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
Projection.
It took me a few seconds to realise what the picture above is: A tardigrades’s poison claw!
No, it’s a rattlesnake fang.
On We Hunted the Mammoth it has been pointed out that the GGers new hero is Jack “I’ll sue you for your game” Thompson.
I have been fascinated to see reported more and more how much viruses have apparently influenced the evolution of life, in moving genetic material between organisms. For all those people who think an alien species has messed with our DNA, guess what – you’re RIGHT !
I suppose that I have a dirty mind. A fang or a claw is not what came to mind when I first glanced at the picture.
Well done PZ. You have chosen a picture that will separate the scientists from those of us who are non-scientific, but have dirty minds.
The BBC is reporting that Mr. “Guys who don’t know how to talk to women should just assault them instead”, that PUA prick Julien Blanc, has been denied entry to the UK. I would really like to have seen him try his little trick of choking female strangers (why? because mock asphyxia by a creepy stranger is sexy now?) in almost any bar the UK (or in Ireland), and ending up punched senseless into the gutter. (Yes, wishing violence on someone is wrong. But I reckon that fighting back in reaction to being physically and sexually assaulted is just self-defense.)
RE: Julien Blanc
Dude belongs in a fucking prison. He’s a dangerous asshole and he’s pretty open and forthright about it. How has he not been charged with assault already?
I just saw that Scepticon canceled Jamie Killstein for asking for a ride to the fucking grocery store. He’s vegan and wanted to eat.
That means he had to cancel a show and he is out $1000.
If you are going to Skepticon, would you please encourage everyone there who can to buy his new book? Maybe that will help him recoup his losses.
http://www.amazon.com/Newsfail-Climate-Feminism-Control-Because/dp/1476706514
This is so disappointing. I thought Skepticon was better than that. I should know better than that by now.
mudpuddles,
Is Dawkins retweeting Blanc yet?
Hi Jackie,
Oh I’m sure the bile is frothing up to the surface as we type… “how dare anyone in Oz / Japan / UK complain about sexual harassment and having their faces forced into a man’s crotch when there are “real” abuses happenning in blah blah motherfucking BLAH….” yawn yawn yawn, Dawkins has become such a petulant old bore, hasn’t he? I don’t follow him on twitfeatures or anywhere else these days. He’s just another cranky old donkey.
It really says something that my first reaction to that was to try and figure out which one (Jack or the GGers) comes out looking worse thanks to this team-up.
Richard Dawkins is a man who can talk very eloquently about the subject of his expertise. Sadly, he hasn’t figured out that he’s not nearly so eloquent when he steps outside of that area of expertise and, having found himself in a hole, has begun a mining operation.
X-posted from the Lounge:
Bill Cosby’s NBC show is no longer in development
Bill Cosby’s Netflix special has been postponed
TV Land will no longer air reruns of “The Cosby Show”
My thoughts on Cosby here and here.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Fat Albert have a Very Special Episode about strangers who try to touch kids?
magistramarla @6
Ditto!
Or to paraphrase the old joke, “Hey, PZ’s the one posting dirty pictures!”
(I blame the Captain Hook fanfic I’ve been reading.)
That’s good news, Tony.
More good news:
Funding for the National Organization for Marriage has dropped by more than 50% since 2012
microraptor wrote:
It’s just yet more evidence that GG is hyper-conservatism dressed in gamer language. They’re basically the gamer tea party.
Phil Ochs was a better musician, lyricist, singer than Bob Dylan.
What the hell happened there?
Dylan survived.
Dalillama
At the time, Phil was a bit ticked that Zimmerman got all the attention.
On another topic
given that I have consumed … some … rum, I have decided against putting on a pan of HOT oil to cook some papadams.
I’ll have some cheese and crackers.
Yeah, but the funny part is that Jack Thompson is the guy that their type was busy railing against. I think it’s a perfect storm of him being that desperate for attention that he’ll throw in with them after all he’s said and done previously combined with them being stupid and dishonest enough to pretend like the poster child for dishonest journalism regarding video games has common cause with the group that allegedly is for journalistic integrity.
He’s like their Wedge Strategy.
@ chigau
Microwave them suckers.
..
Rodriguez is a better musician, lyricist, singer than Bob Dylan.
True, dat.
(And so is Serrat, even though I see a lot of unexamined sexism in some (some) of his lyrics)
@ Jackie
What is this, I don’t even…
I mean, OK “Skepticon” wouldn’t provide him with a ride but why cancel his fucking appearance? That’s beyond just…what the fuck kind of halfway decent person does that? Who the…what the…why would the response not be “well let me see if anyone has a car who might be going that way”? How the fucking hell is cancelling him a proportional response?
Turns out the story is more complicated than that. I’ve talked to the organizers.
Regarding shirtgate, in case you guys forgotten it already, I discovered a really stupid cartoon on Tickled about it:
I thought I would try my hand at this comic game (matt taylor / commet landing)
The cartoon was so annoyingly stupid that I fired up on MS Paint and Photofiltre and made a better version of it:
Shirtgate – The actual discussion
I hope you enjoy… (Or mercilessly strike me down for some thing I got wrong)
I don’t know any organizers. But, this is what Jamie had to say about it.
http://wearecitizenradio.com/
I was inspired by the Police militarization thread to write this, but it meanders off topic and mentions the dreaded “L” word that will bring out a horde of man-children, so I thought I’d drop it over here instead:
One thing that gets me is that, if there’s one issue you’d think a lefty like me and a libertarian could agree on, it’s what’s going on with our police force. Your average libertarian, on learning about asset forfeiture and police using the funds obtained essentially as a slush fund, probably finds it as terrifying and opposes it as much as I do. This is probably true for some other issues associate with the war on drugs, militarization of the police, etc. But while I’m sure some libertarians are actually highly consistent on this, there are quite a few who suddenly change their tune depending on who exactly is having their assets seized, or who think the police need all this stuff to deal with real violent criminals who are really out there in huge numbers, just not to bust them for pot.
Look at Rand Paul, who I realize some libertarians will tell you is not a real libertarian, but who is really the face and hero of the really popular libertarian brand. This guy filibustered the renewal of the Patriot Act. Was he worried about the expanded surveillance powers without any kind of real oversight? The national security letters and associated automatic gag orders? No, there was one provision dealing with gun sales that he cared about, and that was all. Just the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st, not the 4th. Then there was his big to do over drones. As soon as he was assured the drones wouldn’t be used in the very narrow way he was concerned about, he was all for drones for, for example, shooting the first guy to come running out of a bank robbery, because that guy obviously deserved it. So basically, he’s all for summary execution by police robot, just as long as it’s random street level crime and it seems relatively sure the guy did it.
Honestly, if I thought that there were enough libertarians who were serious about civil liberties and a candidate who would actually stop imprisoning non-violent offenders, stop police militarization, stop the unconstitutional asset forfeitures, repeal the Patriot Act, stop the wars and assassinations, etc. I would be entirely willing to join a coalition of leftists and libertarians to try to get that guy elected. But it’s just so clear that their real priorities are repealing the ACA and making the 2nd Amendment mean you can walk down the street with an automatic rifle with grenade launcher attachment, as is necessary, and they’ll gladly sacrifice the liberties that predominately affect the poor and brown.
philistines
am not
Question for the many wiser than me.
I have a friend who is in a borderline abusive relationship.
I say “borderline” because I have no reason to think he’s physically violent with her.
He’s a hardcore libertarian self-absorbed fool who lacks the empathy to have any friend and consistently burns the social ground around her. He abandoned her for a couple of months to have sex with other four women, impenetrable to the fact that it made her feel completely neglected, at which point she had sex with another guy.
The boyfriend got back, met the guy at her birthday and assaulted him, kind of killing the mood of a party she’d been planning for months.
He doesn’t give a shit, he sees no wrong on his part ever, and she’s in love with him and is convinced that he loves her.
She is otherwise an intelligent and independent woman, intellectually and financially.
I’m rather naive when it comes to this kind of things. How “normal” is this?
Most importantly, how much of this is my business?
I don’t doubt that she loves him, it’s her choice and I respect it.
She is one of my best friends, she knows and I made it clear that she can count on me if she needs help.
Is this all I can/should do?
chigau,
Just under 2,000 miles, be there for breakfast on Saturday.
Thanks for the reminder on Ochs. Nice to listen to him again.
P.S. Nugent is a tedious wanker.
Don’t be polite, this is a rude blog, and the non-moderated thread….
Personally, he’s so dense, even an adamantite clue by four is no match….
HappyNat
waitwut
The cat will be here on Saturday?
Do I have enough time to
hide the bodiesvacuum and dust?I don’t know if it’s all, but it’s definitely hugely important.
“constantly burning the social ground around her” is a big element of a bad/abusive/unhealthy/? relationship, and it sounds like you are someone whose existence is helping to ensure he can’t completely isolate her. I hope others in the thread will have more solid suggestions, but I would think that if you can occasionally get time with her – lunch/coffee/whatever – without him then at least she will have opportunities to speak without censoring herself (as much) and just to touch base with the reality outside the relationship (which can massively skew one’s perceptions). Trashing her self-confidence is likely a big part of this, so whatever you can do to remind her of her competence/skills/knowledge/abilities – whatever she happens to be good at, even in the most disparate areas – would probably be helpful. Any little chances to socialise without him (perhaps doing something he doesn’t much care for, so it makes sense for him not to be there) … or to help somebody else with something … (not for her to feel responsible for shouldering somebody else’s burden or feel she has to do extra tasks when she may be feeling too heavy-laden already, but being the one who can help somebody else out/give somebody else a word of advice can be a bit of a confidence-booster).
I hope you get some good advice from other Horders, and I hope you’re able to help.
(ps If you haven’t been there, the captainawkward.com site is extremely likely to have a thread or multiple threads in its archive that are relevant to exactly this kind of situation, and while varied (of course) they often contain a lot of useful ideas plus points that may help you disentangle elements of a situation in your own mind. Abuse is even the first thing on the list on the right hand side of the homepage.)
Are you FUCKING kidding me, Slate?
The Jian Ghomeshi Case Echoes Many Kinksters Worst Fears: Being Outed and Fired
I browse ftb on my phone. I keep getting the play store opening automatically for an app called True view. It is infuriating!
Oh, and F.O. , sorry, I forgot to specifically include your nym in my reply to you, so in case you come back later and are doing a ctrl-F down the page for instances of your nym, I responded to your #35 in #40.
Wishing you and your friend the best.
nich:
Jesus. Fuck.
F.O. #35
Have you tried asking at the Lounge? You might get more answers there.
So, here’s a fun diversion.
It appears that Kirk Cameron is a wee bit upset over the negative reviews he’s received for his new movie “Saving Christmas”. Which by all accounts is the front runner for every Razzie ever…they’re going to take some Razzies away from past winners just so they have more to give to this steaming pile of horse manure.
Of course, Cameron is fighting back. He’s been sending his followers over to Rotten Tomatoes to get them to boost its abysmal ratings. When I went over there as a counter-weight, it had a 57% fan approval rating.
I think we can Pharyngulate that poll a little better than that, can’t we?
Kevin Kehres #46
Meh. I’ve lost any ounce of respect for Rotten Tomatoes when I saw that Star Trek (2009) got 97% (the score gradually get lower since then). It’s a decent film, but it’s not Godfather or Elephant Man. I can’t believe Wikipedia uses RT viewer score as a measure of reception.
Anyway, why bother? The critic score is still a laughable 10%, making it one of the worst movies ever made. Actually scratch that – it’s the worst movie, or at least a top contender for that spot, because the other movies on that list of the worst, like Plan 9 or The Room, are at least entertaining in their idiocy.
@opposablethumbs #43
Got ya, no worries! ^_^
Thanks a lot, I didn’t consider her self-esteem and will check capitainawkward.
@AlexanderZ #45
You be right. I’ll post in the Lounge.
Today, on my way to the dentist, I fell on some stealth ice.
My bum hurts.
But my teeth are all sharp and sniny.
And everything I read is repetition.
Can’t We™ make Them™ stop?????
ncih,
When the truth is, a kinkster’s greatest fear is being lumped in with people like Ghomeshi.
Jamie Oliver – I have to vent about this Mockney Chef and total slug head (sorry molluscs)
From Stuff, Jamie Oliver punished daughter with hot chilli
Not only is he using chilli as a punishment he is only doing so because, “It is not very popular beating kids any more … and if you are a celebrity chef like me it does not look very good in the paper. So you need a few options.”
And what behaviour justified this abuse? “Oliver said he had prepared the chilli-ridden snack in reply to his tween’s rude and disrespectful behaviour.”
Chigau,
Hope the bodies are hid, I’ll be there in 20 minutes . . .oh wait I’m still sitting on my ass in Ohio.
Hope your bum is feeling better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/21/american-shane-coffey-jailed-for-travelling-to-uk-to-kill-a-woman-he-met-playing-online-games_n_6200188.html
For all the asshats who say “these are just trolls on the internet, threats are not credible”, fuck you.
@ FO #35
You used the word “borderline”. I do not have enough information from the short comment you posted, but you maybe should look into “borderline personality disorder”. The narcissism you outline may be more than just that.
Borderliners have an affective disorder, that brings about a major amplification of their emotive states. Imagine, for a moment, that your normal emotional levels were stuck in an amplifier and cranked up until the dials broke. This might give you some sense of what such people suffer.
This gives rise to all manner if comorbid problems. Narcissism is a common one. Lying is another. Add eating disorders. Recless behaviours (many kill themselves by suicide, reckless driving etc). Social and sexual recklessness. Drug and alcohol abuse. Relationships intense, but short lived. The list goes on in this vein.
This is extremely difficult to treat, as high functioning borderliners are incredibly good at lying. If something is emotionally true, it is true, no matter what realities try and impinge. They have absolute conviction in their own little fairytales. This serves as self-justification in all the very harmfull things they do to people around them.
They will have periods of normality, precisely alligned to their own comfort levels. But any stress, will trigger a most terrifying overwrought emotional amplification, and the shit will hit the fan.
There is very little to be done. Certain types of therapy do help. But any source of stress will cause relapse. The whole avalanch of emotions can drop down again if a butterfly flaps its wings.
My advice to your friend, if you suspect this condition – get the fuck out of there and don’t ever look back.
I don’t know if there is really that much stupid out there this evening, or I just haven’t been letting my inner asshole out enough so it is now seeking targets indiscriminately.
Beatrice
YourOne’s inner asshole should be let out every day.Just for a little bit.
Ugh. Okay, I bought Greta’s book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, a while ago now but I’ve only picked it up to read this week. By coincidence, she posted about seeing the book for sale at O’Hare airport, so I thought I’d make a comment about how, with my current disillusionment with the whole atheist movement thing I’m not getting into it as much as I probably would’ve had I read it back when. I said:
johnthedrunkard replied earlier today:
I’m thoroughly repulsed. I’ve said so, but I’m still upset. So…venting here. I just think of all those women who have suffered, who have stood up to their oppressors, the survivors, the crashers through glass ceilings, the leaders and the quiet ones behind the scenes, the women and men doing all those things right now to help make things better for their sisters and daughters–all lumped in with the evilest lynchers and committers of genocide. Why? Because they happen to believe in God. Just like 80% of the rest of people.
Holy shit. For some reason wound up michael nugent’s twitter and saw that he is STILL regularly bleating and shrieking about PZ Myers and crying out for an apology. Seemed to acknowledge that he was blocked, and even said something about it being three weeks since PZ’s post about being done with his shit, but half of his twitter feed consisted of yelling at PZ Myers as if he were there and listening. I don’t even.
Nugent’s got some serious obsession going on.
An evangelical Representative in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies introduced a bill that would force public and private schools to teach creationism. Here’s a half-assed translation for its explanatory section (with ALL CAPS and other highlights preserved faithfully for your further displeasure, and with my own dismay about the original text expressed in square brackets):
One can hope this incoherent garbage will be killed in committee stage. But, then, we have just elected the most conservative congress since the military dictatorship, so dog knows.
Ranzoid has got to be one of the most insufferable misogynists I’ve seen here. Fucking Christ.
Saad @62:
I agree. I’m guessing he hasnt been banned bc PZ is at Skepticon.
Saad @62
But you guys broke his poor widdle nose!!
I mean, maybe just his fee-fees….
http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/areZmNd_700b.jpg
I’m speechless.
From the comments on Nugent’s latest opus:
SPOINNNNNNNNG!
@ Sili
For a comment on Michael’s own seedy past, see comment #15.
Go Go Right-Wing Hackjobs!
So, my poor slightly left-wing but mostly apolitical aunt reposting something on facebook that she “hoped wasn’t true”.
I was alarmed as well. Apparently welfare recipients are making three times minimum wage!
But then, alarm bell: The page was a blog. Run by Joe the Fucking Plumber.
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/
So I read more carefully. Alarm bell two: The information came from the Cato Fucking Institute.
It was from a reboot they did a previous study called Work vs. Welfare. In which they say that most other studies are misleading because when they look at welfare they only look at TANF. So what Cato did was add together the maximum a welfare recipient could get from a bunch of additional fucking programs, including Section 8 Housing, SNAP, Women Infants and Children, Medicaid, and even counted fucking tax credits.
And of course Joe the Fucking Plumber reposts this information as if it were the average welfare amount, rather than basically being the most money that could be effectively spent through low income assistance of MANY different programs, most of which are food and housing and medical benefits and not fucking cash on hand.
It’s the game of Right-Wing Misinformation Telephone! The dishonesty blossoms more and more with each retelling
Michael Nugent is still Nugenting strong. Four tweets in the last 24 hours, half about PZ! Including a link to a brand new blog post! 3407 words!
https://twitter.com/micknugent/status/536690194020581376
This was the perfect response from @rustytporcupine
anteprepro
I’m not a twitter user, so maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t repeatedly addressing tweets to someone you know has blocked you a violation of twitter’s rules? I have heard that people have had their accounts suspended for this kind of behavior, but I haven’t verified that it’s true.
Nugent and the slime are promoting the idea that PZ is sexist and maybe a rapist or that if he is innocent then false allegations are common on Twitter.
Nugent has responded to PZ’s comment that was not directed at him with another rambling, idiotic blogpost. He mad. He really cannot take no for an answer. He has definitely gone full slime.
Vox Day has taken up that cause and is running with it.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/11/pz-myers-changes-his-story.html
Vox Fucking Day.
Lay down with dogs…
I remarked this morning on Twitter that Nugent has an uncanny similarity to teh king and queen in Frozen: Nobody tells royalty that their parenting decisions are fucked up and apparently nobody tells an atheist thinky leader that they’re obsessive.
Well, Vox Day can have them, good riddance
One for the WTF?! books:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tony-blair-honoured-with-save-the-childrens-global-legacy-award-at-charity-gala-attended-by-ben-affleck-and-lassie-9873596.html
There is a petition, but it appears to be for UK residents only:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-save-the-children-charity-from-giving-tony-blair-their-annual-global-legacy-award?bucket=blast
Also, before I forget – many thanks for all those that signed the petition against Julien B. and his cronies coming to the Netherlands.
It seems to me that Mr. Nugent would benefit from getting a job.
Or something.
67, theophontes,
That’s not really fair. There’s hella difference between sexual harassment and political views. Aren’t there plenty of us who’re recovering Christians, Libertarians and other scum?
Nah. There’s a saying by famed Danish satirist and misogynist (supposedly – it’s in the mouth of one of his characters, as I recall it) Gustav Wied: “It’s a good thing that women knit. It gives them something to think about while they chat.”
Much the same can be said of Nugent and blogging, I suspect. Keeps him out of trouble.
I mean, would you like to work with him?
God that post is adorable.
I think I officially stopped talking Nugent at all seriously when he conflates “offering witnesses” with “shutting down investigations.”
SIAP
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/the-origins-of-aggressive-atheism/383088/
It’s got everything: a Sam Harris quote, a misspelling of Dr. Myers’ name (even while linking this very site), and this little nugget:
“It is hard not to come to the conclusion that atheists have spent a far greater deal of time thinking and writing about religion than religious people ever have of atheists as a group,” the authors write.
because, yeah, the Inquisition never happened, among other events and happenings throughout history.
Don’t know how to do hypertext, sorry.
If only that sentence had ended at “… ever have.”, it would have been very much correct.
drowner:
Writing
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/the-origins-of-aggressive-atheism/383088/"> Some link text here </a>yields
Some link text here
Oh, wait, you were asking about the quote thing, weren’t you? Sorry.
Then, writing
<blockquote> Quote here. </blockquote>yields
Thanks, doki. I was talking about quotes actually, but I said hypertext, so it was my mistake and not yours. The article is pretty rotten though innit?
Breaking news: the grand jury has finally announced that Darren Wilson will face no charges over the shooting of Michael Brown.
microraptor #83:
*** speechless and sad ***
Not putting this in any Ferguson thread because those should be about injustice. Also, I’m not gloating, in fact this makes me sad. Sad that hatred and fear dominate the discourse in the US. Sad that that discourse fetishises killing tools.
A young white woman accidentally killed herself> while waving a gun about. A gun that was apparently purchased to prepare for the outcome of the indictment.
@ Sili
I agree with you there, and I am not drawing that equivalence.
The point is that he has claimed that he has been an atheist since childhood. He then chose to join a papist¹, populist, conservative party.
…
¹ FG are great opportunists and blow with the wind. More recently FG have been at odds with the pope. For example: Unlike the pope’s sympathy for the poor, FG do not support a living wage. Austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich.
There goes my neighbourhood: #OccupyHK #umhk #UmbrellaRevolution
Where does Nugent make that claim, himself? That was my issue. I’ve only seen it made by the guy who came by recently to grind an axe.
There was a thread on deaths at an Indian sterilization clinic recently, but I’ll drop this here anyway. Basically, things are worse than they may have initially appeared.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chhattisgarh-botched-operations-Minister-confirms-rat-poison-in-drugs/articleshow/45253635.cms
Are there any libertarians in the house who’d like to expound on the virtues of cheap antibiotics filled with rat poison, and about how corruption and bribery are simply other ways of doing business, no worse than any other?
(apologies if this already popped up earlier; I didn’t search very hard)
Fossilfishy,
According to Dan Savage our only source for that story is the dead woman’s boyfriend. Who drove the car in which she was killed. Much though I enjoy Schadenfreude, I think it’s just as likely that he’s trying to cover up for killing her.
Sili,
Apparently he crashed the car when startled by her waving the gun in his direction, which caused her to accidentally shoot herself. I agree that we don’t know exactly what happened and should wait for all of the evidence. But I read DAILY about ignoramuses shooting themselves with their own guns, so it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility.
@ Sili
It is a matter of public record. (You can check his link and Pfffft.) That MN atheistified as a child, in his own words: How and why I became an atheist. (On the other hand, lying down with Thunder “anti-feminist douchebag” f00t and Vox “racist sexist homophobic dipshit” Day, makes this all look fairly trivial in comparison.)
From the report:
It would seem that the police find that fishy as well, or at least fishy enough to investigate. I have no trouble believe someone waving a gun around during an accident would shoot themselves, but “in the head” seems a little contrived.
The world is depressing as hell at the moment. I don’t know how you cope with it.
#93, Jacob Schmidt
I can see how knocking a gun away that is being held by someone who doesn’t seem to know the least thing about gun safety could cause it to go off. I can also see how knocking away a gun being held by someone sitting next to you could result in the gun ending up pointed at their head.
Who do guns make safer, again? I keep forgetting.
Alexander Z
The world is depressing as hell, but what’s going on should be depressing. The people who don’t feel it? They are the ones who are the problem.
Cross posting this To Kill a Mockingbird quote from the Lounge because it demonstrates how I’m feeling about Ferguson and about the US.
“Atticus–” said Jem bleakly.He turned in the doorway.
“What, son?”
“How could they do it, how could they?”
“I don’t know, but they did it. They’ve done it before and they did it tonight and they’ll do it again and when they do it — seems that only children weep.”
They’ve done it before and they did it tonight and they’ll do it again
Akira,
I’m not reading anything else on this thread. I’m way over the edge and I have to suck it up and get on with my life. I’m just going to say this:
Here are the reasons I have been told my children should be taken from me:
I associate with trans and homosexual people and support my children’s right to be who they are .
I’m fat.
I’m an atheist / do not take my kids to church.
I homeschool.
The last always comes from atheists.
People who are sure the system works because it works for them have worn me down. It’s always the same thing. The police force is not a racist institution because it never murdered their kids. The judicial system works because everyone (read as no one) who ever raped them went to prison. The schools work for everyone because they got the education they needed. I can’t even. I think I may have finally had enough. The atheist “community” has nothing I need and I have nothing it values. When I had to tell a judge in a courtroom surrounded by conservative Christians that I was indeed an atheist as it was argued that I could not raise children because I’m an atheist, I did it by myself. I did it thinking that if I did need a community, it was there. I thought that was why it existed, to help isolated atheists like me. I know better now. I’m a working class woman who merely does “woman’s work”. Christian orgs are happy to have me volunteer for them and the work I have done for them made a difference in people’s lives. I’ll keep doing that because whatever they may think of me, they valued my contribution.
The internet is my window to the world. Without it I am isolated. I don’t have time or money for a social life. The local/mainstream news is a joke. A friend and I tried to start an atheist and skeptic org here, but that was when Elevatorgate went down and we decided that two women had no business shilling for this “community”. We bailed and I have never once regretted it. (No one else ever took up that cause.)
I don’t need this in my life. I have shit going on. I do not need misogynists, racists and stuck up assholes who don’t know shit from Shinola, but are sure they know more about my life than I do sucking any more of my energy. How could I know what I’m talking about? I feel and express emotions and I’m a woman. My children have special needs. I don’t even have the decency to be wealthy or even comfortably middle class. I do not belong in capital “A” atheism. I am not welcome. People like you have made sure that I know it too. I don’t know that it is worth sticking around for that anymore.
BTW, Adam Savage recently spoke about how he had to send one of his kids to a private school because the public schools could not or would not serve his needs. He asks what people who cannot afford $40,000 a year can do for their kids. The answer is: They can homeschool. I don’t have Myth Busters $. So, this is what I do and I do pretty damn good. Even if schools were all perfect, I think I should have the right to refuse to use them.
Ask yourself how we know that school as it is currently structured the best way to educate kids. Is it based on research? What exactly do we know about how children learn and why do we believe being still in rows, 25 to a classroom is the best way for kids to learn? Ask yourself sometime why an institution with no competition and compulsory attendance would ever seek to improve itself? Because it’s the right thing to do?
Really?
Because “the people” will stand up and make them fix it? We’ve been waiting for that to happen for how long now? Because our elected officials care about our children? We can’t keep cops from shooting our children in the streets. Most of my elected officials think I am the scum of the Earth. They spend more time trying to prevent me from getting healthcare (especially reproductive care) than they do trying to improve our schools. My voice and the voices of people like me mean as little to them as they do to our thinky kings. If the schools ever restructure and reform it will be because they are forced to, just like every other part of our government. Removing people’s ability to choose another way will not magically make schools better and in at least a few states, it would mean changing the states’ constitutions to exclude the right of parents to conscientiously object to either the curriculum taught or the manner in which it is taught. Think about TX right now. Think about that and think about not being able to opt out of a creationist, racist, revisionist education for your children.
You wanna fix schools? Go for it. You work on that while Richard Dawkins fights Isis. I’m sure you’ll both solve the issues shortly. I’ll wait here. I’ve got shit to deal with today while the world isn’t perfect.
Imagine bullied kids being forced to stay and be bullied because you think it’s better for Amerikuh. People homeschool for a variety of reasons. One is so their kids won’t be killed or kill themselves. Talk to those parents sometime about banning alternatives to public school.
People argue that my kids being out of school means less money for schools. So? Schools being underfunded is the fault of people who vote Republican. If losing my three kids breaks your school, maybe it is time to find another way to decide how much money schools receive.
…and before I get shit for having time to do things for myself instead of only cleaning toilets and reading to kids. My children are listening to Motown and reading their library books. They’ll live without my attention long enough for me to rant at you.
There is a new blocklist on Twitter. It is called The SLW Autoblocker. I am #305, near the top of the list..
FEAR ME!!!
Jackie, you are awesome. That is all.
Seconded.
If we still did OMs, I’d nominate Jackie.
Jerry Coyne jams on the dog-whistle. He ends a post about a debate about miracles (in which Michael Nugent was the non-ridiculous debater) with this passive-aggressive gem:
Well, you are pretty rad, Janine.
*pompons for Janine*
@ChasCPeterson- Did he talk about how he personally was such a huge liberal back in the early 70s again?
Janine,
It’s a long list. That’s encouraging , I guess.
I am #13972. Go me?
toska #96
We’re talking about 90% of humanity here. Makes one wonder how any change happens at all.
Jackie #97
I strongly disagree with you with regards to homeschooling, but you’ve made very good points, forcing me to reconsider some of my objections. I’d like to thank you for that.
Oh Richard Dawkins. He’s the neverending car crash you can’t look away from.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/537273213295030274
I’m actually on that list of SJW twice, under both my @esteleth account and under my (100% private and locked down) meatspace account.
My meatspace account is higher ranked.
This concerns me.
anteprepro – oh, the timing! I was just this minute reading an old WHTM thread about Yudkowsky and his little Fractally Wrong cult, and now Dawkins pipes up with this … perfect. :D
Jackie,
I got to Pharyngula late today, and as I read that thread, every thought I had, you said. The Horde is a great and useful bunch of people, and always ready to skewer fuzzy thinking and unwarranted assumptions. Except that when the word “homeschooling” is mentioned, you never saw a bunch of knees jerk so damn fast.
I used to argue, but I burned out on it long ago. You are wonderful, incandescent, brave, and strong, I can’t let this occasion go by without saying how much these posts of yours mean to me. The unthinking assumptions that otherwise apparently rational and reasonable people make about what homeschooling is and why people might choose to do it are absolutely shocking. The assumption that homeschoolers don’t care about the schools in their communities is insulting (there are, as I’m sure you know, more than a few public school teachers who homeschool their kids, for a variety of reasons). I have been an advocate for public schools and volunteered and taught workshops in them almost my whole life. When my kids were younger (they’re adults now, and doing nicely, thank-you-very-much) they ran community youth programs, often aided by other homeschoolers.
As you so blazingly point out, poor people have few options to give their kids a high-, or even reasonable-quality education. If there are special needs involved, it’s even worse. Back when I was a homeschooling contact person in a big city, I’d get calls weekly from people whose kids were suffering or ignored in school, or for whom getting physically from home to school was extremely dangerous. After trying and trying to get help from the school, they’d call me, desperate for even an encouraging word. And, I’d try to help them figure out what they could do and how to get resources. It’s also possible for folks to use their legal option to homeschool as leverage to get their kid adequate attention from the school. But, according to some, that’s just wrong, for people to have options that give them a tiny amount of leverage against a powerful system. Why, next we’ll have labor unions, or the MRFF!
Thank you so much for your passionate rant! I’d like to see some of these folks who are so hipped about other people’s responsibility to the ideal of public education have to face a decision about whether to sacrifice their child on the altar of their ideals. Now, the fundy Christian educationists, they do that all the time and never turn a hair. That’s what investment in ideology will do to ya.
Oh, and.
Funny thing about atheists’ (and religious liberals’, too) reactionary attitude toward homeschooling, is that what the fundy homeschoolers really want is not homeschooling per se but a “Christian education”, which is why there are Christian “academies” sprouting up all over the place nowadays, and Christian foundations set up to pay the tuition. See, it turns out that to really do a good job of indoctrination, you need peer pressure. Parents just couldn’t teach kids not to think all by themselves — groups work better for that. The big secret Christian homeschooling story of the 90’s was all the homeschooled teenagers going off the rails because they were insufficiently brainwashed. So, an awful lot of fundy parents are just suffering through the homeschooling until they can get into or start a school and get off the hook. They’re not having fun, after all. They make their homeschooling as much like an “ideal” classroom as they can — strict schedules, strictly applied curriculum, and as much mini-regimentation as they can manage. In fact, Christian homeschooling organizations have tried their damndest (and, fortunately, mostly failed) to change state laws so that only Christians with an “approved curriculum” would be able to homeschool. Buncha control freaks.
Jackie, I want to give a shout out to you. I posted in the Megan Fox thread then saw the link to this post. Thank you thank you thank you for speaking your truth and doing the hard work of speaking out to those with whom you ought be be feeling a sense of shared interest and camaraderie but instead are left feeling derided and unsupported.
And I agree: the knee jerk reaction from folks here when homeschooling (and vegetarianism for that matter, since we’re talking about knee jerking) and the rampant classism and ableism that is tolerated here is incredibly disheartening and it makes me despair of the so-called social justice-minded atheist movement.
I’ve been here (lurking) for many years. I often come here because I despair of the world and need to be reminded that there are men, white people, and straight people who actually really give a shit about misogyny, racism, and heterosexism/homophobia. And yes, I know that not only men, whites, and hetero folks post here; I just appreciate that I know I can come here to be reminded that there are allies when I start to lose hope that the world will change and when the fight seems insurmountable because people of privilege are NOT GETTING IT. So a genuine THANK YOU to most of you for that. Truly, honestly.
However, the classist shit and intellectual superiority strutted around here along with the absolute refusal of so many people on this blog — many of whom I agree with strongly on so many issues and many of whom I appreciate more than I will say right now — to think critically about some topics has left me feeling so discouraged that it borders on despondency and just outright fucking pissed. I don’t know that I can keep coming here because of it and it makes me sorrowful. (Though it ought to be noted that I’ve gotten to that point several times over the last few years but I eventually keep coming back.)
Anyhow, thank you Jackie.
It’s Midnight.
maybe I should go to bed
Crossposted: Jian Ghomeshi has been arrested on charges of sexual assault!
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. /s
Giliell #115
That’s the first piece of good news I’ve heard in a while. I wonder how the case will proceed.
Giliell and Morgan, yes!!!
Whoa, Jackie (#97), holy shit!
Thank you for that. That was awesome.
After some sleep and sometime to calm down and think, I realize I’m been acting stupid, stubborn, and more than a little insane.
Not unlike the subject of this post.
I especially wish to apologize to Jackie. I’m sorry that my comments hurt her. I will endeavor to to be a bit more thoughtful before I start flapping my figurative gums again.
Cross posted to MN’s blog:
………………………………………………………
@ Michael Nugent
At most, you could be ungenerous and say he was being pompous, … selfish even. (Did he really use the term ‘his’ to refer to himself? That would be weird.) But then he gets all self-deprecating towards the next woman on stage, Rebbecca Watson. Odd kind of “sexist” behaviour.
OK, no talk about sexual differences, no humour while talking about sex, no attempt to engage an audience? If I have a discussion with colleagues, or students, about waste management I am suddenly scatological?
That is a translation of ‘shokushu goukan’. It pertains to pure fantasy and is a misnomer (or are you going to redefine the term “rape” to beat PZ on the head with?). No-one has ever been raped by an octopus. If you know otherwise, please provide citations.
If an obscure Japanese art reference to the act of masturbation translates as “self rape”, would you dig equally low to make the same specious argument?
So what? Porn is not implicitly “weird exploitation of women”. Why is fantasy “tentacle porn” any different? Neither PZ, nor you, are qualified to make the call. Are tentacle dildos bad, or exploitative, or sexist? What about tentacle dildo porn? What about full-size inflatable rubber octopus sex-toy porn? You simply have an axe to grind, Michael.
“There is a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ about a firm, young carrot…“, for that penis feel!
If PZ likes to play with his food, so what?
Swam around? Cavorted? Played water polo? Gained a deeper understanding of what it is to be a zebrafish?
What are you actually telling us about yourself, Michael Nugent?
Michael Nugent seems to be a very strange person.
@ chigau
Yes.
….
PS, Good news: Woh shi Xianggang ren!
theophontes
I hope you and yours are safe and well.
(I cannot do alt text or acronym on my iPad)
Part II of my Opus:
……………………….
Part deux:
There is a difference between endorsing (as you seem to be implying) and mocking. You would have to be flat out lying to me to tell me you honestly believe PZ ,or the other participant, endorses or trivialises rape.
They are mocking Dove for allowing their products to advertised together with sexist content. Dove are making their own brand look ridiculous by bundling it together with sexist content.
You rub shoulders with the likes of Thunderf00t, on your blog. You should realise how bad this makes you look. You are endorsed by Vox Day. You should realise how bad this makes you look.
Then again, perhaps you don’t realise it yet. In which case: “I fart in your general direction!”
The inimitable Avicenna has already written an excellent rebuttal to the argument that this is “sexist”, or endorsing of rape. For now, I shall not add to his post but instead provide the link here: Rape Fantasies and Consent Explained
Woah, Michael! Stop digging and see what you are saying here. You say PZ has obstructed justice (assuming for a moment that one is bound to investigate “threatened false allegations”). By my lights that would be a serious matter. Yet you blow it off. I would condemn PZ if he ever actually did such, yet you tell me you are “not condemning PZ for any of this behaviour”. As far as I can see, he has not obstructed justice by his leniency.
You make the accusation that: “Some people would consider all of the following behaviours to be sexist.” Which people Michael? Yourself? Who then? Stop with the weasel talk. Name someone who honestly feels this way.
@ chigau
Well, it wasn’t really a sekrit messarge: We have been granted permanent residency.
Weather has been very hot, humid and oppressive lately…
(no rush… when you have the time to twit)
theophontes
Congratulations!
I’ll second chigau – I hope you’re safe.
@ AlexanderZ
Thanks.
No worries. In fact I should even find the time to go shopping tomorrow evening.
From the satirical page in our Left Wingish paper: “The authorities in Ferguson, Missouri have seen fit to impose a curfew on the city. This is likely due to it being harder to shoot them in the dark.”
chigau,
Michael Nugent doesn’t like to be ignored.
He’s spent three years now, being upset that PZed won’t listen to his sage wisdom on the subject of demented fuckwits.
Cross posted from the MLK thread.
For Chas!
And I’ll add that that comment was your contribution to the thread? Tsk tsking people who feel they have no options left?
So you’re no ally of women and now you’re no ally of anti-racists.
Why the fuck are you even here?
Holy shit. There’s almost 55 000 accounts on that list. BlockBot, by contrast, has been operating for years, and has only accumulated about 10 000.
The readme is a funny, too:
I find it hilarious that the idea operates on “guilt by association.” If you follow more than one person, you’re out. No wonder they hit 55 000 so fast. I think this is the list they’re using to block people. If you don’t want to deal with these guys, go ahead and follow at least 2 people on that list.
Also, since I’m supposedly so incompetent that I could never find the README, I thought I’d quote it here so that I could find it.
Surely this must be a false-flag operation. Everyone knows the lists of Twitter blocks are the biggest threat to Freeze Peach ever devised (worse than HITLER!). Surely the people criticising SJWs for using the BlockBot will not stoop to such low means as blocking *anyone* on Twitter.
This place…
@ Sili & Jacob Schmidt
To my eternal shame, I did not crack the nod, and make it onto the list.
Here is a very good poll to Pharyngulate:
http://time.com/3562201/time-person-of-the-year-poll-results/
Joshua is the student leader for Occupy in Hong Kong. Winning this poll would mean a lot for Hong Kong’s democracy. And China’s, in the longer term.
I realise Ferguson is on the list too. But I also believe a win for Joshua will have a more significant long term impact. At the end of the day, we are also all fighting for the same thing, after all.
Jackie @97:
Thanks for that.
Fuckin' fuckety-frellin' fuck!
Best end of a friggin' month for BT to send me a bloody router that actually fuckin' works.
Bastards.
Hi Daz.
Who’s BT and what did you do to piss them off?
Is “piss them off” a split infinitive?
chigau (違う) #139:
British Telecom, my ISP. I think my having a broken router must have pissed them mightily off, as they seemed awful grudging about getting a replacement to me.
No, but "pissed them mightily off" is. :-)
BT is probably British Telecom, who I believe started as the PTT. (PTTs and ex-PTTs tend to be very bad.)
“You are pissed off.”
“That pisses you off.”
“Piss off, you!”
English is weird.
Come to think of it, how does one actually 'piss off'? Use a form of low-efficiency rocket-propulsion?
And how does one ‘fuck off’?
You forgot that being pissed can also mean being very drunk.
Or kiss off.
You’d hope that fucking off might take just a tad longer than pissing off, wouldn’t you.
I have invented an etymology:
“You are stupid. Take yourself off somewhere and piss that stupidity out.”
Then the word order switched because reasons.
chigau (違う) #149:
Because OffPiss sounds like a government urine-inspectorate.
Today I’ve discovered an old poem/song. I’m surprised I didn’t hear it earlier. As far as I know it has never been translated to English, but I’d like to partially (and badly) quote it anyway.
BT = British necroTelicomnicon
And, ’tis better to be pissed off than pissed on*.
* Usually.
Oggie
Yeah.
A “piss-off” should be used to settle arguments. Whoever piss the longest (temporally) wins.
Looks like the UN has started to take note of the number of people killed by police officers in the US and the conditions of US prisons: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-shootings-by-police-prison-conditions-trouble-un/ar-BBg6VEw?ocid=U007DHP
[quote]To my eternal shame, I did not crack the nod, and make it onto the list.[/quote]
Maybe check again? I can’t count the list proper (github won’t let me since it’s too big, and copying and pasting over 55 000 lines to a word processor doesn’t work well), but the filesize of the list has more than doubled. I’d guess somewhere in the ballpark of 110 000 accounts blocked, which puts them at an order of magnitude more censorious and hypersensitive than Blockbot users.
re: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/28/poor-little-lucky-jim/comment-page-1/#comment-884560
*snort*
So much for Dawkins’ asshole attitude being something new. Was he also senile 7 years ago, since people come in to say it’s his age to blame for his stupidities?
This obsession with “thought police” really isn’t healthy. His criticism is ok, but when someone criticizes him or his friends it’s thought police!!!, lynching!!! etc. *snort*
What an ass.
Ayup. Privileged white thinky-dudes get to say whatever they want. The Right of Frozen Peaches and so forth. Saying that privileged white thinky-dudes are bigoted, however, is a bridge too far. Frozen peaches are the exclusive province of privileged white thinky-dudes.
Only if you boldly go.
Daz @150:
I was going for “new shade of yellow in the Crayola box”.
Tony:
That would be Pale Piss. Or Piss Pale.
Fixed.
Yeah, how dare the plebs criticise a Nobel prize winner? Do they have no respect for their betters?
Also, if Nobel prize winners aren’t safe, people might even criticise Dawkins.
I’m also mightily impressed by the “teach the controversy and let people make up their own mind”. Dawkins sure learned from the creationists
It’s also telling how everyone is to blame except Watson…
Rebecca … WATSON
Don’t even try to tell me that there is NOT a connection.
*cape whirl* *ominous organ music*
Re: sjwautoblocker — As of right now, block_names.txt has 123592 entries; block_ids.txt has 123641 entries. I’m not sure why there’s a mismatch between the number of ids and the number of names.
Oddly enough, pzmyers is not on any list. There’s a “pzmini0n”, fwiw, though.
NB: The bottom of the readme made me laugh:
/NelsonHAHA
Disclaimer: I don’t Twitter, and I have no idea who any of the names on there are, nor would I recognize anyone here unless the twitter name was the same as the Pharyngula ‘nym.
Oh no! Not …
I’m proudly somewhere in the 6000’s
But I think everybody on that list is a winner
@ chigau
Severe storm in HK tonight. Not seen anything quite like it before. Will this place ever be the same again?
Tony!! @#131:
dude, when I called you a “smug prick” on the other thread I hadn’t even seen this one. Not sure where you get off talking to me–anybody, really, but in this case me, which is why I care–like that but wow. Anyway.
Thank you for taking the extra trouble to cross-post your comment so that I would be sure to be able to receive your important message for me.
I am sorry to disappoint you, Tony!. Feel free to ban me from your blog.
I’m right ‘here’. You do not have to shout at me, Tony!.
“the” point? “The” only, single, unique and solitary “goddamned” point?
Just to be extra-super-clear: What I’m talking about is stuff like boosting X-boxes and torching random automobiles. Your claim is that those behaviors are the only option? If so, OK, we differ on that point right there.
The rest of what you kindly typed and posted and then cross-posted for my edification is very evocative but unfortunately misdirected. I’m sorry that you are under the misimpression that I am an appropriate target for your anger. Thanks anyway though.
Dude. You have no magical powers. Feel free to wish me any kind of day you want. It will have no effect whatsoever on my actual day. (Which, as an aside, is damn shitty so far.)
No, sorry if it wasn’t clear. I wasn’t “tsk-tsking” anybody who had any particular feelings. Rather, i was denouncing arsonists and thieves as criminals.
um, what?
No, sorry, no. I’m sorry. I guess I haven’t been clear. I am no ally of arsonists and burglars. I have essayed no opinion at all about anti-racists, but here, I will now: many who self-identify as ‘anti-racists’ demonstrate poor reading comprehension.
Well, Tony!, I have actually answered this question, explicitly, many times over several years now. But here’s the gist: it’s inertia for me. I was already ‘here’ for years when your golly-gee ass showed up. It’s a hard-wired habit for me to click over to Pharyngula when at the computer. I had my own reasons for ‘coming here’ and hanging around in the first place, back then, but suffice to say it was a very different blog. Which, whatever: it’s the personal blog of PZ Myers, and if he likes it as a social justice/atheist/skeptic/science blog, in roughly that order, that’s just the deal.
So the point is, I’m here for my own reasons. I am sorry that my presence displeases you.
I am Shoop. I am, on the whole, displeased with the Chas posts.
When you leave Thunderdome, try to do better about being an empathetic person.
Found the first casualty of winter today, a little house sparrow, frozen to death on one of the feeding stations.
Awww birdie :(
Yeah, it’s vicious cold, below zero with a nasty wind. We lost 6 doves last year.
from Pffft
Well, then.
Lust?
Chas; a short lesson in human nature…
Take bunch of people. Do your utmost, using the very system which should be used to enfranchise them, to disenfranchise them. Use the system which should be protecting them in order to, instead, harass them. Make access to decent education, jobs, healthcare and welfare harder for them. Treat their very existence as a semi-criminal offence. Ghettoise them. Then, just to rub salt in the wound, loudly and continuously blame them for their own poverty.
Yeah, surely as a cornered cat will scratch, they're going to riot. And hey, guess what? Some will take the opportunity to get their hands on that expensive merchandise you've simultaneously made into an icon of 'success.' And yeah, some will take their anger out on anything which looks like a symbol of that success they've been denied; burning it, smashing it.
I can't argue with your plain-fact observation that arson and theft are wrong. I'm merely astounded at your choosing to focus on the symptoms instead of the cause.
Chigau:
The sparrow was a creature of Aphrodite, and came to symbolize lust, wantoness, and fertility, along with many other things. Sparrows are also supposed to be psychopomps, and an ancient superstition (going back to Rome) holds that to cage or kill a sparrow will bring about a death in your household.
Daz, nicely said.
Iyeska
Yeah. I am suspicious of these psychopomps.
They seem to repoduce alot.
That is nicely said, and it’s in line with the point that MLK (and PZ) was making. However, I’m also astounded at the people who were apparently trying to argue against such a simple point. Maybe they weren’t sincerely trying to justify it or condone it, but then I don’t see how they wouldn’t realize their arguments along those lines were simply irrelevant or incoherent. Either way, it’s a pretty astonishing thing to see coming from this crowd. It would be sad if the only lesson to take away from that thread boils down to “Chas trolled (again).” No, people for some reason thought they wanted (and/or needed) to defend every action of every protester no matter what, and they used any rhetorical tactic they could come up with, no matter how unreasonable or dishonest it was. Not those nasty people “out there” somewhere, who we like to complain about so much, but people right here on this blog. It’s kind of strange, leaving for several days for Thanksgiving with that thought, then coming back to see it stuck in the same place.
@ Daz
When this happens to a minority, we are talking about Ferguson, When this happens to a majority, we are talking Hong Kong. But the root cause is the exact same, fucked up, authoritarian mentality.
consciousness razor
You are astounded and astonished.
Really?
I have never seen uttered or written “that is not one of the goddamned points.”
(Picking fights about common language, though admirably pedantic, is also commendably petty.)
How bad are the riots, really? We saw on the first round of Ferguson coverage that the severity was extremely hyped up. Is it any better this time? Are the riots worse than good sports riot, or any other “white people” riot? I can get behind condemning riots, but the whole thing has a strong whiff of minorities being demonized for bad behaviour white people do all the time (see paranoia about minorities raping women; see minorities being charged and imprisoned more for drug offences despite committing less of them; etc.).
@ consciousness razor
“People”? Which people? What did they say? Quote us something from someone “defending every action of every protester no matter what”. Show us these dishonest, unreasonable rhetorical tactics. I’m having a little difficulty remembering anyone arguing anything other than exactly what’s in the OP: that it’s unreasonable to condemn rioting without also condemning the underlying systemic causes. I’m drawing a complete blank trying to remember someone saying much more than “it’s shitty that you apparently care more about property damage than black people’s lives”. I’d hate to think you were being dishonest in the same sentence in which you accuse some unspecified people of some unspecified dishonesty.
It was -21 F last night. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I wish it would snow, because it would have to warm up. No snow in the forecast though, just ice pellets. Oh joy.
Ouch! Is that typical weather for this time of year where you are? I’m in Upstate NY and we’ll have a few spates of weather that cold per year but not usually until January/February.
Seven of Mine:
No. It gets serious cold, but not usually this bad, and not in November/December. Usually, we have a lot more snow by this time. I’m no fan of snow, but I’d take it over this body-numbing cold.
I just watched a Sharp-shinned Hawk going after my birds. It finally made a strike, but I didn’t see what it got.
Seven of Mine:
Well, you don’t have to think that. You could just read the thread again, instead of relying on how you’re “having a little difficulty remembering” it. Several of the comments below are yours, so it shouldn’t be too hard to jog your memory about them.
Anyway, I skimmed through the thread again. Here’s a sampling of some comments in there which at the very least strongly imply that:
4, 20, 22, 28, 30, 33, 36, 40, 51, 60, 122, 127, 130, 144, 152, 156, 158, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 174, 183, 184, 195, 206, 209, 233, 237, 250, 260, 265, 267, 271, 272, 276, 277
Some of them might not be a serious argument (simply statements to the effect that Toys R Us builds crap, so it’s no biggie, for instance), so those can be tossed out for all I care. Some of them (e.g., 40) are just plain contradictory on this exact point, so who really knows what to say about those? And then there are a few cases of people making such statements that were backpeddled after some objections against them, then sometimes peddled right back to the original point (some from rq were like this). Also, I’ve left out name-calling and such (talk of “flower power” for example) which doesn’t put forward any coherent claim, even though it’s clearly meant to help one side somehow — that’s in addition to a few odd meta-arguments here and there which don’t directly express the point even though they are also driving in that direction. Some of the rest are simply bizarre, and it’s hard to know what the fuck the person was really trying to say. Finally, I only made it about halfway through the thread again before I stopped counting. I had had enough of it.
Maybe there’s a way out of every single one of those — they didn’t really mean it but some other abstruse thing almost like it that you’ll need to come up with — but that’d be a hard argument for you to make and very hard for me to believe. Anyway, thinking like this requires some sense that they ought to be interpreted with a hint of charity, without reading too much into it, trying to fill in gaps or misstatements with something more reasonable than what they actually said, not pinning an idea on a person permanently, all of which evidently isn’t the practice when it comes to others like Chas or Wilford or fernando. That’s because they are known villains, I guess, and must be wrong somehow. Or at least deserve a good trash-talking. But if anyone else might be wrong (those on “your side,” whatever the hell that is), the instinct is to find some way out of it very quickly. It’s not too surprising to me, really, but it still is upsetting.
We had -30C last night but daytime today was a balmy -10C.
I’ve broken out the felt-packs.
I’ll swap some heat for some cold if you like, chigau. It was still 28C at midnight here the other night.
Looks like some time yesterday or today, Jerry Coyne finally saw the blog comment that PZ left regarding the comment Jerry made about Phyrengula. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/a-note-to-my-readers-from-pharyngula/
The Blog-Comment War is becoming recursive.
consciousness razor
Well, your latter list doesn’t mention my comments but I’d assume you’d include me but just didn’t get that far.
I am against arson and theft but what’s happening in Ferguson isn’t about arsonists and thieves. If that’s what you’re getting, then you’re missing the point. I said I wasn’t going to bother with “I don’t condone blah blah blah” because this isn’t about people burning buildings, it’s about a revolt. Which given their oppression is absolutely justified and I will gladly defend that.
I understand the “I can’t condone X without condoning Y which caused” because used against people just shouting “But those things are always and forever wrong!” but I think people getting stuck on that are still buying into the racist narrative like calling it a riot.
Does it suck for those business? Sure does. Admittedly, I have more sympathy for small business owners than Toy R Us but pretending those big business and the smaller ones run by whites are innocent in this situation is denying how the racist system works, which Dalillama, Schmott Guy explained. But since you included their comments in your list, that’s your problem, not anyone else’s.
The Ferguson protesters did 3 months of peaceful protests and helped business that were affected by others (who were out of towners or rogues, they were all about being peaceful) with cleaning up. That got them nothing.
They were continually mistreated by the system and their pleas were ignored.
Now the president is actually requesting money for the area and searching for answers to fix the police problem. What’ll happen remains to be seen but it’s a start.
(This is of course assuming that it’s being done as a revolt by the oppressed and not the racists fuckers burning down black business which is entirely possible as is both happening at once. Given the protesters previous actions, I’m leaning towards both happening but await more coverage. )
It is not bloody or violent by their actions or choosing, those actions are on the police. It’s a destructive protest or revolt, which is what happens when you oppress people in a police state and they finally say fuck this. There’s no way I’m going to claim that’s wrong and take that power away from the people. They SHOULD be against that shit, everyone should be. That should go without saying instead of being against arson and smash-n-grabs but sadly, the oppressors control the narrative and it needs said rather than the latter. They’ve tried other means and now they’re trying something else. Good for them. Better if they weren’t oppressed and were treated like people but if that were true, this wouldn’t be happening.
I’d say the same damn thing if the Occupy movement revolted in such a way after peaceful protesting got them nothing but assaulted by police and shamed in the media.
Like Palestinians showing solidarity with those in Ferguson, they are acting in self-defense against an unjust system systematically depriving them of human rights and murdering them and their children.
I certainly prefer peace but it’s not my skin color that marks me for death but I will support those who are. Honestly, if people were going to listen to peaceful and constructive, they’d have done by now you’d think. POC can’t keep on like this forever, which I’m guessing is what they’re banking on.
The Civil Rights movement was fighting these same battles and not all of it was peaceful. There were “riots” as well for the exact same reasons. MLK was just a man and not the end all be all of the movement and ignoring those other parts in favor of “turn the other cheeck” is promoted by the racist system for a reason. If it turns out like some of those were people died, I’d gladly say “I can’t condone X but I must also bring up Y which caused it” and be satisfied with that.
But this isn’t another Detroit “Riot” where things were accomplished with the cost of lives amid the destruction.
Calling the Ferguson protesters violent and/or rioters is buying into the racist narrative and I place destructive yet non-violent revolt as escalated protesting when “democracy” refuses to work the people and listen to peaceful protests that I’m okay with given the context.
Also, “defending every action of every protester no matter what” is disingenuous because it allows for more like targeting homes, assaults and murder, which is decidedly NOT happening, which I’ve further clarified.
And yes, I did quote with corrections #40, but I don’t think it’s contradictory because cheering for revolters is decidedly different than doing it for arsonists and thieves. I’m cheering for people trying to attain their right to not be murdered by the police.Pretending those people are the same comes off as dishonest and/or ignorant IMO. I’m not arguing that arson and stealing aren’t wrong things to do, but like with stealing to eat and survive, there’s context, which this focus on condoning the uppity black people is missing. That context is what I’m arguing for and yes, if they do it again, I’ll cheer them on again. The system is corrupt and needs to be torn down, and I see destructive protests as a way to mirror that when they refuse to listen and double down upon the injustice. Like telling the starving thief “good for you for finding a way to survive” amid the classism, doesn’t mean “hey, let’s go shoplifting for perfume because it’s totes cool!” Perhaps that helps you understand those like me given the distinction is probably simple enough people were speaking as if everyone understood it already?
Does this opinion shock you and make me stand out around? Don’t give a fuck. Perhaps I have a different perspective being so poor and seeing how bad my POC counterparts. I also grew up in MI, hanging out Detroit and being surrounded by black people and their culture, including people directly included and affected by the above, while rejecting my own racist, abusive family.
So, instead of just vague claims of dishonesty and “you support them doing anything”, I’ll give you a starting point. Have I been dishonest or missed something by being too close? Or do you finally have specifics you’d like to share now? Anything about others you’d like to clarify? Because if not, I’ll just close it out with a hearty fuck you too for those comments and leave it at that.
I might agree, but whatever this means, it’s not a claim that that there was no arson or thievery. If there was and if you’re against it, then we’re in agreement on that, plain and simple. Whatever else it’s “about” to you and me is a separate issue. I’m sure we agree on most of that too.
I would distinguish between something that’s genuinely contributing to a revolt and might be justified on that basis (there can be bad revolts right?) on the one hand, and someone having a chance to take advantage of the chaos on the other. It seems like this doesn’t need to be said, but stealing something from a convenience store doesn’t solve any of our big social problems, nor does throwing a brick at a police car or setting a building on fire. There’s no point in giving blanket approval to all of it. The laws which ought to be revolted against aren’t the kinds of laws which say you shouldn’t steal from stores or throw bricks at cars or set buildings on fire. Because those are good laws, which I figure everybody intends to keep, after they’re done telling themselves a story concerning what this is all supposedly “about.” Civil disobedience can be a great and necessary thing, as is overthrowing unjust governments, etc. But whether or not a full-scale “revolt” is an exaggeration of the protests actually happening right now, you still have to pay attention to what you’re rejecting about the system and why you’re doing it. I see no reason at all why anyone should get a free pass on all of it, just because some of it needs to go. If there is some reason like that, nobody has even tried to explain anything like that to me. It’s like we’re having different conversations.
Of course, there’s also an idea floating around that this somehow means we need to be polite, submissive, believe in flower power, and so on. Or it’s that I must also think destruction of property is more important than murder or racism or systematic inequality. It doesn’t mean anything like that. If you can honestly tell me you don’t see how I can have such a view (which looks so much like yours at least until you start drifting into other territory), so that I should go fuck myself for being a terrible person who has a view that doesn’t resemble mine at all as far as I can tell, then I’ll try a little harder to explain what I mean. But I thought the point was pretty fucking clear to begin with.
consciousness razor:
The point was that, since the very fucking start, the specter of “looters” and “destroyers of precious property” has been used to characterize the protestors at large of being violent thugs. And it completely ignores the fact that these riots are in response to incredible amounts of police oppression. I don’t fucking endorse theft or arson as a matter of course, but this is a time and place where the traditional order of things has failed. I don’t see fit to say what protestors should or should not be doing, or handwring about precious fucking tactics, from the comfort of my computer chair. Some people see themselves perfectly fit to cry about property damage and contribute to the climate of shaming protestors for being too extreme, so I apologize profusely for not being among those people. Maybe next time someone dies and police crack down on a town for months on end I will decide to play offended schoolmarm lecturing protestors about proper protocol for objecting to a police state. I will do my fucking best to play that role next time around, lest I continue to sully myself with the immoral actions of saying the same exact thing King himself fucking said.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/25/what-would-mlk-say/comment-page-1/#comment-883430
Truly I am a moral monster.
consciousness razor:
So basically it is technically permissible, if their goals are righteous enough. But conveniently, you don’t actually know the goals or the purity of heart and mind of every single protestor that throws a brick through a window. So where does that leave us then? Just assuming that the people doing this are The Bad Apples, pursuing nefarious ends, by default?
And don’t forget those uppity Boston natives! Trespassing onto peoples’ private property and vandalising their merchandise! Totally against the law! What did those ship owners ever do wrong? I don’t see why such criminals should be given a free pass!
No, if it does in fact make the right kind of difference. Their goals could (technically) be way off the mark, while the results work out just fine despite that. Things don’t always go according to the plan.
Maybe it would help to add that, if anybody needed food, I’m not at all against “stealing” it in general situations like that. The results are much better than the alternatives in that case: people aren’t starving or malnourished. In the meantime, we can work to create a fair system that provides a safety net and reduces inequality, so there’s less need for anyone to even do it. That bigger sort of problem is in fact what I’m much more worried about, not about characterizing people as “thieves” just for the fuck of it.
I’m trying to imagine a situation in which the purity of someone’s heart and mind would factor into whether or not they should throw a brick through a window. I don’t think I can do it. This leaves me thinking that I should say I’m not a Kantian. There’s also nothing convenient about this. Even in the most ordinary circumstances where we’d presumably all be willing to unambiguously state that some action or another was wrong, I don’t claim to be a mind-reader. That’s just not how I roll, because I don’t think it matters.
I’ll take ‘False Equivalences’ for $600, Alex.
Multiple choice: The Ferguson
riotSpontaneous Mob Action was most similar to:a. this
b. this
c. this
d. this
e. this
Clearly not ‘a’, which unlike the other examples, was a private, organized, and carefully targeted political protest.
Given the similar (if not identical) behavior in the other 5 incidents, what’s the important difference that (evidently) makes Ferguson alone especially righteous?
The ostensible trigger?
Intent?
Well said, Chas!
That “private, organized, and carefully targeted” rationalisation clearly legitimises their crimes in terms of the “telling themselves a story concerning what this is all supposedly “about.”” clause!
FFS
People who've run out of peaceful options take to not-peaceful options. Angry people do angry things. They're not expressing reasoned-out points. They tried that and got ignored. And tried again and got ignored. And again. And again…
They're not expressing reasoned-out points. They're expressing anger and frustration. This is not a hard concept.
I refuse to sit in my nice, safe, white, suburban home and criticise people who have been denied any recourse to reasonable action, for acting ‘unreasonably.’
To JAL at 193: I agree entirely with your passionate and eloquent comment on the Ferguson “riots.” Because you have been poor and have been the object of abuse, you are able to see far more clearly than some of the other commenters here. Personally I have been largely privileged in many ways, but I do try to empathize with those who have not had my advantages and to listen to what people like you have to say.
amen
I propose the healthiest drinking game ever.
Whenever Chas says something of substance, take a shot.
Whenever he just makes a snippish comment, eat a piece of fruit.
You won’t catch cold this winter
theo, you’ve mistaken what I explicitly cited as a difference and mistaken it for a ‘rationalization’.
(Although, if it comes to it, I do think that planned, targeted ‘direct action’ (as my treehugger friends used to say) is more legitimate than whatever-we’re-supposed-to-call-it-instead-of-rioting.)
Did you see your featured satatus over at Nugent’s?
lOOk baby tortoise
If that makes you any happier.
In all cases they could have chosen to do nothing too.
I don’t really see that “planned, targeted ‘direct action’” crimes are any “more legitimate” than those due to ad hoc, even emotionally driven, crimes. Perhaps you mean they are more likely to be effective? (I could see the argument for that.)
satatus
As in “satan” + “status”? That would be about apt.
Hey! That’s cheati …. AWWWwwwwwwwwwwww…
@ consciousness razor
Hm, let’s have a look at those awful rioting and violence condoning comments, shall we?
Saad @ 4:
Clear reference to the Revolutionary War, etc. in which white Americans engaged in extremely similar behaviors to those they condemn in people they oppress. Totally uncritical support of rioting and looting violence under any and all circumstances. Yep.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy @ 20:
Explaining the harm done to a neighborhood like Ferguson by a business like a Toys R Us, explaining why it in particular would be targeted, how it’s part of the very system of oppression these people are protesting against. Again obviously also uncritical support of any and all kinds of violence and destruction in any and all circumstances.
loreo @ 22
Suggesting (*le gasp*) that people might just be more valuable and less replaceable than property! Horror! Unequivocal support for any and all violence and destruction under any circumstances, clearly!
Comments 28, 30: A couple people observing that riots have in the past been what was needed to trigger actual political change. The 1968 riots in the wake of MLK’s assassination did a lot to light a fire under various asses to get legislation passed, for example.
Comment 33 is a blatantly racist troll saying something completely inane. Not sure why you included it.
Giliel @ 40
Suggesting that, if MLK had condemned riots without qualification, he could still have been wrong, because he was human and not infallible. This one is particularly dishonest of you to list because you seem to agree more or less with the quote in the OP. So, MLK being wrong in Giliel’s example could still put him back at the quote in the OP which you agree with.
Skipping a bunch saying more or less the same things…
Oh look, here’s me at 169:
Describing how black people in this country have been brutalized, murdered, enslaved, oppressed for 400 years… FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS and refusing to “tut tut” at them for burning a building or two in that context. Yep. That’s totally me defending everyone’s actions no matter what. Yep. All these people trying to bring up the context wherein an oppressed people are reacting in anger and frustration to BEING MURDERED AT THE WHIM OF WHITE PEOPLE FOR CENTURIES, are just condoning all sorts of violence and destruction. Yep. Totally. Nothing at all dishonest about your characterization of that thread At. All. Nope. Nothing to see here.
Chas, I’ve not seen evidence that it’s safe to say you know much at all about what is going on for Ferguson. I can tell you with a good degree of confidence that activists and organizers on the ground are not planning or committing any arson, property damage, or looting. They already have (and have made public) proof that the cops are sending undercovers to their protests and meetings. Others –some uniformed, some not — are following the most visible of them around with video cameras. Tying them to riots would be a huge media coup — one the police would call to report themselves, rather like the Minneapolis cops did in claiming Mayor Betsy Hodges threw a “gang sign.” (Of course, that turned out to be bullshit, but Ferguson cops have that history, too.)
When I see you write about an “ostensible trigger” (really? the whole thing for a stated but not necessarily true reason?) under the single word Ferguson, rather than separating out
marches
single-site protests
civil disobedience training
petitions
voter roll updating
voter registration
safe houses
medic stations
next morning clean-up brigades
lawsuits/legal challenges to free speech limitation (like “walking required”)
fundraising drives
artwork to cover ugly plywood over boarded-up stores
bail funds
“how to handle being followed and recorded daily by cops” tips
pro bono attorney lists
social services contacts
pro bono mental health professionals and……..
Well, when I see that you make no mention of any of that differentiating from the “whatever-we’re-supposed-to-call-it-instead of rioting,” then I wonder if you’re ignorant of those things or eliding them. They are done without rioting and/or looting.
There are others like 1) the shut down of bridges and intersections and miles of highway and BART stations in major cities throughout the country or 2) the calls for Black Friday boycotts (Not One Dime) or 3) hands-up protests and 4.5 minute die-ins in malls that caused at least one to shut down on Black Friday or 4) the DreamDefenders’ protest in Miami that had their leader arrested on the courthouse steps. It seems that you know nothing of the 5) Ferguson newsletter put out by the activists detailing events that don’t make the networks or 6) the tweets and retweets on the despised Twitter about the Ferguson library remaining open even as schools shut down so that the library has received over $300,000 in donations in about a week. Everything I’ve listed here has been and is being done under the banner Ferguson without any thought of providing an “ostensible trigger” for rioting.
What can you tell me about the work over 110 days from deray and netaaaaaaaa or any other activist on the ground at Ferguson you wish to name?
consciousness razor #198
What teh hell?! Are you seriously using unknown future results as a condition for your support at the present? How does that work?
For what it’s worth: I do support violence. I think that if someone acts towards you like an occupying force you have every right to act like an insurgency. I draw the line at avoidable civilian casualties – a line that has been crossed by one side quite a few times already.
What about somebody who is not in a nice, safe, white, suburban home (sitting in front of a computer, etc.) criticizing what they did? The thing I’m interested in is whether anybody should criticize some of the protesters, when those people were in fact doing something that would otherwise be considered harmful. This could be anybody you like in any situation you like, as long as they’re trying to figure out whether or not any given action was bad, as well as capable of assessing all of the relevant information. That is of course including stuff like the fact that “they had no recourse except to set a building on fire,” if it is a fact, which you’ve already started evaluating here.
What I’m not interested in is whether you personally want to “tut tut” them. Maybe you personally don’t know all of the relevant details of their actions or the situation in order to make such a judgment, for example, so that’s why you refuse to do it this time. Okay, fair enough, but that doesn’t matter to me.
consciousness razor #211:
Uhuh. Maybe you could point to where I said that? What I said was that they have tried the proper channels and those channels have failed them. Worse, the channels which should be used to help them have, instead, been used to pour shit on them. I didn't say the arson—and all the other lashing out—was reasonable, I said it was an understandable reaction to the unreasonable situation they find themselves in.
cr
I’m not calling it arson or thievery for one. Where buildings burned and items stolen? Yep.
I also don’t think the protesters should be punished or pay for it. The racist ass government funded by the people should.
But I haven’t seen anyone else here express that and I might be odd one out on this point. *shrug*
Neither does peaceful protest or civil disobedience unless the people in power listen and change, which clearly wasn’t happening here. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of people standing around blocking the way. Just because the privileged can ignore those doesn’t mean it’s better, that’s a flaw. It’s just the agreed upon way that people handle things going wrong with the social contract but when that’s not abided by then they’ve broken the deal. Escalating from peaceful to destructive is just the next logical step. If you don’t get that, I don’t know how else to explain it. If you do but still find it “all wrong” then there’s nothing really more to say.
I just don’t get your refusal of context and strict “it’s always wrong” while using the intellectual vocabulary of what should like repeating the racist narrative. I mean you’re worried about people “taking advantage of the chaos” which just seems so minor and petty. I don’t know how else to explain it (I don’t have the educational level, experience or vocabulary for this sort of thing yet) but it feels like MRA’s complaining about false rape allegations.
The rest of my comment I’m cutting because after all this time, it’s still dissolved into just questions so maybe we’re just at an impasse.
AlexanderZ succinctly expressed something I was confused on (which became asking question on how you feel about the Civil Rights “Riots”)
Maybe the distance of time to see what comes of it is part of the problem because you need that to see more than chaos? I don’t know, it’s hard to imagine such a narrow view. From here it feels like you’re wearing blinders.
*sigh*
The submissive bit is for those white fuckers who want to control and determine how POC fight oppression, when it’s not their movement to lead. It’s not their decision and poo-pooing what they do while saying “just do more of the peaceful shit because I like it or it’s the ethical thing to do”, which does come with the context of black people being seen as beasts and submissive to whites. Being an ally gives what you say and how it you say considerable weight on where the support goes and can be more harmful to those you claim to be supporting so it’s important to do it right. It’s fucking different than a POC involved in the movement and struggle advocating for peaceful protesting.
The “viewing property as more important” is for those just want to talk about or focus that and not that which caused the destructive uprising. Silence supports the status quo so when you buy into the racist narrative, repeating it and focusing on the symptom rather than the problem, that’s where your support goes.
If that include you, meaning those comments about being a horrible person were towards you then, yeah if the shoes fits. I said fuck off because you found it so shocking people would be okay with burning buildings as a sign of protest and called me dishonest since I do def. qualify in your comments and such other privileged-blinded shit, that I stand by that sentiment. Pretending like “there can be bad ones right?” as if I just wrote a check for all POC to start murdering everyone only strengthens my thought on that score.
The fact that arson and stealing is wrong is the default, like the oppression of black people. Stating the former isn’t necessary but contradicting the latter is. So when you say “The oppression of black people is wrong but so is arson and stealing”, you shouldn’t be surprised when people hear it as the new “I’m not a racist but…” when speaking of the protests.
And I didn’t “drift off into other territory”, I started there. It makes a rather big difference apparently. Perhaps my other comments can explain it better than responding specifically to you but if not then we’re just done apparently.
————————————————————————
essjay, thank you. That means a lot to me.
Thank you, athyco for that list. I’m more involved with Ferguson coverage elsewhere so that’s a good reminder and handy list.
——————————————————————————–
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism
I think the point is rather clear: treat us fairly or we won’t follow your rules at all. When the system is completely set-up against you and the majority of people see you as sub-human, then why continue living under their boots? They strike out at everything can around them because everything around them is keeping them down.
[related thoughts using this as jump off, not directly a response to you..]
This particularly comes into play with the L.A. “Riots” with Koreatown being abandoned by cops so quickly and how hard it’s been for other POC to recover afterwards. It’s divide and conquer among the races so they don’t target the majority, like with poor white people. Tensions between races in an interesting study in intersectionality and there’s a book I read in collage that I can’t seem to find again but it was about the tension between blacks and Jews. Because Jews can pass and be accepted as white, and changes places on the spectrum like Irish now being considered white and how that affects interactions with POC who are always other. Like Asians receiving “benevolent” racism in this instance.
I can easily declare violence against civilians and such racist actions as wrong, but there’s a different tract to take with it because of them both being oppressed. There was an Asian power as a counterpart for Black Power that actually supported the black civil rights movement for example.
But destroying property and different neighborhoods that black people are purposefully denied from participating is a target for their destructive protests. It is a part of the problem. So while all the white hand-wringers see meaningless chaos and destruction, the protesters are seeing everything they cannot have in this society. YEs, that does include Toys R Us as a valid target, whether or not they sat and planned it before doing it.
Resisting that by destroying that is saying “we won’t be milked through taxes and jails, targeted for violence and death, or silently dying” with actions. How people can miss that or focusing on the property (usually of whites, usually powerful) baffles me. As does wanting to take away a tactic for people to respond to such institutionalized injustice by preaching absolute morality in regards to property.
The system is completely fucked and it’s beyond just a new law or a new police chief in that one town. So yeah, burn it to the fucking ground and beginning anew if it comes to that. Perhaps you shouldn’t have built and maintained such a shitty oppressive system and then you wouldn’t have to worry about destroying what’s in place. Peace is preferred by everyone except the oppressors who use it with abandon so I find the escalation unsurprising and am glad the protesters haven’t turned violent against civilians. I just don’t see anything wrong with destructive protests except with the oppression that causes them.
The other thing that I think bears recognizing is that while there has been some looting/wanton property damage during the protests, many have – with significant evidence – asserted that it is being perpetrated by outsiders who have entered Ferguson for the purpose of using the protests as cover. There are videos of locals guarding businesses (etc) and addressing would-be looters with “This isn’t who we are! Stop!” and “Who are you? You aren’t from around here.”
Some of these people may be generalized lowlifes of various sorts. Some – many, in my opinion – may be agent provocateurs. Should the protestors at large be held accountable for people who are using them as cover? I think not.
Daz:
Okay. I was trying to use your own phrase and work with that. There seemed to be an assumption hidden in there that they were indeed denied recourse to do some specific action, which might or might not be reasonable. If you’re only interested in explaining, descriptively, how they acted, then I’d agree that there are facts about what set of options they had and which choices they made: thus, those reactions are understandable in a certain sense. I’m of course not inside their heads and wasn’t there (or all over society) to see how the whole big story works in exact detail, but I can get some hazy picture of what’s happening and understand it at that level. We’re on the same page there? I hope it’s clear enough.
That’s a long way from “condoning” it, which is what I’ve been arguing against (in the same sense MLK was), while other people have been trying to defend it.
JAL:
This is a little muddled and vague, but in any case, I’m not repeating a racist narrative or refusing context. And I’m not being strict. It’s simply being consistent. I don’t have to do some series of convoluted backflips and twists and turns to push some arcane (and frankly absurd) idea that arson is good or not-bad or that it’s the only thing they could have possibly done … because of racism, apparently. That just doesn’t follow. And there’s no other need to make such ridiculous claims.
I’m really not. I’m not making a big deal out of people destroying property (or a bigger deal about it than systematic injustice). If you think it’s wrong, however and minor and petty it might be, then make a small deal out of it for all I fucking care, and get it the fuck out of your way. Not everything has to be turned up to fucking eleven. Just tell the truth, clearly and unequivocally, and get over it. If anything, I’m making a bigger deal out of people like you here, trying to make such a patently ridiculous argument. You are not those people, out in the streets, setting fire to a building. I’m criticizing you for saying what you are saying, and making them look much worse than they are by association. Do you accept that’s what I’m doing, or are you at least willing to recognize the difference when you make accusations and insinuations like this? And guess what? If you back off from this bullshit, then sure it was a minor and petty little mistake, but I won’t make a big fucking deal out of that either.
JAL 213
Nah, I’m with you there; I just haven’t been around much lately for various reasons. I’m not going to quote the whole comment, I’ll just say well said, and hear, hear, and things of that nature.
I will also note that at least some of the property damage was almost certainly caused by police agents provocateurs; as has been noted, the presence of same has been confirmed among the Ferguson protestors, and I have personally witnessed cases of such agents provocateurs causing property damage to provide cover for their uniformed colleagues to open up with the CS gas and rubber bullets. For instance, the destruction by arson of the Brown family’s church strikes me as an unlikely action on the part of those protesting the injustice and brutality of the white establishment.
Following the link to the Grauniad in the post about Ghomeshi, I found another op-ed that called my attention, and I somehow had to painfully read it to the end: Black, gay and shot dead in his own car: this is another Missouri killing we should talk about. A section of it:
Such a sad world we live in.
JAL 213
I’ll second Dalillama – well said! I’d like to add that the governor knew very well that there would be riots; he urged people to remain calm “regardless of the decision” and called National Guard troops to stand by. What we’re seeing are the consequence of gov. Nixon’s policy, consequences predicted and expected by gov. Nixon.
The entire “riots” media coverage is not only ripe with racism, but also with inadequacy and an attempt to avoid any responsibility.
Oh, yes, back during the ‘Nam war days, it us unpatriotic to march in protest against the ‘Nam war, and often police infiltrators started violence during said marches and protests, or “REAL” patriots *snicker*. Now, given that history, how can you know it was the peaceful marchers and protesters who rioted? Rioting and looting happened, yes. Now, who caused it? Evidence?
I don’t have enough to really know, Nerd.
Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if at least some of it were due to agents provocateurs, as Dalillama rightfully pointed out. On top of that, I think we can be very certain that the vast majority of protesters (in Ferguson and elsewhere) did not take part in any violence or destruction, for the simple reason that we probably would’ve heard about it already if it were happening on such a vast scale. Nothing I’ve said implies otherwise. Of course, you can ask me as many impertinent questions as you like, but you seem to have gotten the wrong impression about something I’ve said.
Anyway, does that change whether or not somebody, whoever it was, should’ve burned a building, for instance? Would you be inclined to think it’s wrong when a provocateur does it? What’s wrong? It’s just property, right? No big deal. We’ve got bigger fish to fry. They were just following orders, etc., etc.
But however minor it is, it’s still wrong, no? Doesn’t this whole line of thought depend on the notion that it (e.g., arson, looting, violence) is obviously harmful in one way or another? Because that’s consistently what my main point has been this entire time — as trivial as it fucking is, many people nevertheless found it controversial. Not only that, but it’s compared to MRAs complaining about false rape allegations. Fuck, that’s just so infuriating in so many ways, from my point of view.
But if you want to tell me somebody else did it, then okay. Fan-fucking-tastic. You’re at least finally catching up to reality just a little bit. If there’s any evidence of somebody doing something specific, whoever that might be, then I don’t ask who the person is on the assumption that I’m supposed to bias my decision based simply on that. I don’t know what other fucking method would be useful here; but if you have anything in mind, then lay it out for me. Or just shut the fuck up.
cr,
I don’t think I’ve said it’s the only thing they could do but find it unsurprising and a tactic that’s worked before.
Like I said, I think we’re at an impasse because I don’t say it’s wrong for protesters to destroy property. I won’t say it’s good like health care but it’s a way to create change and reform. I won’t deny and punish the people for the failings of the system. So yeah, destructive protests I find not-bad or not bad enough and get a pass unless they cross a line like attacking civilians and other cases I’ve brought up. (in which case just those specifics actions are bad.) I thought I’ve been rather clear on that.
Well, I didn’t say you were like them, I said the phrases felt the same because I couldn’t word what felt off about it last night/this morning on no sleep and a headache.
Yes, outsiders coming into pillage and the cops or the agents retaliating and blaming the protesters are wrong. Those I think bare more exploring and addressing because that’s another avenue of oppression and racism.
But complaining about black people reacting to oppression in a destructive way just seems…silly and rather pointless. It’s not a problem the way false rape allegations aren’t a problem while institutionalized racism and rape culture is. It’s silly to have to say “I think arson and stealing are wrong” when speaking of these destructive protests like feminists have to say “false rape allegations are wrong” when speaking about rape culture. That’s just a big fucking duh that wastes time and plays into the fucked up narrative. I don’t see why I should play by their rules when I’m trying to change them anyways. That’s still a win for them and a loss for me. I’m sorry the comparison upsets you but I don’t know how else to explain it.
I can live with the black people of Ferguson acting out in such a way though I’d prefer to live a world with a just system or at least in one where peaceful protests worked. It matters not in intent but in cause and effect. Like burning Brown’s family church (Thanks for reminding me of that, Dalillama. In this thread I was caught up on destructive protests without bring up the finer points of Ferguson specifically) versus Toys R Us. Yeah, buildings were burnt but that’s where the similarity ends. I don’t see why supporting one and not the other is contradictory.
Besides all that, how I make them look bad? They are people in Ferguson working to fix the destruction as there was in the beginning and they’re still doing a shit-ton of peaceful protesting. I prefer that approach but I want doesn’t really matter. I’ll support that and protesters following through on “if we burn, you burn”. I don’t see why fighting back against the system in such a way is automatic no-no. The system is corrupt and can willingly change peacefully or be forced and re-built. Time and again it’s proven it won’t change unless there’s whites involved and destroying what those people own at the cost of other people is a proven way to make them involved when they just ignore peaceful pleas.
I agree with the MLK quote that “It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society.” I’m glad people are championing peaceful protest and I accept that I’m willing to support more radical action so we’ll have to disagree on that and that’s that. But I’m not going to accept
or
Or really anything other nonsense. We prefer peaceful protests and agree that arson and stealing should be outlawed and enforced in “polite society” but that’s where it ends. This is decidedly not one for black people so I see disturbing the whites in such a way is a justified way of protesting and you just see it as wrong. I don’t advocate murder or bombings but property is fair game. In a society built founded upon using them as property and still keeping them from property and other such “luxuries” proving the point “we’re more important than this shit, (which you fucking stole from us)” just makes sense to me as rebellion against it.
If this is some pacifist or something different, then fine, w/e. We disagree but acting as if I’m immoral or irrational will get you told to fuck off. I did give you plenty of attitudes at first, that I don’t regret, but I’ve never said you were a terrible person. I explained the bits you spouted off against that I agree with but I haven’t applied it to you and pointed out why and ways to avoid that while remaining peaceful and not condoning “riots”. If it does apply to you then stop being a shitty ally and word it better than your complaints up-thread, which miss the point. If you really think my problem is just people preferring peaceful protest, or having arson and stealing outlawed, then you’re just being stupid.
Well, it’s either a big fucking duh or it isn’t. You waste your own time by saying it, contradicting yourself about it, saying it again, contradicting yourself, over and over ad nauseam. I’d agree that this should go without saying, but then many silly people had to go and actually say the fucking opposite. That isn’t something I can control, so don’t bother telling me how silly it is. And again, the rules you want to change aren’t the rules involving such violence or destruction, so you should play by those rules because they are good rules which you have every intention of playing by as soon as this silly bullshit argument of yours finally ends. I figure these aren’t “their rules” but “our rules,” and if you want to claim otherwise the claim is just becoming even more ridiculous than I ever imagined in a place like this.
Maybe a familiar way to explain it would be in terms of micro-aggressions. (This is still a terrible analogy.) They’re not super-duper bad, but they are still bad, no denying it. That’s equivalent to what I take you to be saying in your more coherent moments. But a “false” allegation is one about something which didn’t happen, while in this case there is plenty of evidence that these things in fact did happen. Anyway, as a survivor, I do not appreciate the comparison. That’s the most polite way I can manage to say “fuck you” right now. If you’ll stop fucking confusing yourself about what fucking game you’re playing or what fucking narrative you think you’re telling, maybe you’d see how screwed up it is that you won’t just say the plain old truth, in so many words, and move on to something that we’d both agree is more important.
cr,
No, micro-aggressions don’t work to what I’m trying to explain either. But it’s not that false allegations don’t happen, it’s that MRA’s don’t actually talk about the reality of it and use it as smokescreen? kind of thing. I don’t think “rioting” by protesters is the same as arson and stealing in everyday (or non-social justice movements).
That I did not know or remember and I’m truly sorry for that. I wish I could take back that whole train of thought and am even sorry that I can’t.
I’d also like to apologize to other survivors here hurt by or upset with my comparisons. I was using it as means to explain my experiences where I floundered with words but didn’t think of the effects on others to releasing that thought outside my skull.
What I’ve been saying all along is I support Ferguson protestors “rioting” and defend their actions against legal repercussions and will leave it at that.
Fuck. I can’t post links from here but the BBC and NYTimes are reporting that the white cop who was facing a grand jury in NYC for a chokehold/asphyxiation by chest compression of a black man*did not* get indicted?
Ack wrong punctuation. The “?” Should have several “!!!” In with it
Rawnaeris
Saw that earlier, thanks to this thread
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/17/later-this-morning-in-america/comment-page-2/#comment-886211
Cop murders a man using a choke hold, a maneuver that was outlawed in NYC two decades ago.
The action was filmed.
The M.E. ruled the death a homicide.
The cop is not indict.
People are upset at the injustice and how such action are targeted at a minority.
Cops show up, armed for conflict.
Must be nice to have both a ready excuse to use violence and know that you are likely to be punished for it.
The U Fucking S, where the Fucking Rule Of The Fucking Law reigns supreme!
chigau (違う) thanks, I probably should have thought to check there.
Janine, #227
And don’t forget the insult to injury: If there is “rioting”, you can bet anything that the fucking racist assholes will be out saying they condemn the property damage. We’ll have a good number on here doing so too.
I don’t know what can be done. Protests don’t work. Revolting doesn’t work. This is the police and government issuing an official statement to all black people that they are out to kill them. So fucking depressing.
#224 Rawnaeris
I understand that the person who recorded the death was successfully indicted by a grand jury in August, which makes things more strange.
Earlier this week, I’d read a opinion piece on Pando arguing that the Ferguson grand jury was only exceptional in that it had been fair and balanced and whatever and that it should set an example of how future grand juries should be. That argument struck me as deeply dishonest. I suspect shielding cops is the way the system has always worked.
The US is hardly alone in having problems with criminal (and racist) activity perpetrated by the police without punishment, but I don’t even know how to begin to repair these broken systems. Maybe people accepting there is a problem is already progress. Dunno.
I’m just going to bed.
The sidewalks can wait to be shovelled.
Dear black people in the USA. I know, I know, you’Re regularly being murdered by the police and then the courts decide that this is not even worth looking into.
Dear Syrian and Iraqui refugees, I know you’ve lost everything you ever had and are on the run from merciless religious fanatics who will rape and murder you brutally.
Dear western women, I know rape is still rampant and heardly ever prosecuted, and when you speak up against harassment there’s a chance you’ll have your head bashed in.
Dear people living on the streets of the richest countries of the earth, trying not to freeze to death in the upcoming winter while being afraid of authorities that want to solve the problem of homlessness by getting rid of you.
All of you, will you stop whining because some privileged dude in the Times magazine has a very nice life and Stephen Pinker agrees.
Everything is fine then, I guess.
Holy fuck that tweet is so many kinds of wrong. The image of Africa fucking held in the hands of a white man in a tweet from a rich, privileged white man whining about people objecting to injustice. I have no evens to just….
How come the fact that people are still being killed in conflicts be better than the relative safety of American society? Is the rest of the world expected to die like flies, and so any improvement over that situation is to be met with more gratitude than the standards of living in developed countries?
[highlight mine]
We have angelic wings! We can bloody fly! Every family has at least three rainbow-painted unicorns in the garage!
Really? REALLY? REALLY? This is such a vile comparison I can’t believe someone’s gone there in good conscience. Don’t people who lived in countries that were more authoritarian a few decades ago have any right to complain? Because we could’ve been killed before? Really? Does that guy believe we’re human at all?
But, then, if there’s something to be learned from the article is never ask someone from the third world what they think about their situation. Only consider the expert dude’s opinion on what’s important for us.
Those quotes are from the whine less article, btw.
The Sydney Morning
Breakfast CerealHerald reports that the Australian government wants to divert resources from public universities to fund religious colleges:I wonder if subsidizing bigots is how free markets are supposed to work?
I just found this on Youtube: The Period Poem. It is the awesomest awesome ever to awesome. Go watch it.
Andrea Constand
Beth Ferrier
Janice Dickinson
Joan Tarshis
Tamara Green
Barbara Bowman
Linda Joy Traitz
Louisa Moritz
Carla Ferrigno
Therese Serignese
Angela Leslie
Renita Chaney Hill
Victoria Valentino
Jewel Allison
Joyce Emmons
Kristina Ruehli
Jena T
Michelle Hurd
Judy Huth, Helen Hayes, “Chelan”
21 women with allegations against Bill Cosby. It seems like every time I write a blog post about new allegations, more surface right after I hit submit. It’s possible that Judy Huth might have legal recourse too:
Should the map of USA be redrawn?
It appears the US is split up into different zones of interaction, that ignore existing state boundaries. (Well, except for Texas.)
Link to image.
Tom the Dancing Bug has a look at living while black
We’re getting some coverage in Australia of recent US police killings, with scrupulous attention paid to Both Sides (because they are of course of Equal Value). Fuck ’em.
A question for USAnians: do you think the international reporting of extrajudicial executions such as Michael Brown and Eric Garner are likely to bring about change in the States?
Badland @240:
As much as I would like to believe this might happen, it just doesn’t seem likely.
Oh, and thank you for that link!
@ Tony!
The reality is far worse than you imagine. Their murders, by racist police officers, are actually making matters worse for people in this part of the world. Here, for example is Mary Ma, editor of The Standard, and right-wing government shill:
Like her political master, CY Leung, she thinks police brutality against students is just dandy. Nevertheless, she spends much editorial space in demonising them – to assuage what very little conscience she has left.
On the train to downtown today, a school class of young children with teachers was travelling too and some were within earshot.
Two Black people boarded and took seat in the vicinity, eventually one of the children told a racist joke about Blacks.
No one did anything.
theophontes #242
Same here. Russia is having a field day (in the few lucid moments when it isn’t moaning about being oppressed by Ukraine).
It’s always problematic when the “Leader of the Free World” isn’t acting very freedom-like.
For those who haven’t noticed, Ranzoid is back to remind us that his body carries fecal matter in both ends.
This happened.
Have the brain bleach ready for when you follow that link.
No, I am not kidding, have the brain bleach ready to use immediately.
Janine #246
It’s like All in the Family, but with everyone as Archie Bunker.
…though some people in the comments seem to have Saving Grace in mind.
Two words: American exceptionalism. As a nation, we love nothing more than to believe that we are better at everything than everyone and that everyone else wishes they were us. TL;DR, no.
I turned on the broiler in our electric oven.
Our smoke-detectors work.
A list of iconic feminist moments from 2014. Most of them are related to celebrity culture, but there are also some good ones that aren’t celebrity-focused (And some of the celebrities are kick-ass activists, of course):
http://mic.com/articles/105102/the-39-most-iconic-feminist-moments-of-2014
Reading various links lead to this followup on sjwautoblocker . . .
http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/when-wellmeaning-people-harm-those-they-supposedly-protect
The link that lead to that was this one
http://deirdre.net/so-about-that-auto-block-list/
Which shows that you can get a “Traitor to the Mens” t-shirt (complete with trilby/fedora and mustache).
More sjwautoblocker followup: Going back to the original link
https://github.com/sstjohn/sjwautoblocker
Results in a page that says:
I wonder if this is the result of the stalking and harrasment target/victim contacting github, or someone else doing so in support of her.
Janine @ 246,
I don’t get it.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a columnist for Breitbart. Until a few months ago, he called gamers “losers”. Now, he is one of the loudest voices in GG. If you use Twitter, just go to @Nero to see exactly what kind of person he is. I do not feel like digging out examples.
And CHS is GG’s “based mom”. Need I say more.
Hong Kong is coming apart at the seams. I came here to get away from this shit. Now the fascists are taking over here too. (Linky)
I want to pull out my non-existent hair. Every. Time. Every single time PZ posts something about racism, we have to deal with people who aren’t even ready for a 101 level discussion. People who derail. People who can’t be arsed to perform a single Google search.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
Sorry, had to get that out.
theophontes
Stay safe.
What was that about?
@ chigau No back story. Police have just taken to random acts of violence towards citizens. This may be common in US, but it is completely abnormal here. Such behaviour previously was reserved for triad gangsters.
I keep my wits about me, so should be safe if this does not escalate too much. RWA elements in government are only too happy to resort to violence of late. Something really ugly is stirring in BJ.
Ok, I did end up writing a post about why I think killing some animals is ok.
Of course the response will be “but killing innocent sentient creatures is just wrong” or something, but I haven’t seen that backed up. I started with a more basic moral claim that I think fewer people would dispute.
theophontes, I hope you and yours are and stay safe – and I wish that for all your fellow-residents/citizens :-(
theophontes:
I too hope you and your remain safe.
theophontes
Hopefully the authoritarians there calm down a bit. Here too, of course.
theophontes #255
A familiar story. When I left USSR I also thought I left all of that crap behind. I was wrong – there is no escape.
Hope you’re safe.
brianpansky, from your article:
I’ll stop you right there. Suffering is of course bad in many cases, but certain forms are beneficial to us: feeling pain which helps us avoid serious injury/death, pain or stress which we feel while trying to achieve a more worthwhile goal, people who get off on that sort of thing, etc. So, suffering itself is not something that is “wrong” intrinsically or which we should prioritize over everything else. You could do more to pick out which kinds of psychological states are the ones to be avoided, but for the sort of reasons I already gave, all of the good things we want don’t necessarily have any relationship with a specific psychological state in a given individual. Those matter, but they’re not all that matters. They just don’t match up nice and clean like that, because they’re not even in the same category as a psychological state. So any “extension” from that will be incomplete.
The “remove the cancer” thread just had me thinking of something Aristotle once wrote. You shouldn’t say a person lived a good life if they were merely happy, experienced lots of pleasure (or more pleasure than suffering), were wealthy, etc. It’s kind of interesting. If you actually do the survey on people, we’re no good at even saying how “happy” we really are or how “good” our life is overall. Things like whether it’s raining that day, or whether the person found a dollar bill before they started, will change how good they think their entire fucking life has been. So we’re absolutely terrible at doing that kind of “calculus” even when it comes to our own lives, much less others, and even less those very different from ours.
Anyway, we don’t care so much about that personal level so much as the world they live in, what they’ve contributed to it, even into the future where eventually they’ll no longer exist but other sentient beings will. So big-A says something like you should look to their grandchildren (which should obviously extend beyond immediate/extended family) to see how successful they are as products of that person’s actions. That’s when you know a person lived a good life. It’s not about their personal “hedonic units,” measuring pleasure against pain (if that could even be done) in their own subjective psychological states. That’s a way for dictators and billionaire CEOs and rapists to be “good” and “lack suffering.” It’s good for them, right? Doing good period means a lot more than that, more like what the total effect of your life is on all other sentient beings. What do you do for everyone?
If you think some class of non-human animals only contributing as slavery and food is best for us, that’s already hard to see, even if you don’t care about what’s good for them or don’t believe there is any such thing. (That is in any case an empirical claim about an animal’s psychology, which hasn’t been demonstrated, so we should be cautious not to jump the gun on that.) The thing is, we think we own it all. The whole planet is ours for the taking. We get to bend entire ecosystems to our wills. It’s Genesis 1:26 out there, in case you haven’t noticed, but in fact we’re not made in his image and it’s not for us to rule over. Who knows what kind of destruction ensues because of what we’re doing, even just as far as humans are concerned, because we think like this? Saying something like cows aren’t “afraid that they will cease to exist” (assuming that’s true) isn’t even starting to address all of the problems with our own alienated relationship with the rest of nature and all of the sentient beings in it.
We’re going to be gone one of these days. What’s left, crawling around in the ruins or the nuclear wasteland or whatever it will be? Is it all smiles and rainbows? And what about all of the suffering (if that’s what you care about) that doesn’t happen immediately, the moment every non-human animal is killed or those leading up to it, but only accumulates over the long run as we fail to recognize what we’re doing to this planet? Shouldn’t we count that?
Getting back to the point you made. Does it make any difference at all whether they have some highfalutin cognitive understanding or awareness that they’re about to die? I just don’t see how it does. You kill a child, let’s say, who hasn’t asked themselves all of the right Deep Existential Questions™ about their mortality and isn’t afraid of what is about to happen to them because they just don’t see what’s coming to them, then that certainly doesn’t let you off the hook in their case. If it’s not that, then I figure you’re going to tell me there’s supposed to be some other difference which you didn’t mention, but what exactly is that?
Or just for target practice. You didn’t make any distinction about the reasons for killing them. And of course you didn’t distinguish between any set of non-human animals and another. They’re just one big lump. A shrimp is equivalent to a chimp, as far as your argument goes, about what they supposedly experience.
@consciousness razor
I’ll start with the objection of yours that seems most on-point: “suffering” is both vague and sometimes necessary. Sure, I agree. However, I’m not sure how anyone could use that point to argue that killing animals is wrong.
Your stuff about ecosystems was not the topic of my post.
No it doesn’t matter (for animals or for children, as you point out). That paragraph of mine was kinda just an extra thought. I could have left out that paragraph and my case would still stand.
My comment about puppies was meant to illustrate exactly the kind of differentiation you claim I instead made into “one big lump”.
I should have written “some animals” at the top of the page (like I did further down the page) instead of just “animals”. I should just remove all mentions of “human” and “animal”, and then let the evidence decide where in my argument a particular thinking being should be placed.
I hope that clears some things up.
Really? Well, we’re in them anyway. Try to imagine what it would be like if nobody ate animals. Do you have a clear picture of that? Now say this:
It very probably is worse for livestock animals (never mind all of the others along for the ride with climate change, pollution, habitat loss, etc.), that a huge chunk of our civilization is structured around eating them. It doesn’t need to be “restructured” in such a way, because it already is that way, and you and I aren’t the ones who have the relevant experiences and need to check how it feels. There is no spherical cow in a vacuum which is being killed instantly and painlessly, isolated from the rest of what’s actually happening in the real world. The initial conditions of this thought experiment already have all of the problems in it, but you left those out because they are not that cow experiencing suffering right then. And *jedi mind trick* I’m not looking for everything else going on in the real world, which turns out to be an enormous fucking problem. Sorry, I’m not buying it.
I would press the point more that someone having a particular subjective state isn’t capturing everything that’s going on and what’s good or bad about it, but maybe you can leave that point for another day. You should still see why it’s analogous to the kind of situation you’re describing there. Lots of suffering in non-human animals because of what we’re doing — no doubt in my mind about that. If you’re not going to deny that and still think you’re right about meat-eating on the basis of something in this argument, then I guess I don’t understand what your argument is.
brianpansky:
I think it is very possible to do the same to humans. Logan’s Run investigated the possibility. Just convince them they’re going to a better place. No great suffering!
Soylent Green is delicious.
Rob Grigjanis:
I figure “look at the flowers Lizzie” type executions (without their knowledge) would be easier to pull off typically, but yeah, you could even make them have explicit positive feelings about it. I suppose that gives bonus points for the extra bit of absurdity. I know there are some other sci-fi movies a bit like that, but I can’t think of their titles at the moment.
Sliders’ “Luck of the Draw” (se01e10) had a similar (and better thought out) version of this approach.
It’s something of a spoiler to say, but the <rot13>Qlfgbcvp Shgher Xbern</rot13> of <rot13>Pybhq Ngynf</rot13> also fits. ( I see that the Wikipedia page for the book and film reveal this.)
@267, consciousness razor
That’s a question of how humanely they are killed, not whether they are killed.
Similarly for all questions of global impact etc. Those are questions of “how” (and how many etc.), not “if”. Even making a conclusion about the current state of the meat industry is beyond the scope of my post (this should have been obvious).
@268, Rob Grigjanis
Maybe you didn’t watch Logan’s run.
@268, Rob Grigjanis
Actually that’s not fair of me. You were obviously considering a slightly altered version as a thought experiment.
chigau (違う) #269:
Clarke came up with an interesting variant…
brianpansky @275:
No, fair enough. I’ve seen the movie a few times, but not recently. My memory tells me that the vast majority of people were content with their situation, with occasional dissenters, hence the need for Sandmen.
As for Carousel, the zapping seemed pretty quick, and the watching crowd didn’t seem too upset.
There was the Dish of the Day (a sentient, talking cow that wanted to be eaten) in Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Owlmirror:
There you go. I knew there was a more recent one I was thinking of. It hardly needs to be said, but all such examples are dystopian.
brianpansky:
It’s also a question of how humanely they live, before they are killed. If they are going to be killed, there are numerous conditions in the actual world which lead up to that, and those are all fair game. Chris Christie’s pig crates, for instance. If you’re agreeing that your hypothetical, isolated, gratuitous act of killing, which avoids suffering only in the exact moment of the kill, has essentially nothing to do with whether or not the systems we have (or any better ones we could have) to do this on a global scale in the real world is okay, because that clearly does involve a massive degree of suffering, then you seem to be agreeing people shouldn’t do that.
Suppose we had a global police state under constant surveillance by Minority Report-style precogs, which ensured your hypothetical painless kills were the only ones that occurred and ensured no suffering happened up to that point in their lives. That is, people aren’t using these precogs just to catch murderers of humans before they act, but they are also using these as an instrument in the enforcement of agricultural regulations covering the treatment of non-human animals. (I’m sure Republicans would love this and fall over themselves to pass such legislation….) That would still be bad for us in some ways (also, never mind where we got these precogs and how we treat them!); but the point is that it isn’t going to happen and it’s nothing like the actual world we live in. You can dream up such things as spherical cows painlessly killed in a vacuum and make some kind of valid argument about them, but what does that have to do with reality? It’s garbage-in, garbage-out, unless we consider what the rest of the world is actually like and how this fits into it. I’m not trying to add something or change the subject here; I’m saying that it cannot be relevant to the actual problem in the actual world.
@279, consciousness razor
Yes of course. I just assumed that would be implied when I said “humanely”, and given everything I said about suffering.
CR:
If you go by that, people who choose not to breed are automatically excluded from having lived a good life.
Er, no. That’s one of the things I meant by extending it beyond family. You have this close “circle” of those you care about, due to evolution if nothing else, but that circle should include all of your friends as well as others in your society who you have an impact on throughout your life, regardless of your specific genetics. That’s generally how mammals are, being social organisms which exist in large groups, cooperating with one another and helping each other out when they can. You’ve had some impact on me because we have that sort of relationship (our online communications), not a family relationship. (We’re probably not close relatives, for all I know, and that doesn’t enter into it either way.) Overall, I think you’ve had a good influence on me, and you’ve had good or bad influences on many others. That’s the basic idea. Not “breed or be a bad person.” If it were, then I’m a bad person too. And I can’t have that. :)
For the record, I’m sure I misrepresented Aristotle’s position there very badly, but I only meant to cite it (as concisely as possible) as an early source of the idea I was reminded of, whatever silly or not-so-silly things he said about it. He had much more to say of course, and I don’t particularly care how exactly it fits in with the rest of his theory, since it’s not mine.
consciousness razor #282
How do you know that?
If “good” is defined by an impact on others then in order to determine whether she had a good impact on you, you must know whether her impact on you made your impact on your family/friends any better. But to know whether it was made better or worse you need to see how they impact their loved ones, and so on and so forth. It’s an endless reductionism and it’s nonsense.
tl;dr – Aristotle was smarter than that. Leave dead philosophers alone!
There’s no infinite regress, because the influences drop fairly quickly down to negligible levels. For example, I probably won’t be doing anything which has a significant good or bad effect for people 200 years from now, because I’m not in such a position now. I guess that could change, but it’s unlikely. What makes you say this is “nonsense”? Do you mean there’s a contradiction?
It doesn’t matter what I know or don’t know, how I know it, etc. The facts, whatever they are, don’t depend on me knowing those facts. So call it a “guess” if you want. Iyeska should take it as a compliment more than anything, or as a quick and rough estimate of how I would rate our interactions given what I do know about them (which isn’t nothing). But I could be wrong. I might be wildly mistaken about it. Maybe I’m being tricked by an evil demon, etc. Where’s that supposed to leave us? I don’t care about pretending as if I’m omniscient/omnipotent and judging everyone and everything as if I had that kind of perspective. I can’t do that. And that’s not the point of any of this, so we can get by just fine doing our best without that sort of bullshit.
consciousness razor #284
The regress isn’t in the magnitude of the influence, but in the definition itself. Unless you have a secondary definition of “good” any examination of the good deeds one accomplishes can only be examined through an existing definition of “good” – namely, what effect a deed has on decedents. That is, if you act kindly (for example) to your children, by that definition, your act can only be considered kind if it causes your children to be kind to their children, and so on and so forth.
However, if there is a secondary definition of “good” then there is no reason to use the primary one as any action can be judged good or not by the reasonably expected outcome of your actions. In the example above, let’s assume that “being kind” is considered good in and of itself. In that case you don’t need to wait to see whether your kindness is reflected in or even recognized by your children – they might be evil people incapable of gratitude or decent people who didn’t recognize your kindness for their circumstances – the only important thing is that you showed kindness in that one point in time.
This shows the main problem with the argument. According to that, any good deed has a trajectory of goodness – it’s starts at zero (or close to it) since the exact consequence of your actions are yet to be seen, then it slowly gains value as the consequences affect more and more people, and finally it drops back to zero since any action becomes insignificant after enough time.
Worse yet, your reasoning removes any agency – you might save an entire village from a disease, but if that village is annihilated a moment later by an erupting volcano then your actions would not be deemed “good”.
In short: I called it nonsense because it’s a useless approach to morality, both because it undermines the very notions of morality by removing agency and because it in itself is neither sufficient nor helpful guide to any desired actions. It’s also, as you yourself have said, a fairly big misrepresentation. In the original meaning grandchildren were used to show that a moral person should not expect to gain anything from their good deeds.
Iyeska is awesome and deserves any and all compliments. I used your comment to show you just how inadequate that philosophical approach is even in minor, day-to-day interactions.
That wasn’t the point. In the context of Brian’s argument, I was trying to point to some additional issues that don’t correspond in any straightforward way to a single individual’s psychological state. Brian was claiming it all amounts to suffering or the lack thereof, as if it were entirely up to cognitive science to give us that data. I don’t think that’s right, even though it is entirely up to empirical data of some kind or another. You can say of course that being kind to a child gives them a certain state which is good for them (they’re happy, etc.). Yes, it does do that: regardless of whatever other effects it might have in the future, that is a good thing for them. I wasn’t arguing against that. I was saying that it doesn’t give a complete picture, when you fixate on single things like that (concerning one person, or one experience they had) and fail to take the rest of the situation into account.
@ The Horde
Many thanks for your concerns. I don’t know where this is all heading. Such violence and threats are so unlike Hong Kong. It is made all the more ominous by a press that is throwing Honkers under the bus and is sounding ever more reactionary.
I made the list of citizen journalists, and hopefully that doesn’t put me on any other lists. If you wish to follow on twitter, check out #OccupyHK (please RT) which is a group reporting mainly in English. I am documenting what I can in the evenings after work, so the days and nights are getting very long.
It looks like this Wednesday will be a big day again. CY Leung is getting all passive-aggressive, which is a bad sign. Police are getting more random in their beatings. PLA have been standing around their HQ gates. None of which bodes well for tardigrade peace-correspondents.
ooooh
theophontes
fight the good fight
but keep your head down
@ chigau
I have an instinctual aversion to getting my head cracked open with batons. On the other hand, my SIWOTI rears its head in RL too.
India’s new comic ‘super hero’: Priya, the rape survivor
Paul Krugman destroys conservatives’ favorite myths about the Obama economy
CR @ 282:
Thanks. :) You’ve definitely had a good influence on me, making me think past my comfort zone.
Theophontes, stay safe!
So um…
A PR firm in Texas thought it would be a good idea to call itself Strange Fruit.
Thankfully they’ve promised to change the name but WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?
I don’t think I’d hire a PR firm that doesn’t know how to do an internet search.
@chigua- according to the article, the firm said that they were aware of the song before they started up but thought that enough time had passed that it wouldn’t cause any issues. So, yeah, they’re not a PR firm that doesn’t know how to look up a name before they use it, they’re a PR firm that apparently doesn’t understand the concept of PR.
How ’bout this article: The College Rape Overcorrection? I know Emily Yoffe has been umm…controversial in the past.
From my first link @296:
ARRRGGHHH! It does include this stupid fucking canard AGAIN. HOLY fucking shit! EVERYBODY knows there is a connection. COUNTLESS parents have warned their kids to be wary of alcohol because you can end up in a bad situation. Countless women have been told to maintain positive control of a drink so that something can’t be slipped in it. People are warned to go out in groups with trusted friends to help protect them from the Shermers of the world. It’s completely common fucking knowledge that drinking can be a factor in rapes. NOBODY and I do MEAN FUCKING NOBODY is being prohibited from EDUCATING people about this fact in an appropriate setting. VERY few women are unaware of this fact so bringing it up is a complete fucking smokescreen that only comes off as victim blaming in the context of article like these. Jesus!
How about we treat rape on campus like the crime it is and stop the nonsensical idea that it can be handled by on-campus boards?
Also, how ’bout we teach people that consent is non-optional in sex, and sex without consent is rape?
And is it just me, or is the way she plugs the article in her advice column smarmy as fuck? Sarcastic paraphrase:
Gimme a fuckin’ break!
It’s only 10PM.
I do need to be up early.
but
I’d really like to have another wee dram …
@ Iyeska
Thanks Iyeska.
There is some good news:
1. It looks likely that the bludgeoning will only commence on Thursday, granting us a day’s reprieve.
2. The police have been instructed not to beat students on the head or neck.
Indeed, our Dear Leader ™ is Truly Munificent, Merciful and Kind.
@ chigau
Dram away! Môre is nog ‘n dag.
theophontes
So you are just staying in your abode?
except for work
and maybe some helicopter play
theophontes
“Tomorrow is another day.”
That is really kinda threatening.
…
I’ve had me dram+ and I’m for bed.
I will ‘see’ yall later.
I go through there every night after work and post a photographic record of what is happening. (Most of the time not much happens, with occasional bursts of police violence.)
Mine are still broken. I’ll post you the link to some other’s footage when I have youtube access.
The expression is not a translation from English. It is more like “Manyana” or “Bukra” and excuses one’s having another drink.
Sleep well.
I beg indulgence for a QFT:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ OP
A far more pertinent comparison, to the linked image, would have been the American salute to the stars-‘n-bars. It was promoted by a Baptist Christian-Socialist, and only later adopted by the German National-Socialists.
Aneris ✻
Where else but his own blog? Vox Popoli He cites Michael’s words verbatim, to endorse his little hoggle-fest. (As does Conservapedia.)
Your multicoloured patchwork quilt-of-shirts aside , you must surely – at some stage – become aware that Michael is receiving a load of endorsement from reactionary types of all stripes.
Theophontes
Wow, He is like the energizer bunny, it just keeps going, and going, and going… If MN would put a tenth of the effort into being less of an arrogant ass as he does being defensive mayhap he would not have to expend several thousand more words ‘splaining how he is still demanding apologies for his wronged honor. His comments section is still composed of mostly slime. It is more than a little creepy to know just how obsessively those on the other side of the rift monitor this blog.
@Theophontes:
Just echoing others in encouraging you to stay safe while kicking ass.
====================
Yet another example of why trans* rights are crucial to everyone’s rights:
Michigan GOP hates queers, but no longer enough to reject their votes.
Nugent spelled my nym wrong.
and Ichthyic’s.
*pops in*
*scrolls through*
Gah, that’s concerning, Esteleth. :-S
“Richard Dawkins on the men’s rights movement: Really? That’s a thing?” With video and (almost?) complete transcript.
Discuss.
*pops out*
I had something I wanted to send Iyeska and Crip Dyke privately, but it turns out I don’t have their email addresses saved like I thought. If either of you see this, it’d be nifty keen if you could drop me a note at yell*ow*mellow*mon*key without stars on that googling mail service. Thanks. ♥
David,
*barf*
@chigau:
Really?
I mean, I can almost-sort-of-understand getting chigau wrong. It’s at least a transliteration where there is no correct English language/roman character spelling. If nothing else, it means that a typo of the sort he used (chigua) can’t be caught by spellcheck. [Why he failed to simply cut & paste, though, is another matter altogether.] “Ichthyic”, however, is an english language word originally spelled in Roman letters. While the root is transliterated, it is transliterated in a form standardized in English long ago, and used repeatedly in words that should be well-known to MN. Ichthyology, ichthyosaurus, ichthyophobia, etc. The suffix is both standard and short. Turning noun into adjective through addition of “-ic” is quite common enough that that should be well known, too.
Just a bit of bizarre carelessness. Not that I give a crap. I’ve misspelled names before. It doesn’t really say much about MN, per se. But it does make you wonder in an OP (rather than a mere comment) if there aren’t other careless errors.
The only thing I really do care about, since I never read the man’s writing [this post was the first since I was oddly curious about how he might have misspelled your ‘nyms, chigau & ichthyic], is his odd opening:
Reluctance to follow the Golden Rule?
One presumes he’s not talking about plutocracy and is in fact referencing the concept that one should treat others as one would wish others to treat oneself.
But how is calling bullshit on things that PZ sees as serious errors/problems a violation of this rule? While a generous interpretation of PZ may lead one to believe that PZ has not made a mistake in a particular case (and a less generous interpretation may lead one to believe he has), the behavior of **calling out error** is not something PZ has ever criticized. He’s criticized **being wrong when doing it**, such as the post on Megan Fox and her spectacular idiocy in the Field Museum. But he has no problem with criticism per se, and in fact encourages it. It’s not “criticism for thee but not for me.” There is no hypocrisy in calling out others’ behavior if you, yourself, wish to be notified of your own errors.
MN is simply making a category error here. “Interpreting generously” and “calling out error” are two different things. He tries to conflate the two, and indeed conflating the two is the only way he can make the charge of hypocrisy stick.
He could, of course, argue that PZ **wants others to interpret his posts generously** and then failing to interpret others’ posts generously would be hypocrisy. But he doesn’t make this case.
Moreover, he makes one error so blatant it’s hard to believe it’s not an intentional falsehood:
What? Evidence please. From everything I know – and I have read about this incident more than once – it was PZ who insisted that administrators, including his superiors, be informed. The extent of the investigation, at that point, wasn’t up to PZ. Moreover, the accusation itself is muddled. Is MN suggesting that PZ protected the student from the consequences of making a false rape allegation? That’s certainly the literal and direct meaning of MN’s words. Thus PZ is sexist because PZ “failed to press charges” is the most obvious and faithful reading of Nugent here, and yet that makes no sense at all. It’s completely incoherent. If MN wanted to suggest that PZ short-circuited investigation of PZ’s own behavior, that might be inconsistent with views PZ has expressed here, but it would be a suggestion that fails to even resemble reality.
It’s reasonably possible that Theophontes wasn’t charitable in judging MN, but MN has not even attempted to disprove the entirely reasonable possibility that Theophontes was using the same standards of evidence (the same “charitability”) used in judging PZ when judging MN, but that Theophontes simply has more evidence to use in PZ’s case (or some other factor beyond differing standards of evidence likewise determined the differential outcomes).
So MN isn’t a Blueshirt in any meaningful way. Fair enough. I’d never heard of them anyway. But even if Theophontes got everything wrong, is that at all proof of what MN is actually claiming?
Bizarre.
@TMM;
just closing the browser now, no time to e-mail.
my nym, no spaces, at gmail gets me.
Nugent’s desperation to join Dawkins’ Big Boy Atheists Club by single-handedly trying to turn the narrative from “Shermer is a rapist, Dawkins is cool with that” to “PZ is a big meany-head” is beyond pathetic at this point. The Dawk ain’t giving you a cookie and a pat on the head, Michael. Give it up.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the foremost expert on real feminism and how western women have nothing to complain about.
Well, he doesn’t try to mention that in the video.
Are there people who fear fish?
Well, Dana on Sportsnight.
Nope, but somebody who has so little understanding about wat’s actually going on should keep their mouth shut. It’s like voicing your expert opinion on genetics when the latest knews you have about it is that Gregor Mendel plants peas.
@ Crip Dyke
No. And neither were the original Blueshirts much more than wannabe salonfascists to begin with. But nevertheless, a tendency within their ranks towards authoritarianism, whether in religious or military guise, is a simple historical fact. They may have lost some of their initial baggage, but they retain much of their religious perspective.
Their history can’t be swept under the carpet, or treated as a joke. Their neocon ideas sprout from solidly religious and authoritarian underpinnings. (The “blueshirt” Fine Gael see the pope as too liberal in matters concerning the poor.)
It is amusing to see Michael dance around the blueshirts being Christian Democrats. Less amusing watching him try and pin PZ, and I, to our recent driveby axegrinder and his issues.
[Occupy Hong Kong]
Huge Fairwell Party planned for tonight. Tommorrow morning at 9am the police will put on a re-enactment of the Great Cultural Revolution ™.
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/12/07/3580037_can-boys-still-be-boys-when-yes.html?rh=1
Forgot the most important part:
consciousness razor #286
The way you were arguing for it seemed were similar to your argument in the Ferguson discussion. I felt that even as an example it showed a troubling approach on your part.
theophontes #307
WTF?! Nugent is devoting several screens to this? And he goes after what you and other commentators post here? Why dpes he even care? Are you the fifth horsewoman of atheism or something?
I don’t know anything about Nugent, but just from this it’s clear that he has some sick obsession. Going after a person whose greatest “crime” was posting a few comments here and there, a person he obviously knows nothing about, hunting for comments in other blogs is a petty obsession bordering on online stalking. That’s just so sick. I have no other words to describe this.
Oh, and Mr. Nugent, since you’re obviously you have nothing else to do than to read this, don’t bother to respond. Don’t bother to compare your actions to those of PZ. Don’t bother to spend hours searching Pharyngula to find any tangibly relevant info. I won’t read and neighter will your loyal supporters – most of them will go into a bloody rage the moment you’ll mention PZ’s name or blog.
Your arguments are pathetic, your reasoning is pathetic and, quite frankly, you are pathetic.
– love, Alex
Which head, the one on your shoulders that counts, or the one between your legs that’s the rapist….
haha! yeah!
It’s like voicing your expert opinion on evolutionary psychology when the latest newledge you have about it is that ladies like pink berries!
ChasCPeterson #327
No, it’s like voicing your opinion when almost every well known EvoPsych researcher is talking about pink berries. You don’t hear Neil deGrasse Tyson supporting cold fusion or Dawkins supporting the aquatic ape hypothesis, so how come whenever an EvoPsych researcher is in front of a camera he (probably the only field of biology where there is such a disproportionally large number of men) usually quotes some bad science?
“NO U”
Well, Sally and Alexander, it’s like we always only cite the bad evo psych and never the good evo psych! There’s tons of good, sound evo psych out there, we’re just unaware of it.
BTW, my drinking game is a total success. Chas is doing wonders for my nutrition.
*Quick question, is anyone else unable to get the comment box to appear in the Lounge? For some reason I can’t.*
_____
So, my day was off to a good, if very cold and snowy start, but then I got on my computer at work and Queerty (I know, sue me) has an article up commenting on an op-ed by a very charming Kiwi, Lee Suckling.
Because I like you all so much, I thought I’d inflict upon you the same gross display of gay stereo-typing, internalised homophobia and heteronormativism (?) to which I subjected myself by reading this lovely man’s op-ed.
Now, before you comment on what you read, just know that I’ve got to put on my high-top sneakers, a tank top, hit the gym to get buffed-up and head to a rave (there’s a rave going on somewhere, I’m sure of it) so that I can continue to live my gaydolescence because I suffer from eternal Peter Pan syndrome. What I’m saying is because I’m unmarried I might not be able to comment here anymore.
Good morning!
And of course all this is SOOOOO relevant to the question of whether Chas is a lazy, ignorant asshole on the subject of race but thinks his ignorance needs to be listened to, and also thinks he deserves a fucking cookie for announcing that he’s very disapproving of property destruction, against a backdrop of hundreds of dead black bodies.
It’s my birthday this weekend, maybe I’ll switch it around and get really really drunk.
#331 Thomathy
A quick fix to your NZherald link.
I got the impression that the fastest way for a white gay man to win a newspaper column is to bash other LGBT people. A few weeks ago, I’ve seen an argument that amounted to “we already have marriage equality, so it’s time to everybody shut up about rights“.
I can’t read those things, though, without the nagging feeling that maybe they’re right, that I never had a healthy adolescence; that if I haven’t even entered the adolescent-behavior stage it means I’m into real deep trouble; and that if I took so long to reach the right conclusions about myself then I must be making real bad life decisions indeed, so that when a board of historians three millenia from now decides to study my life — after everything worth studying has already been thoroughly studied — they will shake their heads and conclude I did everything wrong.
Or maybe I’m overthinking this.
Thanks, dõki. When I tested the link it directed to the column, but now it doesn’t.
You’re over thinking it. You know, the thing about not having had a healthy adolescence, or more to the point a typical adolescence, is probably something that a lot of gay teens have (and even still have) in common. But that hardly necessitates that therefor all gay men have some damned ‘Peter Pan syndrome’. Never mind that no matter what kind of adolescence anyone has, pretty much everyone ends up fairly well-adjusted.
I don’t assume you’re dancing right now. And even if you are, you’re probably alright. Just make sure you’re also married so that you’re not on the wrong side of Lee Suckling’s judgement.
Thomathy 331
I have a similar problem with all Pharyngula threads. Usually refreshing the page (after I’ve logged in) solves it. Sometimes I need to clear cache and refresh. Are you using Firefox? Any add-ons?
AlexanderZ & Thomathy
It’s not ideal, but try viewing without styles whilst commenting. In Firefox that’s View→Page Style→No style. I’ve found that works for things like that in the past.
Thanks, AlexanderZ. I use Firefox with very many add-ons. It’s the first time it happened. I refreshed several times, even forced a dump of Firefox’s memory cache. It’s still just that one page. Perhaps it’s a hang-up with WordPress. I signed in via that thread page and all other pages I open recognise I’m signed in, but that one. Not even the WordPress user-bar (or whatever it’s called) shows up on that page.
It’s okay, just odd. If it doesn’t sort out I’ll make some noise again. For now I’ll just presume that something is happening between WordPress, that page and my credentials.
Daz, I will try that. Thanks!
Thomathy
Well, I hope it works.
—————————-
Here’s a thing. Loudmouthed and vociferous sceptic as I am, I still find myself crossing fingers or touching wood, even knowing that it can’t possibly have any effect.
Daz #336
Thank you!
All the snow has melted off the south-facing roof.
In December.
****The End Is Near****
I
fucking
hate
this
iPad
I must make bread on the morrow.
I think the sourdough is snuffed.
@ chigau
Phoenicia is no more?
{a chorus of tardigrades head off to find sackcloth and ashes}
Woah is we…!
….
[Occupy Hong Kong]
View of Lennon Wall, before and after.
View from Lennon Wall, before and after.
Through the cracks.
What to get a Cthulu worshiper for Xmas
@ AlexanderZ
My sentiments exactly.
He has written a lot of very lengthy blogposts on this. It reads like Vogon poetry.
He tries to verbally stickytape me to the fulminations of a drive-by here.
MN appears to have some or other ax to grind with PZ.
If I were a horsewoman, I’d be the first ever to join that old-boy’s club. (Horsewomen tend to get blackballed. ) And contrary to popular belief, I am not a ‘Merkin. But may well be a sockpuppet of Rebecca Watson.
To be fair, I am guessing that Michael gets his information more from Conservapedia than from here. At very least, he is supplying them with a helluva lot of ammo.
…
My comment @ #322 , in which I suggested the “blueshirt” salute was more that of wannabe salonfascists , it is also that they should be rather described as wannabe Falangists, as the church was of such central importance to them (real fascists would have regarded them more as “useful idiots”).
theophontes @ 346
I’d rather read Vogon poetry than anything Mick Nugent writes.
It’s alive!
and the bread is yummy
I have a serious concern that I think this is the best place for. It has to do with evolutionary psychology and similarly sensitive issues.
The problem is that I’m going through drafts for a blog that I’m trying to get started but I keep running to into pretty serious concerns that too many are insensitive to resulting in things this community often complains about. Like the debate around evolutionary psychology. I’m going to be writing about Tourette’s Syndrome from the point of view of a person with it and I have to be honest, being able to read about what I feel at the same level as the scientists working on it does play with one’s emotions. I essentially use mental evolutionary psychology all of the time and I try to take the complaints against it seriously but if I’m going to write about brains, mental conditions, and science that does touch on things like sex, gender, aggression, social information processing and similar things are more serious.
So can I get some perspectives in here? I want my ideas to get some challenge because I really tie a lot of serious things together to come up with how I see something as serious as TS and I honestly incorporate what I discover about brain science in general into how I live my life. That is the sort of thing that got Harris in trouble. I’m going to be casual but the topic sensitivity will be, well, demonic.
I have some questions to give you an idea about where I am.
What are the five most important complaints against the field of evolutionary psychology?
How does the fact that I am the one with Tourette’s Syndrome alter the ethical/moral concerns involved?
Good question and the perfect place to ask it. It’s best to get the well nice and poisoned right at the very start.
Five? There’s only one complaint: it isn’t being done as the science it is in theory. Instead, people come up with just-so stories based on their ingrained ideas and their lack of knowledge, and then pass each other’s manuscripts through peer review because they don’t know any better.
In the wake of widespread protests against police brutality and discrimination, law enforcement departments across the country are instituting new rules and policies to ensure safer practices.
How can it be racism if all I can see are fleeting wisps of electromagnetic activity and a shimmering aura that represents each person’s individual essence?
@ChasCPeterson 351
This is actually relevant, but not in the way you intend.
The sort of thing I will be taking about involves how the tourettic obsessions and compulsions functionally shape my perception. For example one of the obsessions is aggression, and a couple of the compulsions involve ordering and symmetry.
Also, Toruette’s is in my very language processing. If you google Tourette’s and language phenomena you will find a great many strange and even disturbing things. The reality of how that sort of thing works gives me a very different appreciation for our common language. There is a piece of my brain that is obsessively forcing me to look at certain patterns in language. I see certain emotions in how language is functionally used that allow me to pick up on interesting patterns.
In this case Chas you are clearly being aggressive towards the posting environment in here. The way you express that aggression undermines itself though. You are predicting well poisoning by poisoning a well yourself. I think I’ll just wait until someone comments and see for myself.
@David Marjanović
That is certainly true. It is in fact the just-so stories that I have read here at FTB that I am going over to get some examples to start with. But there are a couple of reasons I wanted to put this out for some more casual observations. One issue is that I can’t assume that there is only one problem.
Another issue is that I can’t assume that the “just-so stories” are not in fact a collection of different types of motivated reasoning that get into the story format. So if I get five or more specific examples and break down what the person is saying and why, I will probably start seeing patterns. These people don’t think they are being biased asshats. There are one or more errors of thought in play and I want to find those.
On advantage of being the person with TS is that I get to look at my experience of TS and choose the best examples of what it is from our language and common experience. That comes with it’s own biases though. To fix one of them I bring up topics with others that have TS in order to test my ideas.
Another possible bias is that I may be overstating something that I think is an advantage. Having something that can act like a “power” in some contexts is going to require care to be realistic with.
Brony
I, despite what Chas thinks, do know that there is valuable evo psych research (I started reading more about it after Ichthyic* has put me in my place) and I discovered that even evo psych researchers don’t want to use that label. Whenever I found an interesting paper with even a basic amount of data (funny thing, I think evo psych papers are the only ones in biology to have no more than one or too tables and such a tiny “results” section) that talks about how evolution affects a species’ psychology and vice versa it’s never mentions evo psych at all! Whereas poor papers with no data and “just so” explanations are all too happy to be part of evo psych.
The worst thing is that the field isn’t being “hijacked” or anything. Those that do serious work either don’t consider themselves part of evo psych or don’t care about its image at all (or worse – agree with the sexists that dominate the media). You never see a scientist saying “oh no, Evolutionary Psychology isn’t about ‘proving’ that women gatherers all want to play with Barbie dolls, it’s about understanding violence differences between bonobos and chimps, or the evolutionary impact of mating with smaller males in marine iguanas”. No, the latter usually isn’t even considered part of evo psych. Just read the wiki entry – it’s about evo psych in humans, the one field where evo psych hasn’t produced any results (and if they have they’re being uncharacteristically timid about it).
tl;dr – if you’re reading the Pharyngula archive you already know my objections to EP, there the same as PZ’s only even stronger because I’m not a biologist and I don’t care about any theoretical possibilities. It’s up to EP people to sort out their own profession and if they can’t I have no problem with ignoring it completely.
* My browser corrects “Ichthyic” to either “Christianity” or “Ichthyology”.
Brony
You’re still kinda new here.
Chas is old here.
My feet hurt.
@ AlexanderZ 355
There is something good already. I keep neglecting the pharyngula wiki. Thanks!
To make my feelings about evolutionary psychology honest I feel that the field exists despite our feelings about it. Our evolution will have formed and shaped our psychology and pieces of that psychology will have originated at various points over very long lengths of time (perhaps all 4.8 billion yeas at some levels). The problem is that as a group we pretty poor at removing ourselves from the equation, but at some point we will figure out how to do that better and propose some decent testable claims.
I come to the subject from a different place which alters my experience of it. I don’t actually do much reading in evolutionary psychology. Instead I actively think about evolution and selection as I read papers and textbooks on TS, functions of anatomy in circuits and mind, functions of cells in circuits, anatomy and mind, and more. It’s compulsive because most of us want answers to who, what, when, where, why, and how which will be what my blog will try to do.
That is evolutionary psychology in practice as far as I am concerned so I’m looking for places to test out things that might benefit from some perspective and insensitivity prevention. It’s a real risk with the TS personality because the way my brain is shaped does alter how I feel social emotions in specific ways.
I have the same general impression of the field. The problem is that the term Evolutionary pPychology is perfect (it certainly satisfies my language sensitivities). That sort of posturing is garbage. When I was in academic research it was an effort to do anything that did not have some sort of human connection, especially with respect to funding. It’s garbage, they want human explanations and I’m going to be honest about it.
I have a picture forming in my head of what I am in a human social and evolutionary context just like those researchers. As the person with the condition I avoid the bias in things like male/men researchers speculating about female/women related things (I realize the term female has very problematic uses and I work on expressing research that addresses female and females well). To eliminate bias in subtle issues with the huge diversity of forms that TS takes (we beak rules and blur distinctions all over the place) I touch base with others with TS, and the blog is going to be a place where the ideas can be challenged as well.
But given the ways that TS affects us doing a general check with others and getting lots of random or related observations is a thing worth doing. Those questions were just where my mind is at now. Honestly I’ll take any comments because I’m worried about unknowns and given the range of sensitive subjects and my experiences here this seemed a smart thing to do.
chigau 356
Did I miss something? Is there something I should know about Chas and the thunderdome compared to pharyngula in general? I could not resist the observation about the fallacy because it was perfectly related to things I’m working with.
Brony #357
Can’t wait to see your blog.
Brony
Chas is a bit of a puzzle.
Very few of us really get where he’s coming from.
—
If you are going to persue evolutionary psychology for any reason, you must look to cross-cultural studies.
Otherwise you are not talking about human evolution.
chigau #359
I thought he was coming from California.
At least Chas is keeping with the pattern of substance-free snideness, thereby ensuring that Gilliell’s drinking habits remain healthy.
Case in point:
I used to try to explain myself here, but it was pointless. People who wanted to argue consistently made no effort to parse the words I actually chose to type and just went ahead and argued with…something else, I don’t know, voices in their heads? It got stupid.
Nowadays I keep even most of my snideness to myself, so there’s that. But there’s always a point to it, whether you care to try to figure it out or not. Nice day.
[solipsistically, I’ve been a tad more active lately just because it’s the worst time of the year (see teh ECO’s recent status posts) and Pharyngula, though alas no longer the finest procrastination engine ever devised, is still pretty good for some time-wasting sometimes.]
Translation: People refused to pretend that my words had no context or implications.
Thanks Chas, that was perfect! Claiming the mantle of victimhood, blaming everyone else for misunderstanding you, and asserting that there is a point, without providing any substance to either explain what it is or back it up. You’re definitely on a roll.
Chas is like that one kid who always showed up at parties, not to have a good time, but to sneer at anyone who was.
Had I but time for time-wasting procrastination… or even rebuttals.
(Manically rightist, verbally diarrhoeic bloggers take note.)
The latest starfart from MN is a case in point.
I mean, it’s pretty messed up that I look at abortion threads on Pharngula, and, after reading them, one of my first thoughts is, “Hey, at least I don’t have to worry about slapping down ChasCPeterson’s active cruelty to others on THIS thread!”
I should perhaps clarify that by this I don’t mean to allege any corruption. Who is best qualified to review a manuscript? The author’s fellow experts in the field. So the editors choose them as reviewers. If they all suffer from the same problems, they won’t notice those problems in a manuscript, so it’ll pass.
I think the biggest one is lack of knowledge of the diversity of behavior of humans and other species in space and time.
Well, it absolutely is true that you’re easy to misunderstand, and that other people misunderstand you pretty often. One problem on your side is that, when that happens, you make little to no effort to explain what you meant – so both sides are just left grumbling at each other.
I understand not wanting to explain everything 10 times; it’s work, and you’re probably exhausted sometimes. But it seems to me that you usually comment in the first place when you’re feeling like teh teechurcat, king of teh Jerusalem – so the comment ends up being a superficial, unexplained platitude or trope rather than anything useful.
@ AlexanderZ 358
Hopefully posting this here and a sister post at the tourettes forum will get me moving. The effort has revealed how some of my OCD-type behaviors operate in practice. “Religion” is actually a tourettic obsession and that correlates to Scrupulosity . I got somewhat paralyzed by my concerns.
@ chigau 359
Human diversity and culture is already on my mind, though it’s hard to know if I am doing everything that I can or should. I’ll take links on anything general that anyone might have. I guess it’s hard to know if I have any particular bad habits or if I’m missing any particular good habits.
In fact I cannot escape culture as a subject, it’s integral to what TS is. It’s not just that the obsessions and compulsions directly relate to very basic themes in human societies, it not just things like children with TS having problems with social inappropriateness, or even the way the stereotyped compulsions have to do with socially bad things (slurs, forbidden words, insults…). Culture is a variable in the expression of TS. There are culturally sensitive and culturally insensitive features of TS.
@David Marjanović 369
I got that. It’s a culture and perspective/privilege thing. I think of them as “de facto conspiracies” to screw things up.
That is certainly one of them. But absent good, sufficiently objective knowledge there seems little casual social effort for people studying a thing to get a sufficient firsthand experience of people they are speculating about. Most people doing research are buried in that process with little time for that would be needed for them to know people enough to make truly accurate speculations that account for any diversity of experience.
Of course my approach as the person with the thing and the scientific knowledge will have its own issues, but in a lot of ways this whole situation is the self/other distinction as bookends trying to describe what is really going on.
@ ChasCPeterson 362
That is not my experience of most complaints against you, though I’m sure there are some like that. I’m seeing some projection.
Take the recent post by PZ on MLK and “riots” for example.
It seemed to me that people understood the content of your words. Riots and looting are bad, and some of MLK’s words talk about how riots are bad. What people did not like was your inability to deviate from that in a social exchange, a characteristic that many of us aggressive white men share (a dominance/competition thing, history makes it mostly white) and one that I am dealing with myself.
For example you could not address how Dr. King contextualized riots as an inevitable result of an oppressed people. Someone can say a psychotic break that results in injury is bad, but that won’t prevent them from occurring when the circumstances are right. You were completely incapable of discussing why riots occur in any meaningful way which was part of the point of the post. You ignored the topic of the post in an impressive display of perceptual hyperfocus, and suppression of information emotionally relevant to the post and people with first hand concern. You explicitly said that you were going to ignore the emotional reasons for such a force of nature to occur like a religious person wondering why atheists could be mad about prayer does implicitly.
You told people that what they cared about the most on that topic was not just unimportant, but worth blocking out.
Of course you started a fight.
PZ retweet and answers a question from an anti-abortion catholic trans woman. (Yes, they exist. I knew one trans woman who carried a book of saints and loved to babble on about them. Yeah, I avoided her.)
The thread that follows has turned into one of the strangest things I have seen in a while.
No, I will not even try to describe what happens, just read it.
Janine
I swear that Dadaism and Absurd Theatre together could’t achieve that.
BTW, I ran into a brief Twitter joust with Justin Little (a very apt name I’d say) some days ago. He claimed that black people giving out rules for white people who want to participate in protests are soooooo racist.
Giliell, white people being asked not to speak for black people is the very epitome of racism.
Yep. I admit that at the time of the conversation I didn’t know who Little is, so I thought I’d do my share and take on the ignorant white folks. What a crybaby. Also not ignorant but just racist and obnoxious.
Giliell, I see exactly what you mean about that little shit.
Is there any place on the internet he’s not? Like, does he have a life outside of whining on Twitter?
Professional victim my ass…
Also, it seems that the little shit has not received one e-mail from what PZ did. Instead of realizing that we do not go about harassing people we do not like, claims that we are not devoted enough.
What ever.
Brony@357,
I’d certainly advise distinguishing between “evolutionary psychology” and “Evolutionary Psychology”. That human psychology (our mental and behavioural capacities) are products of evolution is I think uncontroversial here, provided we recognise the role of culture (and the capacity to be affected by, and affect, culture is itself an evolved capacity). The study of how both human and other animal psychologies have evolved is “evolutionary psychology”. But “Evolutionary Psychology” makes specific and controversial claims about the human case. Wikipedia lists its premises as follows:
These are taken from the EP literature, and the controversial aspects are the degree of modularity asserted, and the claim that “modern humans have stone-age minds”. Yet we know that we can acquire many skills and act in many ways that can have had no stone-age parallel, but which are fundamental to how we live: for example, we can learn to read and write (and this is known to affect the brain at an anatomical level), and live in cities where we can meet – and largely ignore – thousands of people in the course of a day. We have functioning societies of a billion and more individuals, while stone-age societies probably never had more than a few hundred. We also, incidentally, have significantly smaller brains than our upper Paleolithic ancestors.
EP tends to ignore or downplay how far humans differ from typical mammals, and indeed simplify and stereotype the variety of mammalian behaviour, notably but by no means only in relation to sex. Again from wikipedia:
But in fact we see that human sexual behaviour is extremely varied*, within and between cultures (much of it having little or no relationship to reproduction), and that, for example, men are in fact generally choosy about who they mate with, and women frequently do compete for men.
*If something is highly varied within a population, that’s an indication that it has not been subject to strong stabilising selection – the kind that drives a trait in a particular direction.
ChasCPeterson #362
What’s ECO?
David Marjanović #369
I really like Iyeska‘s solution – copy a post explaining yourself in detail and paste it whenever it’s required. I bet it took long to write originally, but now it’s a quick and useful way to display all the necessary info for new readers.
Janine #372
That’s sad. She must have a very lonely life.
I have no idea. The one visibly catholic trans woman that I knew was very socially active. But the church she attended was right next to Chicago’s Boystown and was open to a LGBT congregation. (Must have been a fun relationship with Cardinal George, who compared LGBT activists to the KKK.) She would march in parades, pointing at her big book of saints, talking about the saints pictured to the audience as she went by. I think she was rationalizing her status by use of saints but I really do not know. I avoided her at all times.
As for the trans woman on twitter that responded to PZ, I replied to her. As it turned out, she was following me. Afterwards, she blocked me. ,
teh Evil Cephalopodian Overlord, of course.
aka PZ.
Brony, you’re adorable.
Sally, you’re so full of shit.
(I admit, not much content here.)
So, in their latest attempt to “keep America safe from terrorists,” the US Navy has apparently developed robots that look like sharks.
No word on whether or not it’s going to be equipped with laser beams.
Janine
I admit I didn’t know that “harassing people you disagree with” shows your commitment to anti-harassment. Probably fault of my ladybrain, brought to you by evolution.
Nothing new from you fuckwad.
A petition to the UK Home Secretary:
Please create a legal exclusionary zone outside of abortion clinics
If you’ve not seen it, here’s the video mentioned.
There goes Chas again. Declaring people wrong and then acting surprised when people behave as if they know how to operate a mouse, reread what he said and remember it. Words are magical incantations apparently. If you declare someone full of shit, the things you said that they accurately described vanish, both from the interwebs and people’s memories. Fucking moron.
?
The fuck are you even talking about?
(I’ll guess: Noting the poor reading comprehension of many commenters here is not assuming a mantle of victimhood. It’s merely a sincere observation and an honest explanation for why I decline to attempt meaningful conversation here any more. It got boring and frustrating, that’s all, and who needs it? I do not feel victimized about it, just, well, bored and frustrated. But feel free to keep calling me a fucking moron, or whatever else it takes to bolster your righteous indignation. I don’t mind.)
Blaming others’ supposed poor reading comprehension for the fact that apparently nothing you ever say here gets taken the way you meant it is, in fact, assuming a mantle of victimhood. You’re making it something being done to you as opposed to considering the possibility that you’re communicating poorly*.
Like, I said, words aren’t magical incantations. It doesn’t fucking matter if you deny meaning to say XYZ. Words mean what they mean regardless of what’s rattling around in the confines of your skull when you speak or type them and sometimes they have implications past their literal definitions and often the context in which you say them matters. That you fail to anticipate or understand or give a shit about that doesn’t mean we’re wrong about what your words mean. People aren’t fucking psychic and yet, when not you’re whining about people pretending to read your mind, you’re whining that people haven’t psychically divined the point you were making that you refused to even state, let alone defend.
*Which I don’t think you’re doing. I think you’re being a fucking asshole on purpose and trying to play a really feeble, transparent and laughably ineffective plausible deniability game.
Ah, Seven of Mine, you got it all wrong.
When 200 people, many of whom make a living by their reading comprehension, understand Chas to be saying X when he actually meant Y it is obviously and most important, objectively due to those people’s reading comprehension.
So why not make the next logical step and decline to attempt ANY communication, Chas? NOBODY here is smart enough to understand whatever the fuck it is you think you mean. What’s stopping you finding a group where your communications aren’t 100% meaningless? What’s the point, if the only person who understands what you write is you?
See, I don’t think you’re being honest here. I think you communicate fine, and people understand you fine, and what you get out of it is a certain sadistic pleasure in making others unhappy.
Oh poor poor Chas. People are misunderstanding you. That’s all. Take no responsibility for yourself in conveying what you mean in such a way that people can understand. Nope. Just put so-called misunderstandings it on others. Of course in threads with your sterling contributions (such as abortion threads or the MLK thread), your comments weren’t misunderstood. The anger stems from understanding what you wrote and disagreeing, sometimes vehemently, with your comments.
Now, whether we’re able to parse the meaning of what Chas says is another question. Especially given that some of what he says lacks sufficient content to understand his point. Other times what is said is sufficient to understand, such as the comment made in the MLK thread. That comment did not demonstrate an understanding of the MLK quote. All that comment did was admonish those protesters engaged in looting (assuming that they were protesters to begin with), without acknowledging the shit these people are going through. Without showing that he understands that this was people lashing out against an unjust system. While MLK might have condemned those looters, he would-in the same breath, and unlike Chas-likely have attempted to understand why they engaged in such actions (and hey, look, the quote shows that he was thinking deeper than just “people doing bad stuff are bad”) and also criticized THAT.
Incidentally fuckstain, when you said this:
It may not have been your intent, but thanks for making me laugh. “Where do I get off talking to you like that”? As if no one here (myself included) doesn’t go off on assholes like you. As if you’re some special snowflake that people are supposed to tip-toe around bc reasons. I’ll fucking talk to you (or shout at you) any damn way I choose.
SallyStrange @392:
Chas as the resident Pharyngu-troll?
Where are the OMs of yesteryear?
Things change.
Chigau,
Well since I got one I suppose I count. The answer is in my case: “being very busy”! I occasionally lurk, but haven’t had time to say anything meaningful* for ages. The things I want to say are probably best said on a blog of my very own anyway, beyond joining in with the chorus, mostly what interests me would be colossally derailing.
I’m currently being “amused” by UKIP etc in the UK. They are an endless source of “amusement”. If you want to see how racism, homophobia, and sexism are done in the UK (we have our own style, dontcherknow. We do it with tea and monocles) they are a perfect place to start.
I suppose I could say something serious about historical precedents for Overton Window shifts involving the economic right/authoritarianism/xenophobia (things that typify the broadly global “conservative ideologies”) after a period of economic instability, but that would leave no room for excessive cock jokes and genuine amusement at Nigel Farage using the phrase “ostentatious breastfeeding” with no hint of irony.
Louis
*Feel free to make your own jokes.
Dear WMDKitty,
We’ve got a nice little social group going on here. Sometimes regulars stumble and hurt other people, but so long as they’re apologetic and try not to repeat the same mistake they’re forgiven. Sometimes new people show up who are assholes from the start and we won’t tolerate that, but even in the case of someone who has no history we’re relatively forgiving as long as they make an effort.
But then we’ve got this one member of the group who punches people in the face. Now, when called on this punching, she apologizes. “So sorry. I didn’t realize punching people in the face was wrong.” And people forgive and move on.
And then she elbows someone in the throat. She’s called on it. “Well, I didn’t now that elbows to throats were bad. I’m sorry.”
And then she whacks somebody in the stomach. “Look, how was I supposed to know that this would hurt people? I’ve learned my lesson now. Sorry, everybody.”
And then she headbutts people. “I didn’t even have a limb involved in this attack! How could I have foreseen this? I’m sorry, y’all.”
There comes a point when it’s just plain self-destructive to keep accepting apologies from someone who goes around trampling on other people’s bodily autonomy. It’s the same underlying issue every single time, but the trappings are slightly different.
We are not mindreaders. We can only judge people by their actions and the harm they cause. What’s in your heart doesn’t make the pain go away if your words keep dismissing other people’s control of their own bodies and lives. Saying that infants with penises should be circumcised because you like sex with cut penises, that other people’s relationships are fucked up and doomed because they don’t match your desires, dehumanizing those who breastfeed (while claiming that they’re dehumanizing themselves by breastfeeding!), and dismissing other people’s feelings about their pregnancies while simultaneously putting fetuses on a pedestal above pregnant people form a pattern of behavior. A nasty, mean pattern.
You act like a fucking asshole, WMDKitty. I’m not accepting any apologies anymore. I’d like to see an actual change in behavior and some understanding that other people–not just you or people like you–deserve control over their own bodies and lives.
Wow. That circumcision one made me feel ill.
TMM
I think you’ve forgotten the part where she seeks sympathy for having hurt whatever bodypart used in the attack…
…and that she doesn’t appreciate being told she injured someone. (Though I guess that falls in Giliell’s extension of the metaphor).
Wait. Analogy. Right? It’s an analogy, not a metaphor. Rhetoric 102 was a while ago…
Giliell, ah, you’re right. Just an added bonus to make the apology look as insincere as possible.
Portia (aka Smokey the Advocate) #401:
A handy reference.
I’m listening to Chilliwack. Why?
Thank you, Mellow Monkey. It looks like I missed the first part of WMDKitty’s pattern:
Say something extremely outrageous and then move the goalposts around for a while, before getting to the second part: whining about being attacked and then giving kind of an apology (without actually indicating a change of heart).
Yes, why are you listening to Chilliwack? ;)
*shrug*
Well, then–like I said–you’re full of shit. I’d advise keeping the day job (if any), because the mind-reading thing is never going to work out for you. (btw, another way you’re full of shit about me: I was actually that kid who didn’t even go to the parties in the first place.) But you’ve been wrong so long it probably looks like right to you. Have a nice day.
Tony!, thanks so much for chiming in; always a pleasure, you sanctimonious prick. Hey, thanks for offering such a handy (albeit trivial) example of just what I’m talking about. Can you even read? The very words you quote from me (“anybody, really, but in this case me”) clearly and explicitly state that I do not, in fact, consider myself a special snowflake in any way. I’m just the one pushing back a little bit at the moment. So you made up something I neither said nor meant and then castigated me for it.
Also, your sarcastic reference to “misunderstanding” is your word (or Sally’s), not mine. I do not in fact feel butthurt about being “misunderstood” (which is why I did not say that); rather, I feel frustrated, bored, and disdainful of people like you who insist on arguing with your own spun-and-twisted sarcastic paraphrase instead of the actual words actually typed (which is why I did say that instead).
Actually, you have no way to even know what I’m talking about as the incidents to which I refer occured well before you ever graced PZ’s blog with your now seemingly incessant presence. Not the MLK thread (which I won’t be reliving; sorry to ignore your bait). Not the abortion threads (say, can anybody remember specifically any of the horridly egregious things I said about abortion? no? but you’re quite sure it was contemptible, huh?). OK? Other shit you weren’t part of.
So you hit the trifecta! You a) made up something I did not say and gave me shit about it, you b) sarcastically ‘paraphrased’ something I did say and gave me shit about the spin instead of the statement, and you c) have no clue what I’m even talking about, specifically, in the first place! Nice!
But you have clearly bought into the local ethic that it’s cool to be a complete dick to somebody that you do not know if you merely perceive them to be expressing a political or ethical opinion that you do not perceive as being just exactly right. (And why not, when you’ve got your stupid pseudonym and your fellow stupidly pseudonymous Hordelets for protection and virtual backup?) Well, you’re certainly correct that you can fucking well talk to me any way you choose. And the flipside of that coin is that I can fucking well point out in response that you’re fucking well a fucking dick for choosing to do so. And that’s how it works.
Dick.
(Holy shit, that lunatic Nugent actually has a legitimate point I think. What a world. But I’m procrastinating again.)
“When I’m With You” was over.
hmm. A long procrastinatory response to my good friends Sally and Tony! either got et or tripped the filter somehow. (Fortunately I salvaged a copy for later reposting if it doesn’t turn up. Watch this space. Or don’t.)
I also wrote a long response to several people, but I haven’t posted it. This comment is just to let you know that I wrote it. Also, I’m flouncing, so if you see me here tell me to fuck off.
Sorry everyone, I’m not flouncing after all. I just came here to tell some people that their logic sucks. I wish I didn’t, but it’s just how my brain works. Have a nice day.
inb4 someone says something that tweaks my simple, teeny-tiny, manipulated-like-a-planarian brain:
I’m flouncing again. I just can’t with you people. Have a nice day.
Not flouncing. Everyone, pretend I didn’t say anything about flouncing. If you’re having trouble, please follow the laminated instructions I’ve placed in the seat pocket in front of you.
A few more rehearsals, and we’ll be ready to take this routine to Broadway, huh?
Stay tuned for future flouncings.
Have a nice day!
I’m going to write something. Watch this space!
Sorry about the string of comments, everyone. It’s just how my brain works, no lie.
Gonna flounce. This message is to alert you to a message I’m going to write letting you know about an upcoming flounce.
The upcoming flounce is cancelled, but not the comments announcing the comment announcing it. Stay tuned for updates about the rescheduled flounce. Refunds are not available at this time.
I am not entirely sure if this is satire, performance art, or serious.
In any case, I’m making tea.
This is a comment alerting you to my upcoming comment letting you know about my future flounce. Remember, this flounce has been cancelled. Subscribers to the WillChasFlounceThisWeek RSS feed will have been retroactively reminded of the rescheduled flounce, as soon as the reflouncening can be rescheduled.
At last! The long-awaited comment announcing my flouncing is here! (Flounce rescheduled. See previous comments for details.)
Have a nice day!
Sorry, no reflouncing. After a long and successful career, Flouncy Flounce and the Chastones regrets to announce that it is disbanding. We thank you for your support!
You as well. The kettle is on. Earl Grey or oolong?
Flouncy Flounce and the Chastones is pleased to announce their newest album, I Honestly Believe That People Like Me and Value My Contribution To Their Social Space, Despite the Reams of Evidence to the Contrary, featuring the hit singles “I’m Not Leaving Until Teh ECO Forces Me To” and “No, I Don’t Get Special Privileges Because I’m a Regular Who’s Been Grandfathered In”.
Well I’m in a rented fourth-floor flat in Turin. But I only use the title to impress Italian police officers and waitpersons.
*snorfle*
Nothing but the best quality green tea served in tiny see through china cups. Sip slowly, it’s hot.
Well, I’m drinking Irish Breakfast (with a bit of milk) out of a mug that I got for being a member of ACS. It has balloons on it.
So.
Chas, of course, is the Great God OM, trapped in the body of a small one eyed terrapin, currently a little light on for believers. His greatest power is giving people headaches.
My giant mug of green tea has pretty butterflies on it. But at least the mug is bone china. And there’s a dash of milk in it. But it’s still possible to pretend that small see through cups are important.
OMG, is everyone else as exciting about the upcoming comment alluded to in 408 as I am? I keep telling myself it’s probably less than one sleep away, but who am I kidding? I’ll never get to sleep tonight if it’s not posted!
Squeee!
No caffeinated tea for me, Esteleth! I’m on pins and needles as it is!
I only drink coffee (as a hot beverage. I drink lotsof cold tea), but my current favourite mug has a reindeer, a penguin and an owl.
I get up and nothing gets me down.
You got it tough. I’ve seen the toughest around.
And I know, baby, just how you feel.
You’ve got to roll with the punches to get to what’s real
Oh can’t you see me standing here,
I’ve got my back against the record machine
I ain’t the worst that you’ve seen.
Oh can’t you see what I mean?
Might as well flounce. Flounce!
Might as well flounce.
Go ahead, flounce. Flounce!
Go ahead, flounce.
Aaa-ohh! Hey you! Who said that?
Baby how you been?
You say you don’t know, you won’t know until we begin.
Well can’t you see me standing here,
I’ve got my back against the record machine
I ain’t the worst that you’ve seen.
Oh can’t you see what I mean?
Might as well flounce. Flounce!
Go ahead, flounce.
Might as well flounce. Flounce!
Go ahead, flounce.
Might as well flounce. Flounce!
Go ahead, flounce.
Get it and flounce. Flounce!
Go ahead, flounce.
My favorite mugs usually have animals on them. One had a salmon, one has an orca, and one has some sort of little bird. They are all charming. Mugs are my preferred drinking vessel, come to think of it. Makes it easy to drink too much wine, however.
JUST ANNOUNCED: Sony Pictures, reeling from the fallout from their recent hack and desperate for bold new convention-busting scripts, has acquired the rights to the movie adaptation of The Response Alluded To In 408 (working title: TRATI408).
error 408 error. flounce not found.
Flounce from the blog that you troll
(Now come back)
Think about reception
Wonder why you Haven’t b4
Now flounce from the blog you annoy
(Then return)
Pretend you never did so
Let’s assume you act in good faith
If you get yelled at
Just run away
You’ll nurse your wounds
And spite them some day!
The flounce…you claim…is to keep yourself sane
We know you’ll come back
It’s because of your brain
Nick Gotts @425:
Having recently watched Monty Don’s Italian Gardens and Italy Unpacked, I’m dead jealous, I am.
F-L-O-U-N-C-E
Find out what it means to me
F-L-O-U-N-C-E
(etc)
Do the Flouncy Flounce:
All right!
Stop whatcha doin’
’cause I’m about to ruin
the image and the style that ya used to.
I look funny,
but yo I’m makin’ money, see
so yo world I hope you’re ready for me.
Now gather round
I’m the new fool in town
and my sound’s laid down by the Underground.
I drink up all the Hennessey ya got on ya shelf
so just let me introduce myself
My name is Flouncy, pronounced with a Ouncy.
Do the Flouncy Flounce
Do the Flouncy Flounce
Fuck it, I’m making popcorn.
Hi, Louis!
—
Anthony K
Is your office having it’s Xmas party?
crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch
This comment is breathless with anticip
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ation.
That was yesterday. I skipped it. (I did the Xmas thing with my team members, but for the sake of my career I avoid any departmental gathering where the higher-ups might present a message from the CEO or other similar bullshittery. I’m not as good at biting my tongue in RL as I am here.)
Plus, it didn’t look like they were gonna play any Chilliwack.
*sips grog while waiting*
Anthony K
golly
—
I saw Chilliwack live once.
I think.
It was the 70s.
TRATI408 should be posted any time now, folks, though I hope it’s soon. Poetry slam favourite Taylor Mali has expressed interest in recording it for a spoken word collection.
Must have been great. Whatcha Gonna Do (Now They’re Gone)?
I am sitting next door to a Girl Scouts Christmas party as back up adult help and you are making me snorfal something terrible. I think I hurt myself trying to keep it down over here. I never understood either and for a very low volume commenter I manged to get myself stomped on too at one point.
Currently addicted to roobios chai with milk and raw sugar in a large mug with sponge paint pine trees on it. It is coooold here. Now I want popcorn though. We got this really cool popcorn pan with a spinner thing It is awesome – faster and healthier then nuking and almost no unpopped kernels. So cool – when they pop is sounds like a fireworks barrage.
Trying to type on my phone. Man does autocorrect stink.
Chas @408:
Oh gosh. I feel so special. A response from Chas so close to Christmas. But it’s trapped in the filter. Oh dear. Whatever shall I do?
::looks around for the popcorn::
::falls over laughing thanks to Anthony K::
pHred @450:
I hate it when you pop a bag and you’ve got a bunch of unpopped kernels left.
Jerusalem court indicts 3 for arson at Jewish-Arab school:
A few key notes:
1. Israel has a hate-crime statute which doubles any jail sentence given, but it isn’t being used in this case, even though the defendants’ opinions are very well known.
2. The prosecution claims that the attack was a response to the school hosting a memorial for Arafat. This a complete lie propagated by the attackers organization and their supporters.
3. The attackers have lots of support. Their families are proud of them, they have full support from their community, including many important individuals.
4. The head of their organization (which fights against miscegenation and any jewish-arab interactions) was invited as a guest of honor to speak before the Knesset. He receives government funding. His organization routinely organizes attacks against and kidnapping of Jewish women who are seen with Arab men, and assaults any Arab seen with a Jewish woman. They compile list of Arab owned shop which they terrorize.
The name of this organisztion is “SOS Israel”. Naturally, it was founded by an ultra-orthodox rabbi – because a shtriemel is the local equivalent of the white cape and robe.
Remember, the attack wasn’t part of the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict. What it was was another step in a long chain of terrorist attacks against Arab or mixed schools by right-wing Jews. It has nothing to do with Islam or its relationship with Judaism – the same people who attacked the school were previously caught attacking Christian nuns.
I’m posting this because I’ve read Elizabeth Warren’s apologetics (posted by Nick Grotts) for Israel in her thread. Whenever someone tries to tell you that Israel is a liberal democracy that just happens to exist in a rough neighborhood, kindly tell them that it can put 1860 Alabama to shame (the most recent lynching was carried out a few months ago – three right-wing Jews burned a 16 year old Arab kid alive in Jerusalem).
Anthony K #424
What does ECO stand for?
Tony @452
Me Too! That is why we got the spinner pan after seeing it in action at a friends house. Uses a quarter cup of kernals and a tablespoon of butter to fill the whole pan with only a couple coming out unpopped. Feeds all four of us.
I have got to figure out how to turn off autocorrect. This is torture !
AlexanderZ
See comment#382 for ECO.
Alexanderaz:
Chas:
Read all posts.
pHred:
Yeah, my iPad has a very aggressive autocorrect, although I think the latest update to iOS took the main sails out of that wind, as the suggestions now appear above the virtual keyboard.
chas, chigau, nerd
I overlooked that, sorry. But thanks for the reply!
Where indeed? Remember that guy Brownian for example? He was kind of funny sometimes, iirc.
(p.s., no particular intention of flouncing, announced or unannounced.)
(Tony!, fuckwad or fuckstain? And why are you denigrating fuckstains? (not sure what a ‘fuckwad’ is))
It’s that attitude that makes me think that Chas is entirely aware of what he says and how it will be interpreted. It’s that attitude that makes me think that his claims of being persistently misunderstood are most likely lies. I think he doesn’t see us as people but as inanimate objects that provide intellectual content that has the capacity to relieve his boredom from time to time.
Functional people whose motivation didn’t boil down to sadism would not hang around a group where they are despised. Functional people whose motivation didn’t boil down to sadism would not require banning to realize that it’s time to find a new social group because the current one is a poor match for their interests and attitudes.
So, yes, basically, resident Pharyngu-troll.
Sven
I really thought you would resist all that chum that Anthony K tossed.
Slow night?
@Chas: A serious question about the drama of yesteryear, rather than current:
Way back when, you announced that if Walton ever got an OM, you would renounce your OM.
When Walton did get his OM, you followed through on that.
Did you do that because you thought that Walton had not changed over time (or not changed enough), or because you didn’t actually care if Walton had changed ?
Just curious.
*raises left eyebrow, drinks more grog*
O.o
not much need for a memory there.
heh, Nerd was thinking the same thing I was.
chigau: yes, the slowest. Proctoring final exams.
Sally, as substantive a reply to your way-off-base speculations as you’re going to get from me is in the comment that didn’t post. Wait for it (it’s home; I’m not.).
But I will point out that the attitude you ascribe to me is not mine; those are Anthony’s sarcastic words. I guess we differ in our basic conceptions of what Pharyngula is. You think it’s a “social group”? I think it’s some guy’s blog (except for the Lounge, where, you may have noticed, I never tread.) It’s the very nature of the Internet that I have exactly the same right/privilege to comment in threads of some guy’s blog as anybody else. *shrug* You (and whoever else) despise me so therefore I should leave a third party’s blog threads forever? Do you really not see what presumptuous bullshit that is? Check your narcissism. It’s not your blog, and neither you nor Anthony can profess any insight whatsoever into the mind of the ECO. Maybe he doesn’t despise me. Or maybe he does, but is possessed of sufficient skill in reading comprehension to realize that I have never said or done anything banworthy. (If you’d like a refresher, see here.) (OK, I admit that item IV-10 is potentially invocable, but that’s a relatively recent thing and besides I’m not always negative. Do you ever read the [vanishingly few] biology threads?)(Oh, and while you’re over there, maybe take a look at item V-5, that thing about talking to people instead of about them?)
alternative verse:
Shit in the place where you live
wipe yourself
Think about impact
Wonder why you haven’t b4…
yeah what ever happened to that Brownian guy…
lol
Not true, to the best of my recollection. I have never participated in any arguments about libertarianism and young Walton was never more than a minor annoyance to me.
No. That I do recall. I decline to discuss my reasons for abdication, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with Walton (whom I ended up quite liking).
fuck me but you’re funny Chas.
really.
I’m picturing you whipping yourself like the Albino in DaVinci Code as you type that.
another county heard from.
*big shrug*
you’re probably confusing Chas with me, who had a long running distrust of Walton’s change from libertarian monarchist and Monckton fan to progressive liberal. I was wrong. Walton did in fact change, and seems to have stuck to his guns, good on him. but then, I thought I had admitted that like 4 years ago? just how old is this request?
I don’t recall ever planning to “renounce” my Molly, but it’s plausible, as I never really cared about it from the beginning.
renouncing a molly sounds more like a Truth Machine thing though.
does it hurt when you shrug? all those scars on your back and all?
oh, well that’s all cleared up then.
no. It does not hurt when I shrug. But thanks for your concern.
again… laughing.
can’t even avoid being negative when commenting on how negative he isn’t.
funny, funny guy.
Hey, Sally, please let me know if you detect any sadism, or even any mean-spiritedness, in any of this.
self flagellation isn’t sadism Chas.
sadism is when you flagellate others.
Ichthyic, (hey look! I can spell better than MN!), I took Chas’s last comment to mean that some people might see a lot of the above comments as a bit mean spirited towards him. Look, I’m new here, it has only been a few years that I’ve been reading so obviously my perspective is lacking, but I am quite sure I’ve appreciated some of his comments in the time I’ve been here. So, yeah, not sure if my thoughts add anything to the discussion (they probably don’t) but I think I appreciate the fact that Chas sticks around here even though people are of critical of him rather than running off to the other side of the rifts to complain about how horrible the horde is (as several commenters have done).
Chas
Since I will never set foot in the USA, please let me know (somehow) if you ever get to Canada.
I will stand you a beer or other beverage of your choice.
or whips, if you go with the flagellation option.
[Thunderdome]
Leuk zeg, er is weer leven in de brouwerij!
Thank you, yazikus.
Thank you, chigau.
Anticlimactic, I fear, but here’s the re-attempt, this time with liberally sprinkled filter-foolers. Allowances should be made for the fact that this was written prior to the recent exchanges above. But I think it’s stuff that ought to be said. I sincerely hope you do enjoy it.
And with that, goodnight*.
*oo!! FLOUNCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chas is the one saving Pharyngula from being an echo chamber, but I’m the narcissist?
And yeah this is a social group. And also the comments section on some guy’s blog. What?
What a fucking weirdo. And that’s from someone who named herself Strange.
nightynight, Chas.
—–
Does anyone know how/where strange gods is?
I’ll start believing Chas isn’t a gross sadist when he starts acting like he gives a fuck when people give him feedback to the effect that his comments are hurtful.
theophontes #481
translated
“Nice to say, there are again living in the brewery!”
or
“Like say, there will liven!”
—
Do I need better translating apps?
Yes Chas, we’ve been over this about a thousand times. Please don’t.
@ chigau
Hehe… indeed you do. Better approximation would be:
Yes Chas, we’ve been over this a thousand times. Please don’t.
@ chigau
No idea. I have not heard from him in a very long time. I hope he is keeping well.
Chas @460:
He just threw enough shit at the wall that some of it stuck.
Sally Strange @461:
Whether he does or not, he often makes people feel that way.
chigau @462:
I thought Chas did. He side-stepped it nicely with 460. (That’s not a criticism; I was obviously Gish-Galloping.)
Chascpeterson @467
I’m going to pair a line from this comment, and a one from 469:
Chas, here’s some advice that applies to pretty much everyone in the world to varying degrees, but I think is a big part of the reason you experience so much friction here.
Humans are a reciprocal, and therefore trusting, species, and predictability in behaviour among those with whom we regularly interact really works for us. It’s important to be able to interpolate. If I have a general sense of how my neighbours think, then I can estimate that if they don’t like me barfing on their azaleas or their lilies after a rowdy Saturday night, they’d probably prefer their rosebush stays as bile-free as possible too. Otherwise it’s questions about every little thing all the time, and frankly, they’re not the only neighbour on the block. Who has the time?
So here’s the advice:
We tend to see people who chastise us for speculating about their behaviour, while they simulataneously refuse to explain their behaviour, as assholish. Really, it’s basic passive-aggressiveness. “No, I won’t tell you what’s wrong, but how dare you speculate about how this bothers me?!” We all engage in this kind of mystery/petulance dynamic to some extent, but it really annoys us when someone appears to make that a point of pride in their persona.
Happens in all kinds of relationships. And the result is predictable: people hate that shit. So, there’s an FYI there. Do what you will.
Back to 467:
It’s more than the sum of its parts. As human interaction tends to be. You’re wrong to think it’s only any one of those.
@477:
I’m often mean-spirited. I think people could make a good case for a sadistic streak in me. And all those rules Chas mentioned: how many do I break?
Membership has its privileges. It’s undeniable, though people seem hell bent in denying it. Ever notice privilege, Chas? *Waves some fucking privilege in Chas’ face* Look familiar?
yazikus @479:
Running off to the other side of the rift isn’t Chas’ thing, as far as I can speculate about what his thing might be. I certainly appreciate that he didn’t, but I don’t feel like I ever thought he would have. Whatever other issues I may have with Chas, I wouldn’t say he’s without a sense of integrity.
And with that, I’m flouncing for the night, too. Thanks for playing with me, Chas. ‘Night everyone!
chigau,
seconding theophontes’
—
I thought my sense of humor aligned well with the Horde’s. I guess not.
I suppose this might be a bit of a shock to Chas but I’m not actually convinced that I can read minds; the whole point of presenting an estimation of his mental state is to give him an opportunity to check whether his intentions match his actions. He says they don’t, but then he also doesn’t change his actions. Conclusion: he really is just a mean old fuck. If he weren’t, then he’d stop acting like one.
And no he doesn’t get a fucking cookie for not taking his ball and going to play with the people who get off on bullying us.
Ha! I’m still laughing about the silliiness of calling this ‘some guy’s blog’ on this particular thread of threads. If this is just PZ’s blog, what the hell are we all doing here? Not to mention the paucity of content in the OP: “This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.” Says some guy, on his blog.
Christ, Chas, it’s like sometimes you’re not even interested in trying to make me work for it at all.
Right. But he doesn’t get psychology, unless it’s the kind that starts with a story about a man and a mammoth.
@490, Beatrice
Why d’ya say that? O:
I should have put that as “I thought Horde’s sense of humor aligned better with mine..” or to make it plain, I don’t find The Baiting of The Chas very funny.
@ Beatrice
I think you may find that Sally’s (inter alia) comments towards Chas are quite sincere. And his sense of humour a little dry for most.
It’s Chas in a nutshell though, isn’t it? Nothing has context. Nothing has implications. His words mean only what he wants them to mean. Others’ memories of his past behavior are invalid. You have to pretend like you’ve never encountered him before every time he makes some snide, mean-spirited comment. If you act like your memory works and take his past behavior into account, he whines that you’ve speculated about his motivations. If you make mention of any kind of pattern in his past behavior, well, that’s clearly confirmation bias. If he says he’s not malicious, you’re supposed to believe him even though his stated intentions don’t match his actions and his actions never change. He’s fucking gaslighting incarnate.
@497 Seven
That’s not just Chas, though…i keep seeing that with a lot of the people who all of a sudden start decrying the way they are being horribly attacked by the Horde because of something they are obviously implying but not explicitely saying….
I’ve seen several times the very same claim about how this is an inhospitable place that alienates allies because of how vitriolic and hair-triggered people around here are, which in Chas’ words is:
” it’s cool to be a complete dick to somebody that you do not know if you merely perceive them to be expressing a political or ethical opinion that you do not perceive as being just exactly right.”
I hate this. It’s so dishonest.
The reality is that people are not fucking stupid and are capable of reading between the lines, making an inference from what you say, or simply following the obvious implications of someone’s comments. The “i did not explicitely say that” is a shit excuse for pretending you didn’t mean or imply something. It’s used by the people who don’t want to own up to the shitty things they have said and want to pretend that the “attacks” they receive are completely unwarranted and out of the blue. They are not…
Can i also just say that the obvious use of gendered insults as provocation in Chas’ post is obvious…?