How not to respond to a Rethuglican

Ugh. Witness thuggish wingnut James Taranto’s comment on the killings in Colorado.


I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.

Perhaps he’d like to judge? Is he going to ask this question of every case where a person puts themselves in harm’s way to defend a loved one? What criterion is he going to use to define “worthy”?

That’s a repulsive sentiment he’s expressing, and seems to reflect a lack of empathy and an inability to imagine any kind of sacrifice without hauling out a ledger sheet to calculate its value. Not nice.

But then I read one of the first comments on the article at dKos highlighting Taranto’s sliminess. And I was ugh’ed out again!

I was prepared for a worthy rant. Apologies, should have known better. If another nitwit does something similar, refer them to Heinlein. Heinlein wrote “anycountry that does not place women and children first” as part of it’s values is a unethical country. (I am paraphrasing.)

Women take nine months to make a baby. Men take minutes. That fact prompted Heinlein’s writing.

Heinlein???!? Jebus, that man was an unrepentant sexist pig himself; I recoiled from his later books when I was 15, because they were too crudely horny and repellently attached to sexist stereotypes. When I was 15, and juiced on testosterone myself! Also, I was even then learning to dislike what would become a typical libertarian mindset.

But to respond to a challenge to women’s worth by declaring the importance of their baby-making abilities…talk about missing the whole point.

Mike Adams one-ups everyone

We’ve been seeing the spectacle of everyone with a cause blaming the Colorado massacre on every tinge of ideological difference they want to oppose. Now Mike Adams, the chronic wackjob behind the deranged alt medicine site Natural News, brings the lunacy to put everyone to shame. First claim: Adams rides his anti-pharmaceutical hobby horse to make a completely unsupported assertion: “James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research”.

But that’s just the beginning. The rest is a wacky conspiracy theory fit for a 9-11 Truther: Holmes was set up by the FBI through “drugs, hypnosis, or trauma” to carry out a government-planned terrorist attack, all to the purpose of driving a UN-inspired effort to confiscate all of our guns. And then? “government genocide really kicks in like we saw with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and other tyrants”.

Don’t read the comments. A few brave critics express their incredulity, but the rest are saying, “it does make some sense.”

Give ’em a little time, the merely rancid turn rotten

I’ve criticized both atheists and the religious for trying to turn the recent tragedy in Colorado into an ideological battleground. You’d think at some point they’d learn that the best thing to do is shut up about how it shows Christians or atheists are evil, but no…one evangelical fruitcake, Jerry Newcombe, has taken it to the next level. He’s now arguing that not only did the shooting occur because Americans aren’t fearful enough of hell, but that the victims who were not Christian are now burning in hell.

While I appreciate his honesty and commitment to the principles of his religion, I can’t help but feel a little nauseous.

Rationalia isn’t

Ho hum. Another purportedly rational forum that thinks rape is a joke.

Would it be immoral to rape a Skepchick?

Post by Pappa » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:46 am

Not for sexual gratification or power or anything like that, just because they’re so annoying.

I’m really torn on this one. :dunno:

You know what’s really funny? The guy posting that crap apparently has some admin role there, and every one of his posts has this little postscript:

For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.

Because professional fundraisers everywhere like to encourage people to contribute by joking about how they want to rape someone.

In case you’ve been wondering who to blame…

The American Patriarchy Association has all the answers! The list of causes for the recent theater shooting is long and predictable.

  • We aren’t sufficiently afraid of god

  • We aren’t afraid enough of hell

  • The ACLU

  • Godless public schools

  • Liberals

  • Movies

  • The Internet

  • Gays

  • Lesbians

  • Professors

  • Liberal churches

Mankind is shaking its fist at the authority of God! And God will not be silent when he’s mocked!

So he’ll scramble the brains of a random person and have him go out and murder something less than a hundred entirely random people who are only united in a common interest in Batman movies. He doesn’t seem to have a very coherent or comprehensible way of enforcing his desires.

Hey! They left one out! Maybe god just hates Batman.

Rick Warren is a lying ghoul

Rick Warren has just weighed in on the Aurora shooting, and of course it is predictable inanity.

When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.

Right. Because it’s only the lies of Jesus that keep people from waking up to reality and going on shooting sprees.

It’s simply a fact that Rick Warren is an animal, like all the rest of us. And what’s with the bum rap on animals? Puppy dogs don’t go on a murderous rampage, you know.

Gotcha!

This is an account from Connie Schultz’s facebook page, so I’ll put the whole thing here for you fb-haters.

Email from conservative blogger, dated July 9, 2012:

Dear Ms. Shultz,

We are doing an expose on journalists in the elite media who socialize with elected officials they are assigned to cover. We have found numerous photos of you with Sen. Sherrod Brown. In one of them, you appear to be hugging him.

Care to comment?

An exposé! Of the elite media! And he’s got the photographic evidence! It sounds so Breitbartian. And the followup is a classic Breitbartian pratfall.

Response, dated July 10, 2012:

Dear Mr. [Name Deleted]:

I am surprised you did not find a photo of me kissing U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown so hard he passes out from lack of oxygen. He’s really cute.

He’s also my husband.

You know that, right?

Connie Schultz.

I’m sure this will make headlines at the Drudge Report or the Daily Caller or The Blaze or some similar right-wing schlock factory.

Zimmerman hides behind his convenient deity

You knew this was not going to go well, just from the names of the two principals. George Zimmerman is interviewed by Sean Hannity. And it did not.

Zimmerman claims to be sorry that he murdered Trayvon Martin, but also refuses to accept responsibility. And he’s got someone else to blame.

I feel like it was all God’s plan.

So that’s why Hannity was the one to interview him: they needed someone with the conscience of a hyena and the intellect of an insect because anyone else would have puked all over him upon hearing that cliche.

So God plans to use racist assholes to kill black teenagers? At last, we have confirmation that God is a white Republican.

A pox on all of their houses

I hate this article from the very first paragraph.

Public discussion of evolution often turns into a nasty debate between young-earth creationists on one side and atheists who believe science disproves the existence of God on the other. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

It’s a dishonest setup. It’s a game: let’s pretend that scientists only criticize young earth creationists, and then we’ll set up a bunch of Christian absurdity as the moderate position! Scientists never think of attacking the positions of reasonable Christians, you know.

It’s a lie. We criticize the follies of soft and fuzzy Christianity and old earth creationism all the time, as well as that young earth creationist nonsense. And do you know why we so often have to jump on young earth creationism?

Because the ‘moderate’ Christian jackasses won’t do it.

The article is an excellent example of that: it describes a discussion and joint publication of a book via Biologos between a diverse group of Christians, including young earth creationist Baptists, the Intelligent Design creationist Bill Dembski, and the gang of mushy apologists from Biologos…and how is their interaction described? As “gracious dialogue”. Please. If you’re going to sit there with a bugnutting freaky cultist with a literalist interpretation of every word of the Bible, and not be strongly critical of their freakin’ idiocy because you both believe in Jesus, then yes, I’m going to lump you all together.

Yes, it has to be that way. I see no point in regarding intellectual cowards with greater respect than I do the total fruitloops they associate with.

And further, it is no saving grace that the Biologos crowd can believe in an old earth, when at the same time they are arguing for the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, for the logic of salvation from original sin, for the blood pseudo-sacrifice of a god-man as somehow freeing me from guilt about a disobedient distant ancestor. It’s all garbage, through and through.

We get a succession of bullshit claims that we’re supposed to regard respectfully.

Keathley also points out that for some Christians, evolution presents a problem because it implies that suffering and death have been with the world from the beginning, rather than resulting from rebellion against God.

Right. Reality is a problem for some Christians. So?

“I think everybody recognizes this is an important topic and it’s not going to do any good to simply yell at each other across the fence,” he said. “They need to hear from us on the nature of Scripture, the nature of the fall and of salvation. And we need to hear from them on the nature of modern science.”

The only thing that makes it important is that it is a set of delusions held by powerful and influential people. Otherwise, the “nature of scripture”, the “fall”, and “salvation” are simply incredible and absurd concepts given weight by repetition and dogma.

I don’t just despise the blatant stupidity of young earth creationism. I also despise the equally blatant stupidity of Christian dogma and ‘sophisticated theology’.

I don’t want to deal with this any more

It’s too stupid. It turns out TAM had an anti-harassment policy after all (good for them), except that it was secret and implemented by hidden cameras and disguised security goons who would turn their entire focus on victims of harassment, rather than harassers.

I don’t understand at all.

All I can guess at is that this policy was kept secret so it wouldn’t discourage any creepy guys from attending. Their money is just as good as any woman’s, after all! TAM wants to be open to everyone, including gropers and PUAs and drunk fumblers, and doesn’t want to send any messages that might inhibit them. And I think it’s perfectly fair that there be a skeptics’ convention that caters specifically to frustrated, privileged men — I just didn’t think that TAM, with its history of inclusivity, was going to elect to be that conference.