Justicar: liar

This is rather outrageous. The ever dishonest Justicar has created a video that claims PZ Myers Hates Faggots, an assertion he supports by making stuff up. His two pieces of evidence are:

  1. That I called Chris Stedman an “Uncle Mary”, a derogatory term for a gay person who works against the interests of the gay community; it’s a counterpart to “Uncle Tom”. Justicar flat out says I used the term. I did not. A gay man in the comments did.

  2. He then claims that I called Stedman a “tinkerbelle”, a belittling term for a “fairy”. Again, and this is completely predictable with Justicar, I did not. I was talking about how in interfaith efforts “it doesn’t matter what BS you believe, as long as you really, really believe”, and suggested that they promote “tinkerbellism”. I was not talking about Stedman at all. It was a reference that had nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with fairy tales.

I am astounded at how blatantly that dishonest jerk will lie.

The anti-atheist+ boobs on Twitter

I had some fun yesterday poking a stick at the anti-atheist+ mob on twitter. It was actually revealing: it became increasingly obvious that the people who really, really hate atheism+ are authoritarians who simply cannot imagine an egalitarian movement — even when they are already part of one. There was so much projection going on I was wondering how such low-wattage bulbs could be pretentious enough to think they could cast light on anything.

But let me show you a few examples to illustrate what I mean. These are all quotes from people who were yammering at me; pseudonyms have been removed to protect the stupid.

Ah – but therein lies the problem – who is the official #atheismplus endorser / keeper of dogma? @Pzmyers?

Why are #atheismplus cardinals @pzmyers & Richard Carrier privileged old white men?

There was a lot of that: apparently, these people cannot relate unless there is a boss to talk to somewhere. They cannot comprehend an organization without a dictator, therefore atheism+ has a secret dictator somewhere. They cannot understand how an idea could be advanced without being treated as dogma, therefore atheism+ is dogma.

I have a surprise for them: I’m not a member of the Atheism+ forum. I am not a leader of this movement; I have no position in it at all. I like the idea and I’m happy to encourage people to explore it, and I’ve long been pushing ideas similar to what has coalesced as the atheism+ movement, but I’m not even remotely “in charge”. And that’s the way I like it.

I am deeply amused by the idiot who thought he could point out the hypocrisy of a movement that values diversity by announcing that two privileged old white men are in charge. We’re not. He could only make that claim by ignoring the fact that the person who triggered the whole process and has put in a lot of organizational effort was a privileged young white woman, Jen McCreight, and the person who has been promoting it most wonderfully is a privileged middle-aged white bisexual woman, Greta Christina.

And then there is this level of cluelessness.

#atheismplus is @pzmyers and @rebeccawatson egos personified.

As I’ve explained, I’m not a member of atheism+ and am not engaged as a leader in any way. Similarly, Rebecca Watson has expressed interest and sympathy with its goals, but is not on the bandwagon. But apparently, we are two great villains, so the people who hate atheism+ imagine that it must be a reflection of our desires. How pathetic.

Another theme that emerged is that, when I said there isn’t a person in charge of atheism+ telling you what to think, well then, it can’t work. Without an authority defining every last nuance, it’s going to fall into endless schism.

I’m pointing out that a label is meaningless if people have multiple interpretations of what it is.

How do you not understand that nobody deciding what Atheism+ is makes it meaningless?

If there’s no leadership/hierarchy, who decides what Atheism+ stands for?

Like, umm, the word “atheist”? There is a straightforward dictionary definition of that word, of course, but one thing you quickly discover if you actually interact with a lot of atheists is that the meaning in practice varies a lot. I have met atheists who believe in reincarnation; atheists who think Chopra is on to something with his ‘universal consciousness’ claims; atheists who are activists and atheists who just want to be left alone; angry anti-religion atheists and atheists who want to build a church of atheism; stupid atheists and smart atheists; philosophical atheists and pragmatic atheists. We’ve got Atheist Alliance and American Atheists and CFI and the American Humanist Association, all promoting atheism with subtle differences in emphasis.

Does that make atheism meaningless? Of course not. I’ve been telling people for years that there is a diverse world of atheism out there, with different causes and different consequences. And I’ve been against this contrary and irrational effort to pretend they’re all the same.

By the way, this very same person who is demanding a single, specific definition of every interpretation of atheism+ also said this:

Agreeing with people 100% is a hivemind. It’s not healthy. Disagreements are good.

Get that? It’s not healthy to have a “hivemind”, defined as a situation where people are in agreement on something. But atheism+ is bad because it tolerates multiple interpretations. I don’t know how his brain keeps from exploding.

This guy also has a problem:

They should certainly drop “#atheism” from the name because a+ implies telling us what to believe.

Somehow, he’s able to embrace “atheism” without this terrible crime of the label telling him what to believe, but stick a “+” on it, and suddenly it becomes a dictatorial imperative.

Do the atheism+ haters understand yet that it is entirely opt-in, that people join because they find its causes appealing? And that you don’t have to join? And that it just states a general emphasis on social justice issues, and isn’t going to micro-manage your life? No, they do not.

Possibility: “I’m an Atheist+” “Oh, which brand?” “Brand?” “Carrier’s? Jen’s? Dawkins? Dillahunty’s? Which?”

That was an amazing comment, so revealing. My answer: “Mine. Yours.” I really do not understand a mind that cannot imagine taking an idea for its own, but instead demanding that a charismatic leader tell him exactly what it means. Somebody has been thoroughly poisoned by religion, that’s for sure.

Here’s what atheism+ means, as defined on the official atheism+ page. This is about as specific as it’s going to get.

Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.

You can see where it came from: it’s in part a reaction against the modern skepticism movement, which invests a lot of effort in putting up fences and telling you what you’re allowed to talk about under the umbrella of skepticism. It’s also a reaction to people shouting at atheists that they should shut up and stop talking about issues like sexual harassment, because it’s not important. So some people have stepped up and said, “We’re people who think social justice is important, and that secular thought has much to say about it. So we’re creating a space where like-minded people can talk freely about it.”

That’s it.

And the assholes creep out of the woodwork to find excuses to tell these people, indirectly, that applying critical thinking to social issues is bad. Oh, they can’t come right out and say that, of course, because that would make their stupidity obvious; so they invent bizarre excuses that it doesn’t have a pope, therefore it can’t work, or that it’s hypocritical because it made an old white man a cardinal, or that its a movement that is “divisive” — a favorite word in that crowd — as if their raging sexism and unconcern for broader social issues weren’t already divisive. And as if division weren’t a good thing — seriously, if an organization does not serve your interests, leave it or lobby it to do a better job. I left the church when I was 14; my atheism was “divisive”. Was that a bad thing?

Another theme of the day was the oppressive nature of atheism+. They’re going to have purges! I’ve heard this so many times, and I ask my usual question: who is going to purge you of what, and how are they going to do it? I mean, it’s not as if the atheist+ crowd has power over you or any aspect of your life, or that they’ve threatened to spray paint your property and shoot your dog. The first action Jen took was to set up a discussion board, not a standing army.

So, all you anti-atheist+ people, I challenge you: tell me what will happen to you if you don’t join atheism+? (Oh, and keep in mind that I haven’t ‘joined’ anything either; I’m more sympathetic than you are, but you won’t find my name on the atheism+ forum, yet.)

Here are the only answers that they came up with.

You don’t see it that way? The whole “Come to Atheism+ or we’ll leave you?” Carrier’s “Join us or we’ll never be friends?” Etc.?

Those evil atheist+ fanatics might unfriend you on facebook if you don’t join! Rarely has a tyranny had such awesome instruments of coercion. That’s really all we’ve got; we can decide you’re an asshole because you don’t share our values, and we can stop associating with you. Everyone does that. It’s not a special power, it is not the application of force.

And then they cite Jen:

From Jen McCreight: “Demand that your organizations and clubs evolve, or start your own if they refuse.” That’s a “must” attitude.

Yes, it is. If you want me to be part of your organization, it must reflect my interests; you could change to better address what I consider important, or I won’t join. That’s not a purge. That’s the nature of a voluntary association. What’s the alternative? “Jen, I’m sorry, we don’t think feminism matters and we really would like to gnaw on your leg, but you don’t get to leave our meetings.” That’s a totalitarian attitude, that you think you can tell us who are friends and associates must be, and that no one is allowed to reject an overture to pal up.

Are you that desperate to make Jen or Richard or me like you?

Conspiracy theorists showed up, too.

I’m surprised at how many people are trying to lie that it’s about a subset & not about taking over groups like JREF

Again, what are the mechanics of this? How does setting up a special interest group within atheism with a focus on humanist goals lead to the takeover of JREF? That makes no sense.

It’s like arguing that Doctors Without Borders has a secret agenda to take over the entire medical profession. Or that the Special Interest Group on Humanitarian Technology is an evil scheme to take over IEEE.

This same guy also reflected the authoritarian theme of all the other opponents:

Listen up douchebag, U make UR wages off of people like me. Don’t tell US what to think, we tell U what to do. Got it?

Oh. Gosh. So because the state pays significantly less than half my salary so that I will perform a service, random jerk on the internet ‘owns’ me and has the right to order me to do his bidding. When did teachers become slaves?

You get the idea. I spent an hour arguing with really stupid people. But then, I’ve spent even more time arguing with creationists, so I’m used to it.

The price of a hoax is too high

That’s a ghillie suit over on the right. It’s used by the military and hunters as camouflage, and they’re fairly easy to get. You can also see how it could be used as a kind of Bigfoot costume, especially if you wore it in dim light. If you wanted to fool people into thinking Bigfoot exists, you could dance around in it around the edge of town, at twilight, and get people wondering what the heck that big, shaggy, manlike form was. But that would be unethical, of course.

It would also be really stupid.

There’s kind of an obvious problem to wearing camouflage (it makes you hard to see) in the dark (it makes you even harder to see) while also wanting to be seen, which usually means making an appearance near high traffic areas, like, you know, roads. With cars moving rapidly on them.

A Bigfoot hoaxer, Randy Lee Tenley, discovered this briefly before his brains stopped functioning altogether.

A 15-year-old girl hit him with her car, another car swerved, and a third car driven by a 17-year-old ran him over, CNN affiliate KECI reported.

Tenley was “well into the driving lane,” and according to his companions he was “attempting to incite a sighting of Bigfoot — to make people think they had seen a Sasquatch,” Schneider said in the KECI report.

Right now, I mainly feel a deep sympathy for those two young people who blamelessly caused the death of a very stupid man. I’m sure they’re traumatized by the whole event.

Tenley was 44, old enough to know better. I also don’t get it: if you believe in Bigfoot, why would you try to fake a sighting?

The stupidification of all media

I saw that Doonesbury made a joke of it, so I had to look it up. It’s true. Americans were surveyed to see which presidential candidate they thought would handle a UFO invasion best.

The channel surveyed 1,114 Americans in late May to get their thoughts on all things alien in anticipation of the channel’s upcoming series "Chasing UFOs." It even asked which superhero Americans would turn to first in the event of an alien invasion. (It’s the Hulk.)

Obama was particularly strong on the issue with women, with 68% saying they favor the president when it comes to dealing with flying saucers. And 61% of male respondents agreed. Obama also did well among Americans older than 65, with fully half of those surveyed casting their lot with him.

I really don’t give a damn which candidate won, any more than I care which comic book character they think would best fight little green men.

No, what made my eyebrows rise was the perpetrator of this idiocy.

National Geographic Channel found that nearly 65% of Americans surveyed said they believed that Obama was better able to handle an alien onslaught than the Republican presidential candidate.

The National Geographic Society is not synonymous with the National Geographic Channel, which is largely owned by News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s sinister organization. But still…National Geographic has their good name attached to this garbage? For shame.

You minorities need to stop feeling so damned sorry for yourselves!

Whine, whine, whine. That’s all minorities ever do. Steve King (Racist, IA) would like you all to man up, act white, and join a church.

I went to the Iowa State website and […] I typed in “multicultural” and it came back to me, at the time, 59 different multicultural groups listed to operate on campus at Iowa State. It started with Asians and it ended with Zeitgeist, so from A to Z, and most of them were victims’ groups, victimology, people that feel sorry for themselves and they’re out there recruiting our young people to be part of the group that feels sorry for themselves. […]

And then, you’re brought into a group of people that are–have a grievance against society rather than understand there’s a tremendous blessing in this society.

Multiculturalism is a dirty word. There is but One True Culture, and you will shut up and be assimilated. There’s something wrong with you if you have any grievances against Steve King’s society.

Hey, Iowans, how do you keep electing this moron? And as long as you’re doing that anyway, can we send all of our Bachmann supporters south to live in his district?

What is it with Republicans, sex, and science?

They just can’t get it right. The latest eructation of idiotic error comes from Tennessee, where Stacey Campfield makes shit up about STDs.

Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact.

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community,” he told Michelangelo Signorile, who hosts a radio program on SiriusXM OutQ. “It was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.”

Do they have to take a Stupid Test to be admitted to the party? And score somewhere in the range of a flatworm?

“uncomfortable by my presence”

Do not wear humorous t-shirts on a plane. Do not mock the absurdity of the TSA security theater. And most of all…

Having been booted from our flight, the transit police now began to aggressively question us. At one point, I was asked where my brother lives (he was the one who gifted me the shirt). A bit surprised by the irrelevant question, I paused for a moment before answering.

“You had to think about that one. How come?,” she asked. I explained he recently moved. “Where’d he move from?” “Michigan,” I respond. “Michigan, what’s that?,” she says. At this point, the main TSA agent who’d questioned me earlier interjected: “He said ‘Michigan’.” Unable to withhold my snark, I responded with an eye-rolling sneer: “You’ve never heard of Michigan?”

This response did not please her partner, a transit cop named Mark. Mark grabbed his walkie-talkie and alerted his supervisor and proceeded to request that he be granted permission to question me further in a private room. His justification?: “First he hesitated, then he gave a stupid answer.” Michigan, my friends, is a stupid answer.

And then, he decided to drop any façade of fair treatment: the veil was lifted, this was about who I was and how I looked: “And he looks foreign.”

…do not look foreign.

Arijit got to experience the full weight of our stupid airport security system: he was thoroughly screened, held over and questioned at length, and ultimately kicked off a flight because he made the bigot sitting at the controls feel “uncomfortable”.

(A prediction: someone in the comments will blame the victim. He shouldn’t have been wearing a scary t-shirt, they will say, or he should have been deferential and cast his eyes downward and answered every stupid question politely. Just so I don’t have to reply to every such inanity, I offer you this preemptive reply: fuck you. Attitude is not and should not be a crime. Nor should be flying while brown.)

I guess you shouldn’t always trust your doctor

Especially if that doctor is associated with Physicians For Life, an organization of ideologically warped doctors who abuse science to justify anti-abortion screeds. In one article, they carry out a set of weird calculations to trivialize pregnancies from rape. They go through a series of calculations to throw out most rapes (the woman is too old or too young to get pregnant, for instance…which should set off your alarms right there. Child rape is less of a problem simply because they won’t get pregnant?), and then comes to this weird excuse:

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation.

Does that sound familiar? Missouri congressvermin Todd Akin recently echoed that sentiment, claiming that ‘legitimate rape’ rarely causes pregnancy (and it’s not just Akin — right-wingers everywhere parrot that claim).

Dr Jen Gunter speculates that Akin got his misinformation from Physicians for Life, and also takes apart their claim.

The Physicians for Life site quotes 3 sources, only one is original research. The one article was authored by Goth and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1977 (yes, 1977) and in NO WAY SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT RAPES ARE RARE OR THAT THE STRESS RESPONSE LOWERS THE PREGNANCY RATE. It is an article about sexual dysfunction among rapists. Put another way, the Physicians for Life have not provided a single published article to support their claims. Interestingly, Physicians for Life also promote the long disproven claim that abortion causes breast cancer.

It’s based on nothing but air and lies, in other words.

That’s not an experiment

Only a theist could come up with this one. It’s the Atheist Prayer Experiment; they’re recruiting atheists to say prayers. It’s an amazing pile of sneaky, devious, theological nonsense.

Here’s what we’re supposed to do:

We are asking each atheist who wishes to take part to pray for 2 to 3 minutes a day for 40 days for God to reveal Himself to them.

We would like any reflections, reactions, or revelations (positive or negative) experienced during the experiment to be recorded by participants. This may be video/audio Journal, blog, on a dedicated Facebook page, sent in by email etc.

Any participants need to be willing to record a radio interview about their experience of the experiment, though not everyone who takes part will necessarily be asked to do this.

This isn’t an exercise in appealing to a deity. It’s an exercise in psychology. If you tell yourself something every day over a fairly long period of time, will it affect how your mind works? I suspect the answer would be yes. Just the act of making a commitment to a religious belief and reinforcing it with daily rituals and reflection is going to fuck up your head. Most of us atheists have defenses against it — I couldn’t go through this without grumbling to myself that this behavior is bullshit, and it would probably end up making me even more disgusted with religion (if I bothered to do it, which I won’t) — but it could affect somebody who is gullible and impressionable. There’s nothing in this ‘experiment’ that could provide evidence of a god, but there is plenty of stuff to show that plastic minds exist…which we already know.

So why are they doing this? It’s based on a philosopher’s rationalization for prayer.

The experiment is based on the paper by Oxford philosopher Tim Mawson titled Praying to Stop Being an Atheist. In it Mawson argues that, on balance, it is in the interests of those atheists who don’t think it’s absolutely impossible that there’s a God to investigate the issue of whether or not he exists by ‘the experimental method’ – trying to ask him. Those interested in participating will be sent a copy of the paper.

I haven’t read the paper, and I’m not particularly interested. I did look up the abstract:

In this paper, I argue that atheists who think that the issue of God’s existence or non-existence is an important one; assign a greater than negligible probability to God’s existence; and are not in possession of a plausible argument for scepticism about the truth-directedness of uttering such prayers in their own cases, are under a prima facie obligation to pray to God that He stop them being atheists.

If a god actually existed, it would be an important matter; the fact that in millennia of searching no one has found reasonable evidence of such a being is empirical evidence that there isn’t one. This philosopher doesn’t seem to realize that atheists don’t believe in any gods at all; the reason we are overtly godless is that there are so many people who do. We believe in god-belief, not gods, and we also are pretty damned sure that believing in things that don’t exist is bad for you.

Personally, I assign a zero probability of “God’s” existence, because no one can define specifically what it’s attributes are. Every god that is defined semi-specifically — say, the Catholic god or the Lutheran god — contradicts known aspects of the universe and doesn’t exist. The vague deist’s deity only has a minuscule chance of existing because nothing is specified about its nature, so they reserve the right to label just about anything that does exist as “god” (I also reject that approach — I think it’s dishonest.)

We all have plausible arguments for skepticism: the absence of evidence for this being, the inconsistency of definitions for a deity under different faiths, the godawful nebulous handwaving of believers, and the incompetence of sophisticated theologians in being able to generate reasonable tests for the truth of their beliefs. That Mawson even thinks there is good cause to not be skeptical discredits him.

I am under no obligation at all to practice this guy’s weird magic rituals. Every religion has its own strange practices that believers are quite sure are essential to maintain their relationship with whatever gods they think are floating around; am I obligated to follow every random cult’s beliefs for some period of time? Is he?

Now look at the procedure they expect us to follow:

The question of how an atheist should pray is an interesting one. [No, it’s not.]

Tim Mawson has some suggestions in his paper: the prayer should be kept as open as possible, e.g., rather than ‘God of Christianity; if you’re out there, turn this water into wine for me’, ‘God, if you’re out there, reveal yourself to me’ would be better.

We only ask that anyone taking part commits themselves to finding a quiet meditative ‘space’ and praying there for two to three minutes each day as earnestly as they can for any God that there might be to reveal himself/herself/itself to him or her, and that he or she remains as open as possible to ways in which that prayer could be answered.

As expected, the rule for theologians to keep the story as fuzzy as possible, and to accept any unexpected result as evidence for their specific belief. It reminds me of those idiotic ghost hunter shows that infest television right now: send some people off with night vision cameras and microphones and have them wander about in some dark and crumbling relic of a building, and every odd noise and glitch and cold draft and emotional tremor is frantically reported as a sign of unusual paranormal activity.

That is not an experiment. An experiment would have a clear hypothesis, would define the parameters of the procedure precisely, and would set specific criteria for success or failure of the experimental test. See any of that above? No. It’s just another set of wackos building a pseudo-scientific rationalization for their delusions.

Summary of Thunderf00t/Phil Mason’s disgrace

The story so far: Thunderf00t/Phil Mason was invited to join our blog network last month. All he wrote during the short week he was here was incoherent, unprofessional rages against feminism and the whole network he was on; we could not understand why he even accepted the offer to join us if he hated us so much, and his inane rants certainly weren’t going to persuade us that we were wrong, so we kicked him off. And ever since he has been obsessed with howling about our perfidy.

The latest development is that it turns out that almost as soon as he’d been evicted, he snuck back onto our mailing list and has been reading all the confidential discussions we’ve been having. He has leaked these to third parties as well. When we shut down the security hole last week, he then tried to hack back in, to no avail. We have logs of all of this computer activity on his part.

He doesn’t have anything of actionable substance — we really haven’t been planning the overthrow of the government or any bank heists or anything nefarious — but he does have personal information about some of the contributors to FtB who want their privacy respected. That is his threat, and it’s not something we can trust him on, given that he’s already sent some emails to other people. And there was no legitimate reason for him to even need to be browsing our private email.

I’ll be compiling the responses to Thunderf00t’s lack of basic decency and ethics here, but first I have to highlight this, from Ed Brayton:

I really do find this outraged declaration that he does not “doc drop” to be almost laughably deluded. It’s like someone who breaks into your house because you forgot to latch a window. He comes into your house and steals your china and jewelry, then reacts in mock outrage when you suggest that he might steal your TV too. In fact, he screams “I do not steal TVs!” at the top of his lungs to the neighbors while he’s handing your other possessions out the door to someone else. And then he expects that declaration to be credible and to provide some assurance of his character.

Phil Mason also doesn’t seem to realize that his declaration that he broke in is in fact a confession. It’s not just that he’s violated our confidence, but that he’s so goddamn stupid that he’s announced it to the world.

Here’s the current list of blog posts protesting Thunderf00t’s inexcusable behavior. I’ll add to it as more come in, but I’m also going to be traveling a bit today, so my access may be spotty.