My point was that the name the commenter cited, “he4she”, is not about sexual orientation.
Ah, actually I think the troll had pretended to be Nerd of Redhead (the troll imitated her “floosh” metaphor). Sorry for mixing you two up, I tried really hard to make sense of the comment at Coyne’s place (they didn’t provide any examples to look at), and confabulated a bit.
@brianpansky:
the “Redhead” doesn’t comment here, but is respectfully referenced using feminine pronouns.
her Nerd does comment here, when he’s not lavishing his time on Redhead, and is respectfully referenced using masculine pronouns.
…you’re not the first one for whom this has caused confusion. hope this helps.
Sounds like someone who just doesn’t understand what “heteronormative” means. To be honest, I was only skimming the comments that weren’t from names I recognize because most of the stuff over there is so badly reasoned it’s hard to even parse, let alone respond to. I was mostly interested in what Ally would have to say about my comment because this really is out of character for him, IMO.
Or maybe it’s not out of character and he’s just let the mask slip. We shall see, I guess.
Iyéska, mal omnifarious @402:
Oh that’s rich!
While I don’t recall every single word I’ve ever written*, I’m reasonably sure that I’ve never talked about nor advocated for violence of any sort. I may have said something in the past about admitting to having the occasional violent urge immediately followed by a recognition that I wouldn’t act on that urge, but other than that, this is ridiculous.
Also, I *hate* guns.
Perhaps this person is mistaking my passion for a desire to commit violence. How one could make this mistake is quite beyond me.
*I do know that in meatspace, prior to embracing feminism and Humanist values that I’d made comments about hurting others in retributive acts of what I thought of as justice (I have a situation in mind regarding an old manager who really treated a friend of mine like utter shit, and I remember wishing violence upon him, but I never had any desire to commit that violence or see it come about in any way), but that was 4+ years ago, I don’t do that shit any more, and I am ashamed I ever thought that way.
Tony!
They’re not making a mistake. They see you as both influential and as one of the more vociferous people here and trying to discredit you as being unstable.
There’s probably also more than a little of whatever causes people to ascribe rage to anyone who uses vulgar language.
Seven of Mine @411:
Hmm, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Thanks.
Tony:
It’s not a mistake. It is a statement meaning that you’re a person who is blunt, direct, and has no bones over calling an asshole an asshole. In other words, you aren’t a mealy-mouthed, smarmy jackass speaking out of both sides of your mouth. So, congratulations, Tony, you’re a decent human being!
You must check out #JeffCoSchoolBoardHistory
Kids are protesting RWNJ school board decisions here in Colorado. Some of them are super funny:
Kathryn Poindexter @klpoindexter
Dust Bowl was a football event sponsored by Lemon Pledge #JeffcoSchoolBoardHistory #copolitics
Thanks, Crip Dyke, that does help!
Ha! That’s great!
Iyéska #402
It is so decent of Jerry Coyne, making sure that his blog remains civil and respectful.
Janine:
Hey, no naughty words were used!
Tony #390
I see that Eric Atkinson, when he used to troll this place, was self aware enough to realize that his his preferred means of expression would have got him banned earlier.
Good to see that he is still obsessed with this blog. Sorry that he thinks that it is alright for him to vent his hatred at you, Tony.
I fucking hate false civility.
Quite alright to claim that people you dislike and disagree with are the type to commit mass murder. But calling out such bullshit? That is crossing a line.
Janine @419:
Thanks.
He could have saved himself the trouble if he’d read my ‘About’ page, bc it’s not like I was about to approve his comment. I imagine he just posted it to get an emotional rise out of me. Only thing that rose was my finger…to the ‘delete’ button.
Tony, this is a sample of ericatkinson, over at Crommunist’s blog, when he was at FTB:
If you’re interested, look here, and do a ctrl + f on ericatkinson on any thread.
Iyéska, mal omnifarious @422:
Oh I’m good. Between your quote of him, and what he left on my blog, I’m good. Blech! So slimy.
****
The International Olympic Committee has adopted a non-discrimination clause.
I keep forgetting just how witty many of these long gone trolls are.
Perhaps it is time for me to look up Dendy.
Oh, I do not have time for that, my belly needs a good scratching.
Reposting this from the “Ivins v. Paglia” thread, in case anyone finds the information interesting (part of the post was off-topic):
Perhaps it won’t come as a surprise to anyone here that Professor Paglia is one of the few atheists that Vox Day respects, even admires/loves. “Divine Camille’s” (as he refers to her) magnum opus, Sexual Personae, is one of his favorite books, and he quotes her with approval in numerous posts on his blog:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/04/la-paglia-divina.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/01/true-skeptic.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/12/camille-paglia-on-importance-of-men.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/10/shhhhla-paglia-sta-parlando.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/03/to-hell-with-secular-society.html
On an unrelated note, people might be interested to learn of recent revelations about Mr. Day’s heritage:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/did-not-see-that-coming.html
To summarize, he is of English, Irish, Hispanic, and Native American (Amerind) ancestry. Now he refers to himself as a “Person of Color.”
That he’s sticking to his guns on the vaccination controversy shouldn’t come as a surprise, either:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/pz-admits-hes-wrong.html
Professor Myers, care to comment on any of this?
Okay, so this is older than many of us, but I just read the following quote from a 1980 interview with Anita Bryant about queer rights:
That’s always fun. “I don’t think X, I just think [series of words which mean the same as X].”
*Trigger warning: rape and injustice*
I’m so demoralised right now. Just finished watching the news and found out the verdict in a local gang rape (tech. sexual assault) case came down today the wrong way. A medical student at a conference was drugged by two doctors, taken to their hotel room & raped by both of them. She went through the whole legal mess (including a cross-examination which was an exercise in victim-blaming) and the judge said the crown didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m hoping the crown appeals, but maybe the victim has had enough. I don’t know. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mds-amitabh-chauhan-suganthan-kayilasanathan-not-guilty-of-drugging-sexually-assaulting-woman-1.2777755
Of course the smug assholes went on camera saying how great it was that they’d been “vindicated”.
I don’t even… I’m just so angry and upset.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/california_s_springs_charter_schools_purge_christian_books_from_school_libraries#_=_
For all that I don’t like religion and am quite anti-theist, I don’t have a problem with books by Christian authors, or with a Christian message, or from a Christian publishing company being in libraries. As long as they aren’t being used as inappropriate teaching material (i.e. outside of a religious studies class, for instance), they should be allowed.
Tony, be very careful when you site the Pacific Justice Institute, they are not above fabricating a story in order to to try to push a lawsuit.
Read about their part in harassing a trans teen girl as part of their campaign to keep trans people from using gender appropriate bathroom. Yes, it is the classic “Men In The Women’s Room” gambit.
Peregrinus the Nihilist, just a quick question. Why would PZ care to answer anything that Vox Day has to say?
Why would anybody?
Which proves Vox Day is an abject idjit, who is utterly and totally unfamiliar with places like this (a science library), and whose evidenceless opinions can be dismissed without evidence. Just like you, since you present no evidence for your cogency by citing an abject idjit.
PZ doesn’t take VD seriously, except to point and seriously laugh at. I do the same. So should you, if you had an original and evidenced thought in your head.
Janine @430:
Thanks for the heads up.
The anger that drives Terry Pratchett: Neil Gaiman in the Guardian. Really explains where Granny Weatherwax and Sam Vimes come from.
For once the comments are worth reading.
@ Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen (#431)
Well, Prof. Myers *does* comment on Mr. Day’s, er, antics from time to time, despite asking — rhetorically, of course — “Why do we even stoop to mentioning Vox Day?” as early as 3/12/2008. And no wonder. It would be difficult to find a better foil for a self-described “godless liberal.” I asked Prof. Myers if he had any comment because the info I’d posted pertained to the recent, albeit indirect, exchange he’d had with Mr. Day over the vaccination controversy, and I was interested in what he had to say to Mr. Day’s latest response.
I’m assuming that precludes the many people who happen to share one or more of his political/religious views ;).
@ Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls (#432 & 433)
It might amuse you to know that Mr. Day once had Pharyngula included in the “Target-Rich Environments” list on his blog. Not anymore, though. I wonder why…
Are all of his opinions without evidence? (Not a rhetorical question.)
I’m somewhat confused by this sentence. Assuming I understand correctly, how is me citing Mr. Day indicative of my lack of cogency? Did it look like I was citing him with approval?
Well, Prof. Myers does sometimes treat VD’s posts as teaching opportunities, giving careful responses to the points he disagrees with. A good example is given below:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/01/vox-day-and-the-status-of-xiao/
There, now I’ve cited Prof. PZ Myers :)
I have some doubt that there are truly original ideas; actually I’m not even sure what constitutes pure originality. Original combinations and syntheses of ideas, sure, but individual ideas? Perhaps I’ll find out after studying intellectual history in depth.
As for evidence, well, I’m something of a classical skeptic (think the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus, minus the “doctrine” of ataraxia), in that I am not certain of anything, including the notion that I am not certain of anything. But an active mind craves and demands conclusions, so I try to appease it with philosophy and science. All intellectual theories — including my own — appear to me as castles in the air, but what can I do? I proceed from appearances and assumptions (this world is real and my senses are a bridge to that reality), and do the best I can. I am not entirely unsympathetic to criticisms of science, but I am of the opinion that it’s the best we have and that there’s no viable alternative I am aware of. What about you?
Going back to Mr. Day – I am, to be frank, baffled, perplexed, and perhaps even fascinated by him. I’ve read him for years, and I find it difficult to believe that he really believes what he writes, despite my (limited) knowledge of biological variation and cognitive science. Then again, it also seems implausible that a full-time trolling masquerade could be so elaborate and long-lived.
I think I see your problem.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/department-justice/dsouza-spared-prison-time-980347
Buried in there is this:
!!!
Yes, let us also take a moment to remember why he lost his job as president of King’s College.
Dinesh D’Souza is one truly scummy example of humanity.
@ Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen (#438)
Enlighten me, please :)
The fact that you cannot believe that Vox Day is as bigoted, as closed minded and as hateful as he presents himself.
Your problem, not mine.
It’s difficult to believe, but not necessarily impossible. I’d say that I stand at 50-50 at the moment.
Peregrinus the Nihilist:
You spend too much time immersed in Beale’s asswittery. That’s your choice, of course, however, you aren’t going to find people here enthused about discussing him, or his thoughts.
Yeah, that was 2011. We’ve all moved on, and Beale hasn’t.
I was actually referring to these 2014 posts:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/27/oh-no-i-was-wrong-about-vox-day/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/26/vox-day-scientist/
The Xiaotinga post was just an example of how Prof. Myers sometimes uses Mr. Beale’s posts as teaching opportunities.
Yes, that’s the impression I’ve been getting. Thank you for the clarification.
Badland @435, thanks for that link. I’ve never have thought of PT as jolly (!). I wouldn’t have thought of his anger as being quite so free-ranging, as it were, like the incident Gaiman describes about missing their radio interview; but his anger at injustice and stupidity shines in all the books. Vimes, Weatherwax, Vetinari, Death … it’s there in all of them.
I, too, find it hard to believe that some people have apparantly contradictory beliefs about reality. However, I’ve only recently seen this myself: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786
(Anti-vax notions, for example, certainly seem to be based on paranoid conspiricizing; holding to at least one obvious conspiracy theorizing belief set may imply other holding to other mutually contradictory beliefs, or as the phenomenon is called in the vernacular, “crank magnetism”)
@ Owlmirror
Very interesting. Thank you for this edifying info. It’s the kind of phenomenon that I can comprehend intellectually, but less so emotionally.
One of these days I hope to get around to reading On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not, which is a book by neurologist Robert Burton.
Soooo Fogg just doubled down on his Watson Post with another post that is literally “What about the men?”
And now Mike Buchannan is commenting in there. Horray for having our very own FTB mini-slymepit! Fuck that place.
Xaivius:
Great. Just great. Fuckin’ assclam.
Well, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Which is why pointing a laughing usually ensues after a quick perusal. Keep in mind as a SF writer, he had a short story for some Sci-Fi writing award come in behind “no award in this category”. His logic and rationale tends to be like that story.
I’m a professional scientist, so evidence, not unsupported inane ideas, are the unit of currency. VD gets tied up with ideas and ignores or misinterprets the evidence.
Many people do that, especially those who see conspiracies everywhere-like all supporters of vaccinations are in the pocket of big pharma (I’m still waiting for my check, by the way). Those like me who grew up in the 1950’s knowing other children crippled by polio, and saw it go away with the vaccines from Sabin and Salk, don’t question the utility of vaccines, unlike parents in the 2000’s, who only see healthy children due to vaccines, and thinks their special child would be polluted and not protected by them.
Ally’s commentariat has always been an outpost of the Slymepit. He’s never moderated there. He once threatened to ban me and delete my posts because I told some guy to fuck off or something similar in response to him making some very misogynist comments that also happened to hit home for me personally. He told me to reign it in while patting the misogynist fuck on the head and offering to delete my comments to protect his pwecious feefees. After which misogynist fuck gloated about how he wanted my comments left there because they reflected worse on me than on him. When Ally first started at FTB some of the regulars at the feminist centered blogs here tried to get involved but most of them quickly left because he refuses to moderate even someone like PItchguest who Ally himself acknowledges is a vile person.
More specifically, it looks like it will be an analysis of when it is appropriate to ask “what about the men”?
Given his facepalm worthy original post and thread, I don’t think spending more time reading his analysis on the issue is a good use of my time. Unless he’s actually showing signs of learning and all that.
Did no one respond to Waffler?
@Waffler
Well, you seem right. But I don’t think she’s saying that men will be harmed. (Even in the wage gap case, raising women’s pay won’t necessarily lower men’s pay. I think?)
As far as I can tell, she’s just trying to say that men are currently better off in many ways. Which seems accurate. (Though I find her phrasing peculiar, implying that we “benefit from” women being raped more frequently than us…but I’ll just go with my interpretation here)
Saad:
Over in the Cracked thread you mentioned this:
(my bolding)
You encounter fence sitters in meatspace? Wow. Those are exactly the people who need to read privilege checklists. These are the people that can be more easily reached and persuaded. Do you engage people on a regular basis?
When you sign up for the ¥500/day internet access, it sends your personal passcode to your email address, which you cannot access because you have no internet access.
They™ are in collusion with ¥100/10 minutes PCs in the lobby.
Tony, #456
Yes, a few of my close relatives, friends and acquaintances are “fence-sitters.” I think it’s actually better than that. I think they’re just scared of “coming out” as being openly against things like sexism, religious bullying, and anti-homosexuality*. This is because I’m from a Muslim background and you’re probably aware of how much harder it is in that society to openly criticize certain views and openly promote certain views. I don’t engage them on a regular basis, but as of late (thanks in part to how strong some of the members here are), I’ve built up the courage to refuse to stay silent when a topic does come up. And it has worked on a couple of people because they realize they’re not alone.
And I’m actually an example of such a person too. Not even a couple of years ago, I held some victim-blaming views myself about rape and sexual harassment. I gave up religion and most religiously motivated bigotry a long time ago, but misogyny seems to be the most elusive of the prejudices. That’s at least my personal experience. Of all the prejudices, the one against women seems to be the hardest to erase. For some damn reason, society finds it very hard to acknowledge that a man is not entitled to any aspect of a woman.
* Is there a more encompassing term for the view that only heterosexual people are good?
Saad:
“heteronormative” ?
I keep getting stuck I moderation on Michael’s blog. I hope it’s just the time difference and his being asleep that explains why I’m not getting through to him. In the interim, I’ll just cross-post here:
—————————————————————————————————————–
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ Michael Nugent
You are turning your blog into a colony of the slymepit.
Perhaps, if you would take a little time to familiarise yourself with their ways, you might want to think twice about providing a platform for such people. You will be doing your own stated goals a great disservice.
I beseech you in the bowls of FSM’s pasta, please stop! Don’t choose the side of people who revel in using sexist language. Don’t let this blog become a place for apologetics for such either. Don’t place yourself on the wrong side of history.
.
A recent episode of The Daily Show shows parallels with much of the recent discussion here, with regard to social justice and the power of words.
Link Here.
…
@ piero #4
[slymepit] …so far it doesn’t look like a place I’d like to hang around. [piero – 24 September 2014]
vs
I’m off to the slymepit to vent some anger at these clowns. [piero – 25 September 2014]
Careful, piero. By next week you may be hoggling with the very best of them.
————————————————————————————————————
(The link is to the video that PZ posted today.)
@ Saad Definite Article Noun, Adverb Gerund Noun
If you don’t mind me asking: Are you specialised in linguistics or something similar?
This.
Saad @458:
You’re not that far off, IMO.
I recommend reading Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland. I read it earlier this year at the recommendation of Iyeska. Spanning a few millenia of human history, it was an eye opening and oft rough read.
theophontes @460:
You must have some small amount of hope left for Nugent. You’re a better person than I, bc I’ve written him off (and that was before the latest round of bullshit).
@ Saad
Pteryxx already suggested “heteronormative.” Some people use “heterosexist” as opposed to “homophobic.” Not sure exactly what you’re looking for.
Hey, look at this- it’s the mythical ‘good guy’ with a gun.
(it’s a pro gun site called ‘guns save lives’)
That story is very quick to point out that the attacker was a recent convert to Islam but that there’s no evidence that it was terrorism related yet. Of course the comments are lapping it right up.
@ Tony!
In Michael Nugent‘s case he is good at articulating our values, but then fails miserably when they come under attack. One reason that slymepitters, inter alia, are fighting so hard for Michael, is that he makes them look good. They certainly don’t return the favour. I do hold out a (very small) hope that he might see what a Faustian deal he is making for himself by giving them a platform. He is conceding to them all the credibility he has built up over the years.
It is sad, in a way, watching him do this to himself. Perhaps he genuinely believes he can heal rifts. Perhaps he sees a analogy in the battle between the parties on either side of The Rift ™ and the internecine violence in his native Ireland. But the analogy breaks down, because the is no equivalence in the rights being claimed. Ours is not a battle over territory, but over the nature of society. Whereas the Irish may share their land with those of differing political persuasions, we are not fighting about something we can share. We cannot share in sexist bigotry and apologetics, because these things are in direct conflict with our values. We cannot split them down the middle, because this shit simply doesn’t work like that. We know that this doesn’t work, because we see Michael trying every day to square the circle : To articulate a social justice message on the one hand, while all the time empowering people who hold that very message to be an anathema.
Ahhhh, I see that one of the worst offenders over at Libby Anne’s is actually a Pharyngula regular. Not surprising but still a tad disappointing.
@ Giliell
WMDKitty has a very strong “boot strapper” streak and is apparently unacquainted with the first rule of holes.
Seven
Unless people crap on her needs and demands…
Libby Anne’s article was great – what a pity the comments went downhill (and off topic) so fast.
Um, did the post about Paula Kirby disappear, or was I just seeing things?
Saad:
It’s not elusive, it’s been the normal standard for millenia. I recommend reading Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice, by Jack Holland. It provides a good grounding in the historical background of misogyny, how it’s changed over centuries, the influence of various religions, and so on. It’s around 10 bucks if you can get the digital version, and it’s in libraries all over the place if you can’t.
Um, never mind my 472, not enough tea and tab confusion. *embarrassed*
Iyéska
I read Saad’s remark as meaning that misogyny seems to be the hardest one to root out and bring to light within their own head. i.e., it is easier for them to examine a belief, statement, behavior, etc. in which they have indulged and say ‘wait, that’s pretty racist, I should knock that off’ vs ‘hey, that’s pretty misogynistic, I should knock that off’.
@ Iyéska
Imma gonna look out for this one. It should be easy to understand, I understand. But it is not. There is something particular about misogyny that every other form of bigotry seems to get past. This not…it scares me.
@ Tony!
I just want to document this as the point at which I lose respect for Michael Nugent:
This sails happily through, while any of my attempts at calling out such shit gets blocked.
As long as you are only being a sexist creep, you can use sexist slurs. But for gawds sake don’t call people out on such shit:
—————————————————————————————————–
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ Michael Nugent, piero, moderately decent people…
So… this is what we have become? I call out liars, like Grey, and get blocked, yet a comment like this gets posted. No problems. Is this what you endorse?
People are going to start calling you out on this. Is this going to be your legacy?
_______________________________________________________________
All in a day’s work…
Iyéska #472
Who is Paula Kirby? What did she do?
also, come see Tony! #462 as the Invisible Man!
Dalillama:
Yes, it’s all that. I was trying to say that it’s right in front of us all the time, we just don’t see it without special glasses, so to speak. So yeah, elusive.
Theophontes:
Misogyny is the foundation for many a society, so yeah, very hard to get past. It is the status quo. From the introduction of Misogyny:
AlexanderZ, I was looking at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/10/the-saga-of-paula-kirby/ from a couple of years ago.
Jesus asthmatic Christ with a nebulizer, neurobio is an asshole.
Yep. It started so well; seemed like a minor misunderstanding, then they single-handedly proved the inflationary theory of internet fuckwittery.
Daz @483:
Yup. I thought xe was going to simply say “my bad, I was conflating being an atheist with participating in the atheist movement”. Instead it’s degenerated into a bizarre obsession with other people labeling themselves.
@ chigau
The weather is getting hot here, hotter every day …
theophontes
Keep your head down.
Hope you and yours are OK, theophontes.
@ chigau & opposablethumbs
Thanks, we are keeping OK. The wind has died down a lot this morning … but I suspect there is a big storm on its way quite soon.
@ Iyéska
You might find it interesting that a lot of the brave defenders of the (right to use the) word “cunt” want this to be the one and only definition of misogyny. I trust that the author you quote has a broader definition of the term further into the book. This is not to say that a lot of misogyny does not encompass hatred, rather that the term also captures more anodyny iniquities.
The brave defenders apply the following logic: They are offended by the social liabilities of being branded a misogynist. Rather than stop calling people “cunts”, they try and shift the meaning of the word “misogyny” to mean “hatred” (and only “hatred”) and then seek to prove that they cannot be haters. ‘Cause haters REALLY HATE. Its not just “dislike”. It REAL REAL HATE. And stuff. If it sounds convoluted, that is because it is.
I’ve called this argument “No True Misogynist ™ “. Their banal misogyny is not “real” misogyny as its banality proves it cannot be “hate”. A quick dip into Merriam-Webster delivers their proof: “a hatred of women”. QED, SJW’s!!!!!
When this is refuted by quoting a better dictionary (or even M-W’s definition of “hate”) , or feminist literature, one is accused of being sophistimicated and that the general population-at-large shares their ignorance of the English language. And reasons …
@ Iyéska
You might find it interesting that a lot of the brave defenders of the (right to use the) word “cu^t” want this to be the one and only definition of misogyny. I trust that the author you quote has a broader definition of the term further into the book. This is not to say that a lot of misogyny does not encompass hatred, rather that the term also captures more anodyny iniquities.
The brave defenders apply the following logic: They are offended by the social liabilities of being branded a misogynist. Rather than stop calling people “cu^ts”, they try and shift the meaning of the word “misogyny” to mean “hatred” (and only “hatred”) and then seek to prove that they cannot be haters. ‘Cause haters REALLY HATE. Its not just “dislike”. It REAL REAL HATE. And stuff. If it sounds convoluted, that is because it is.
I’ve called this argument “No True Misogynist ™ “. Their banal misogyny is not “real” misogyny as its banality proves it cannot be “hate”. A quick dip into Merriam-Webster delivers their proof: “a hatred of women”. QED, SJW’s!!!!!
When this is refuted by quoting a better dictionary (or even M-W’s definition of “hate”) , or feminist literature, one is accused of being sophistimicated and that the general population-at-large shares their ignorance of the English language. And reasons …
For a second, I wasn’t sure if that was ‘Rebecca’ or ‘Emma’…
How to write Haiku’s?
Whatever the weather, we have umbrellas …
If it’s hot, bring a fan …
Back on the bus …
Traffic jams …
last day
we went here
Dave Barry once suggested that the best way to travel to Japan is to have someone else pay for it. I endorse this method.
I did pay, with my own money, to have tiny fishies nibble on my feet.
@ chigau
Your linky doesn’t seem to work. I think I know about the fishies of which you speak. I would love to try that some time.
I realised that we do not HAVE to talk about the weather, a fully armed battle tank would never be able to find its way around the streets of my town…
The wind blows in mysterious ways …
I have learned the hard way, that when I criticise Michael Nugent, that I must preserve my comments so that they are not redacted, to the extent that they lose all meaning- to that end:
QFT:
———————————————————————————–
@ Michael Nugent
You have done well here. Unfortunately your suggestions have garnered less response than I, personally, have received on your own blog. You might well ask yourself why this is. You might also notice that the two people who bothered to comment (well, one helpful comment, but let’s be generous here), are apologists for the word “cu^t” as a reasonable (non-sexist) means of expression. If I were you, I’d take a long, very hard, look at your objectives. Whatever you claim to stand for, the reality is at odds with.
Two (to be generous) responses in the space of about four days? For an issue that is actually pretty consequential… That is your audience right now. You are worth far more.
——————————————————————————–
Iyéska, #473
Yup, that is currently at number three on my reading list.
And yes, by elusive I didn’t mean hard to find in the world, but hard to see in one’s self.
chigau
Isn’t “Onsen” where the Snow Monkeys like to bathe?
Did you see any monkeys?
I wonder if PZ’s in the mood to send out a call to Pharyngulate a poll:
Does Ben Carson have a shot at being President
After my vote, it was
69% (I’d vote for him)
16% (no way)<—–this was my vote, natch
7% (he'd be an inexperienced Obama)
12% (he's too smart to want the job)
I stumbled upon a browser game (NSFW) …
Can you distinguish fashion from pornography?
I tried twice and got 3/40 both times
[my heuristic was “could this be an American Apparel ad?” FWIW]
Comments after the Ben Carson poll: