Mary’s Monday Metazoan: As we know on the internet, that’s one mode of communication

Watching carefully, I noticed that two other activities added to the commotion: sloughing of skin and defecation. Like other whales, sperm whales shed skin on a regular basis. This may be a mechanism to reduce the risk of infection and to rid the animals of external parasites. As the whales rubbed against one another, the physical contact dislodged flakes, sometimes entire sheets, of skin, which floated in the water like a blizzard of translucent dandruff.

Group defecation also seemed to play a prominent role. When a dozen or more whales defecated simultaneously, it created a cloud of poop that engulfed the ensemble, obscuring them from view and turning the seawater into an oily soup.

I think it’s a metaphor.

Steve King, keeping the RNC classy

Steve King doesn’t like it when you point out the the Republican convention seems to consist of a lot of angry white people.

“This whole ‘white people’ business, though, does get a little tired, Charlie [Pierce]. I mean, I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out, where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about? Where did any other sub-group of people contribute to civilization?”

If you, like me, found it hard to believe anyone would say something so stupid and wrong, it’s on video.

Hey, at least King is being open and honest in confirming that the GOP is the party of cranky white bigots.

Here we go again: another cock-eyed defense of evolutionary psychology

This Myles Power guy fished up an evolutionary psychologist to write a defense of of EP, which is not at all impressive. I’m sure he could also find an acupuncturist to write many words about the wonders of sticking needles in people, but I wouldn’t be impressed with that, either.

I will just point out that this fellow also has decided that everyone who criticizes EP is ideologically motivated to hate it; it can’t possibly be that we detest it because it is bad science. And of course he pisses me off with his dishonest opening.

Now, before I begin, ask yourself this, if you are against EP, why? Which of the following do you disagree with:

  • Evolution shapes both the morphology and behaviour of organisms
  • Humans are as much a product of evolution as any other organism
  • Humans behaviour should show evidence of being shaped by evolution

Because if the answer is, “well, none of them”, then there is really no need to go anything further. Because that’s all EP is in the end, looking at humans from the point of view of evolution. It’s taking 150 years of evolutionary theory and applying it to human behaviour. That’s it. We can discuss the impact any evolved pre-dispositions have on behaviour in the context of social, cognitive and biological perspectives without name-calling. So we’re good yes?

No. We’re not good. This is classic EP evasion tactics: immediately hiding behind general principles of evolutionary biology, as if disagreeing with EP is exactly equivalent to denying evolution. It’s annoying as hell to every time have a chorus of idiots accusing me of being a creationist because I find evolutionary psychology to be simple-minded to the point of utter uselessness in actually explaining anything about human evolution, and it’s people like this EP proponent who always try to feed that nonsense right from the get-go.

Evolution shapes both the morphology and behaviour of organisms. Humans are as much a product of evolution as any other organism. Humans behaviour should show evidence of being shaped by evolution. Yes to all of those. Accepting basic biological facts does not, however, in any way imply that I must therefore accept the specific claims of a fallacious hypothesis about human evolution. Evolutionary psychologists are not simply applying 150 years of evolutionary theory to human behavior, and it’s dishonest to claim that they are.

I skipped the rest. If the author can’t even be trusted to explain what makes EP a specific and useful approach, but just wants to pretend it’s plain old evolutionary biology, using the same methods and rigor, then I’ve got no use for more games of hide and seek.

But who will replace him?

It sounds like Roger Ailes is going to be fired from Fox News. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, but now I’m wondering who is on Rupert Murdoch’s short list of replacements?

  • Satan? Only problem is that he’s mythological, and is also in high demand to lead Christian megachurches.

  • Pat Robertson? He hasn’t had a sex scandal yet. (Has he? Don’t tell me, I don’t want to think about it.)

  • Alex Jones? He’d probably turn it down as he struggles to fit it into a false flag narrative.

  • The most likely, best choice, who would fit in perfectly with the ethos of the organization: Dick Cheney.

My expectations for this week are rather low

It’s time for the Republican convention in the under-appreciated city of Cleveland, Ohio…and I don’t think this event will buff the place. In case you were wondering who is speaking at the event, here’s the list.

MONDAY

Theme: Make America Safe Again

Headliners: Trump’s wife, Melania; Lt. Gen. (ret.) Michael Flynn, U.S. Army; Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont.

Others: Willie Robertson, star of “Duck Dynasty”; former Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Marcus Luttrell, retired U.S. Navy SEAL; Scott Baio, actor; Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, killed in the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya; Mark “Oz” Geist, member of a security team that fought in Benghazi; John Tiegen, member of Benghazi security team and co-author of the book “13 Hours,” an account of the attacks; Kent Terry and Kelly Terry-Willis, siblings of Brian Terry, a Border Patrol agent whose shooting death revealed the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-smuggling operation; Antonio Sabato Jr., actor; Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden and Jamiel Shaw, immigration reform advocates; Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas; David Clarke, sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wis.; Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis.; Rachel Campos Duffy, LIBRE Initiative for Hispanic economic empowerment; Darryl Glenn, Senate candidate in Colorado; Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Karen Vaughn, mother of a U.S. Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan; Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; and Jason Beardsley of Concerned Veterans for America.

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. And those damned immigrants.

In case you were concerned that you might miss some of those riveting speeches by exciting, happening people, don’t worry — just turn on your TV. It’ll be there, and there will be a fawning media gently and lovingly ‘reporting’ (this is a fancy word that means ‘describing’ or ‘repeating’ what is said) on it. If you’re hoping to maintain your equanimity during this week of awfulness, though, don’t read Paul Krugman. He knows what’s up.

Yet while most polls suggest that he’s running behind in the general election, the margin isn’t overwhelming, and there’s still a real chance that he might win. How is that possible? Part of the answer, I’d argue, is that voters don’t fully appreciate his awfulness. And the reason is that too much of the news media still can’t break with bothsidesism — the almost pathological determination to portray politicians and their programs as being equally good or equally bad, no matter how ludicrous that pretense becomes.

And he gives specific examples!

And in the last few days we’ve seen a spectacular demonstration of bothsidesism in action: an op-ed article from the incoming and outgoing heads of the White House Correspondents’ Association, with the headline “Trump, Clinton both threaten free press.” How so? Well, Mr. Trump has selectively banned news organizations he considers hostile; he has also, although the op-ed didn’t mention it, attacked both those organizations and individual reporters, and refused to condemn supporters who, for example, have harassed reporters with anti-Semitic insults.

Meanwhile, while Mrs. Clinton hasn’t done any of these things, and has a staff that readily responds to fact-checking questions, she doesn’t like to hold press conferences. Equivalence!

I think I’ll just vote “no confidence” in American media and keep the television off this week.

Dan Savage is not a fan of the Log Cabin Republicans

Here’s how his diatribe against the latest from the delusional gay Republicans starts:

Every four years gay Republicans slime out from under their rocks to remind us that the Democratic candidate wasn’t always perfect on LGBT issues. They then implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) pivot to this nonsensical argument: Since your guy/gal wasn’t always perfect on LGBT issues, the LGBT community should vote for the Republican who was terrible on LGBT issues then, is terrible on LGBT issues now, and who has pledged, if elected, to remain terrible on LGBT issues forever.

And then he gets angry and starts smashing things. You should read it all.

Myles Power’s dishonest defense of evolutionary psychology

Back around the 11th of July, I saw a few comments by a guy named Myles Power, a science youtuber, who was quite irate that Rebecca Watson criticized evolutionary psychology five years ago. There were the usual vaguely horrified reactions implying how annoying it was that some mere communications major would criticize an established, credible, true science like EP, and how she was prioritizing entertainment over scientific validity (not all from this Power guy; Watson is a magnet for the same tiresome bozos making the same tiresome complaints). So I told him that no, her criticisms were not off-base at all, and then a lot of scientists consider EP to be poor science. I also gave him a few links to consider.


See:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/5-ways-to-make-progress-in-evolutionary-psychology-smash-not-match-stereotypes/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/10/ep-the-fundamental-failure-of-the-evolutionary-psychology-premise/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZb1B36TDg

He saw them, and acknowledged it.


@pzmyers This may take me some time to get back to you :)

He did not get back to me. Instead, he came out with a video titled Rebecca Watson’s Dishonest Representation of Evolutionary Psychology. It did not use a single scrap of the information I sent him. Not one bit. Furthermore, he just made this excuse.


I am also doing the ground work in organising a google+ debate with PZ and a Prof in EP from a reputable university.

Say what? He wrote that on the 14th. Not once has he contacted me about “organizing” a debate. One would kind of think that contacting both of the principals in this planned debate would be the very first step in organizing it. Do I get to say “no”, are is he just assuming that all he has to do is contact the esteemed EP professor and then I’ll self-evidently fall into line? I’m not at all impressed with Myles Power’s honesty so far.

So then I watched the video.

[Read more…]

How long do you think we’ll need to wait?

A Playboy playmate, Dani Mathers, took a picture of an older woman in the shower at a gym, and then a photo of herself sniggering at her. She even took the time to caption it, If I can’t unsee this, then you can’t either, before sending it out to the public. I guess the other woman didn’t look like a Playboy Playmate of the Year, which is more than enough grounds for derision, right?

mathers

She has sort of badly apologized: she didn’t mean to make her ugly thoughts public, she intended just to share her contempt for women who are insufficiently pneumatic with a good friend. She’s now getting hammered on social media, has lost her job at a radio station, is banned forever from that particular gym, and the police have been notified. But there’s a worse punishment awaiting her.

How old is she? In her twenties? In a few years, she’s inevitably going to be in her thirties, then forties, maybe even, heaven forfend, her fifties. It’s how nature works. She’s going to get older. And as she becomes increasingly aged, that loathing of other’s bodies is going to turn inward and torture herself. The only question is how long it’s going to take before she starts exaggerating her own emerging flaws in her mind. 10 years? 5 years? Now?

It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, but if it’s self-inflicted, it’s her own damn fault.

The Bible demands that gender is binary

Ken Ham is disgusted. Ontario, Canada is going to allow an “X” designation in addition to “M” or “F” on their drivers licenses, for people who “do not exclusively identify as male or female”. This is unbiblical! Don’t you know that the Bible specifically prescribes what material must be present on your motor vehicle licenses? What is St Peter going to do when you die and you have to present your ID in order to go through the Pearly Gates?

But seriously, he’s concerned that this is a sign of creeping moral crepitude.

Many people in the church—especially young people—have been so influenced by the culture’s do-whatever-feels-right ethic that they accept whatever is popular, regardless of whether or not it contradicts God’s Word. Christian leaders and parents need to note this growing trend and teach their young people to think biblically, starting with God’s Word. That’s the only way we can raise up a generation that stands solidly on the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ. And they need to be reminded of Scripture such as, “But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).

You can learn more about a compassionate, biblical response to transgender issues in the Answers magazine article, “Transgender Identity—Wishing Away God’s Design.”

Oh, this explains everything. Transgender men and women are making this choice because it’s popular. Declaring yourself to be a gender different from the socially imposed one is done simply to get oneself invited to all the chic parties and to be loved by all the other kids at school. But wait! That tract Ham cites, “Transgender Identity—Wishing Away God’s Design” includes this comment:

The rates of suicide among transgender people show the brokenness this choice causes. Paul McHugh, former Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist in chief, has noted in the Wall Street Journal that the suicide rate among transgender individuals is 20 times higher than in the normal population. Embracing transgender identity at the cultural level does not produce happiness and wholeness. It goes hand in hand with personal confusion and disorder.

So the apologists at Answers in Genesis are simultaneously declaring that transgender people are only in it for the popularity and happiness it brings, and recognizing that there are high rates of misery imposed on the transgender population. And they don’t even pause to realize the contradictions in their position.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It goes hand-in-hand with how they read the Bible — there are no contradictions here, while happily embracing both sides of every contradiction.

Nothing ever changes

The internet, social media, the passage of time…none of that matters. When you read Martin Luther King’s hate mail, it all sounds exactly the same. White people complaining about black people disrupting their comfortable lives by getting demanding, and using their discomfort to justify slapping them down.

What is this Black Power business? If it is a threat to Whites– why should Whites not retaliate? Why should Whites hire Blacks?

And who is at fault? The people who are most oppressed.

You are responsible for all of these riots and havoc in this country today.

I want that person to get together with this person:

You don’t point out any FAULTS at all of your own people, just the whites.

I’m sure they’d then agree that it’s unfair to single out one group. Or perhaps a third person would chime in with an accusation of black criminality.

The hatred between the race is now at an all time peak and will get worse as the niggers continue to beat, rape and murder white women and girls.

No round of complaints is complete without someone chiming in with a ‘Dear Muslima’ — it’s much worse elsewhere, so shut up and accept a lesser inequality here.

It would be well if every American Negro compared his position and opportunity with that of his race in other countries. He would find that in none does the Negro have the advantages the United States gives him. As justified as may be many of the demands Negroes make, they are not the only matter of importance in the world.

And of course, the people telling a black civil rights leader to sit down and shut up are the true egalitarians.

It certainly must take unmititgated gall to ask the public, particularly “WHITEY” for funds to keep you and your ilk rolling along in the manner to which you have become to visibly accustomed.

Your false image is beginning to catch up with your as well as others.

I believe and contribute to any cause for advancing human dignity.

But this letter is my very favorite.

Do return that ‘Nobel-peace-prize’ that we bestowed upon you, (as a great honor) so we can give it to some one who really deserves it.

“We”? Don’t you just love the casual assumption that all the white people get together and decide who gets to have a Nobel prize?

But yeah, this person would sort of get their wish. The prize wasn’t retracted, but the Nobel committee did award one to a deserving white man: Henry Kissinger.

It’s a collection of old letters, ink on paper, that does provide some perspective on the electronic deluge of anonymous hatred we get now. It’s nothing new. Different medium, same old bigots.