New Yorkers: 1, Motherfrackers: 0.

New Yorkers: 1, Motherfrackers: 0.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s administration announced on Wednesday that it would ban hydraulic fracturing in New York State because of concerns over health risks, ending years of uncertainty over the disputed method of natural gas extraction.

You’re welcome, New York! I don’t like to toot my own horn or anything, but it’s pretty clear the good governor really took to heart the letter I wrote him in July. I kid, I kid. He doesn’t give a flying fuck what I think. Hell, I didn’t even vote for the guy. And therein lies a lesson.

As New Yorkers may remember, Andrew Cuomo, the incumbent Democratic governor, faced a Democratic primary challenger on September 9: Zephyr Teachout. While it was universally acknowledged that she had no chance of actually winning, she put up fight with the backing of environmentalists (and other lefties who see Cuomo for the corrupt, conservative opportunist he is). While Cuomo continued to drag his feet and waffle on deciding the fracking issue, Teachout flat-out stated that she would ban it.

She had me at hello.

And oh, how I heard that I’d be wasting my vote, and/or to not even bother voting in the New York primary because after all, Cuomo was a shoo-in. And that was just from people who had heard of Teachout. More often the conversation started and ended with who?

Nevertheless, this upstart with a pittance of a budget went up against a Democratic icon with a massive war chest and the backing of a well-oiled party machine—and she came away with 33% of the primary vote. Not enough for a win, of course. But Cuomo is a scion of Democratic politics who harbors national ambitions, and, well, that certainly does not bode well for him. While he may not give a shit about me, or about New York’s ground water, he sure as hell gives a shit about that.

Environmentalists are fawning all over Cuomo:

Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, said Mr. Cuomo “set himself apart as a national political leader who stands up for people” over the energy industry.

But tonight I’ll be toasting Zephyr Teachout, and those of us who showed up on September 9 to vote for her. Especially in primaries, it doesn’t take a “win” to win.

By the way, if you want to actually waste your vote, just keep right on voting for the “lesser of two evils.” They’re counting on you.

Racism is whites’ problem to solve.

If you’ve been following links about policing here or elsewhere, you will know that American society is by far the most incarcerated in the world, that black and brown people are enormously overpoliced compared to whites and given harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes, and that young black men in particular are killed by police at rates 21 times greater than their white counterparts. Many liberal-minded whites I know seem incapable of grasping the enormity of the injustice of all of that—which may be understandable given that their interactions with police have been generally much different, but is not excusable on those grounds. Of course many less-than-liberal-minded whites are openly defensive and hostile in response to anyone calling this what it is—systemic racism—in favor of all manner of victim-blaming and othering and authoritarianism and bootstrapping narratives that have about as much relation to reality as…well, as all things conservative generally do. This is why as protestors took to the streets yesterday in NYC (and across the nation) in response to police violence and the failure to hold accountable the cops who killed Mike Brown and Eric Garner, I was heartened to see people of every race among them, especially whites. I say this not to suggest these whites deserve a cookie just for being decent fucking human beings. They don’t. I say it because—and this really cannot be said enough—racism is whites’ problem to solve.

RACISM IS WHITES’ PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

See, there I said it again. And it is true in exactly the same way that street harassment is mens’s problem to solve. (The similarities to misogyny don’t end there, but that’s another post entirely.) It’s a tall order, to be sure, and will take a hell of a lot more than white people demonstrating and marching. The solution to black victims of police violence and mass incarceration does not just lie within the relationships between cops and communities of color—although it certainly lies there, too. It lies with whites interrogating themselves about their participation in social, cultural and political systems that sustain racism, and committing to fucking doing something about it. Janee Woods wrote recently:

We’re 400 years into this racist system and it’s going to take a long, long, long time to dismantle these atrocities. The antiracism movement is a struggle for generations, not simply the hot button issue of the moment. Transformation of a broken system doesn’t happen quickly or easily.

People of color, black people especially, cannot and should not shoulder the burden for dismantling the racist, white supremacist system that devalues and criminalizes black life without the all in support, blood, sweat and tears of white people.

__________

Here is a one-minute video I shot from Greenwich St. last night around 8:00pm as protestors marched West on 11th Street. (Yes people, believe it or not, I was actually roused from my bar stool, not by all the NYPD sirens of course, but by the protestor chants I heard over them a block away.)

Some stills:

IMG_1175IMG_1187IMG_1194IMG_1178IMG_1196__________

 USA Today has a fantastic collection of photos from nationwide protests yesterday; here are a few from NYC.

brooklynbridgeBrooklyn Bridge.
(Photo: Jason DeCrow, AP)

grandcentralGrand Central.
(Photo: Justin Lane, European PressPhoto Agency)

wecantbreatheFoley Square.
(Photo: Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY)

__________

Back at the bar, a young woman came in, sat next to me and ordered a drink. We got to talking, as bar people do. She had just turned twenty-one a few days ago, and in a few weeks will be headed for a semester in Paris to study curation. We talked about art and artists (she loves Frida Kahlo) and Europe (she’s never been) and her excitement about the adventures that lie ahead (highly contagious). Eventually she mentioned that she had just been marching with the protestors, and that she was struggling with some guilt over pursuing her dreams overseas while her community was suffering so much here, and yet she felt a duty to take advantage of these opportunities for them. She has an autistic brother, 17, who she fears will make an easy target for police violence, not just because of his race but because his disability makes interpersonal communication so difficult for him. She is not wrong about that. I listened for a while, and did not interrupt, until she shared that she was really torn between being a committed activist and “curling up in a ball in bed.” Wait, I said. Those things are not mutually exclusive. And I urged her to curl up in a ball in bed exactly as often as she needed to, to mourn, to rest, to reset. There is no shame in tending to your own garden. We hugged, I wished her well and parted.

IMG_1213Photo shared with permission; name withheld.

We may well lose her to Paris, and that would be our great loss. Who could blame her? Any future she may have stateside is up to us—all of us.

Earlier in the evening I had posted to Facebook a photo of police helicopters swarming the skies above Manhattan. Later on, I would have a fitful night’s sleep, awakened over and over by the sounds of sirens blazing and helicopters roaring. This is nothing, I reminded myself, compared to the nightmare that will never end for the families and friends of those unjustly killed by police with impunity.

I hope you will get involved, and stay involved. I may well be curling up in a ball in bed today.

The helicopters are already back in the skies.

blacklivesmatter[A version of this article is cross-posted at Secular Woman.]

Meat robots and the cure for conservatism.

As a lifelong student of the deadly scourge known as “conservatism,” I read with great interest a recent piece by Ezra Klein in Vox entitled Standing near hand sanitizer makes Americans more conservative. So what will Ebola do?. Klein reports on a growing mass of evidence that human social and political cultures are emergent properties of our responses to infectious disease threats—or “pathogen stress,” as the fancy lib’rul eeleet perfessers like to call it. The gist of the theory is this: through all of human history, infectious diseases have been the single greatest threat to human populations—killing more people than wars, natural disasters and noninfectious diseases combined—such that humans (like other animals) have evolved behavioral responses to avoid them. Just as our biological immune system is triggered by the presence of diseases, so too is our “behavioral immune system” activated by (perceived) disease threats in our environment. Klein gives the examples of our fear and aversion upon encountering a rat, and feeling disgusted when you get a whiff of rotten meat. It works at a surprisingly granular level, too: humans react with disgust to yellowish liquids that resemble pus, yet we remain unfazed by blueish substances of the same texture.

It turns out that the reaction of disgust in particular has profound moral and political implications, not just for individuals but for culture writ large. There is a well-demonstrated link between moral notions of “purity” and social conservatism, and conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Where this gets very, very interesting is the finding that even subtle reminders of cleanliness (or its opposite, impurity) can trigger more conservative attitudes—in anyone. In a clever set of experiments, Cornell University psychologists Erik Helzer and David Pizarro approached every ninth college student entering a campus hallway and asked them to take a quick survey about their demographics and political beliefs. Half the students were were asked to “step over to the hand-sanitizer dispenser to complete the questionnaire,” and the other half were asked to “step over to the wall to complete the questionnaire” where the hand sanitizer had been removed. The researchers reported:

Participants who reported their political attitudes in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser reported a less liberal political orientation than did participants in the control condition. Despite the noisy nature of the public hallway in which we collected the data, it appears as if a simple reminder of physical purity was able to shift participants’ responses toward the conservative end of the political spectrum.

The conservative effect held for fiscal, social and moral positions. Helzer and Pizarro then ran a second experiment in the lab, where half the participants were offered a hand sanitizer wipe before using the lab computers to answer a questionnaire about their moral values. Again, the researchers found that those exposed to the cleanliness cue reported significantly more conservative political attitudes than subjects who were not.

In other words we are pretty much meat robots, subconsciously programmed by cues in our environments. Even our most cherished and fiercely held moral and political beliefs can be profoundly affected by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is worth remembering that we are talking about tendencies here; these are modern manifestations of ancient survival mechanisms in a much more complex world. It’s probably a safe bet that it would require a whole lot more hand sanitizer to get some of us to vote for some berserker theocrat than it would our fellow citizens who are already well on their way to Hitlerville. Complicating matters further, future political orientation can be predicted by personality traits evident in children as young as 3, which throws a monkey wrench into any simplistic nature-vs.-nurture calculus. And just anecdotally, virtually everyone probably knows siblings reared in the same environment with diametrically opposed political views.

Still, as research in the field has been expanding, the political ramifications of the behavioral immune system are turning up everywhere. Mark Schaller  & Co. found that subjects primed to think about disease were much more prejudiced and fearful toward immigrants; in light of this, it is hardly surprising to discover that wherever there is a higher risk of infectious disease, societies tend to be more xenophobic. And it gets weirder—and worse:

As Ethan Watters writes in an overview of the evidence, researchers have found “severe pathogen stress leads to high levels of civil and ethnic warfare, increased rates of homicide and child maltreatment, patriarchal family structures, and social restrictions regarding women’s sexual behavior.”

WHAT.

Ezra Klein finds the implications of a behavioral immune system unnerving, and it troubling to the degree that it has become maladaptive—witness the recent child refugee pants-wetting, and the current Ebola lunacy. It could also be exploited for nefarious purposes, which raises an interesting question: if we know about it, do political operatives? Bankers? Health insurance executives? Big Oil? CIA? NYPD?

Yet as terrifying as that prospect is, there are positive implications as well. Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer found that “reframing proenvironmental rhetoric in terms of purity, a moral value resonating primarily among conservatives, largely eliminated the difference between liberals’ and conservatives’ environmental attitudes.” They had set out to uncover the whys and wherefores of extreme political polarization between liberals and conservatives on climate change and environmental degradation, and found that messages tying these issues to a conservative moral framework—purity—either significantly reduced the liberal/conservative gap or eliminated it entirely. And if we examine the study design, it may offer up even more support for the theory. Subjects were shown two sets of pictures related to global warming and the environment, each reinforcing a different moral frame. In the liberal-associated “harm/care” moral framework, subjects were shown “a destroyed forest littered with tree stumps, a barren coral reef and cracked land suffering from drought.” If it seems like conservatives don’t care about any of that, that’s because they don’t: for reasons that naturally escape this lefty, they simply do not see environmental devastation or the looming climate calamity in moral terms. But:

In the second [conservative-associated] purity/sanctity framework (whose violation tends to trigger disgust), they were shown a cloud of pollution looming over a city, a person drinking contaminated water, and a forest covered in garbage. In the later case, there was virtually no liberal/conservative gap so far as general environmental attitudes were concerned, and the gap was significantly reduced on the issue of global warming.
[Emphasis added.]

Pathogen stress, anyone?

The authors note the major obstacle: the predominance of the harm/care moral paradigm in our environmental discourse. But Feinberg also suggests the solution: “if you’re pro-environmental, there are ways to cater to the morality of conservatives that will likely to get them to be more pro-environmental in their attitudes.”

Two of the earliest pioneers in the field, Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher, are still going strong. They’re the researchers who published the major paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 2012, compiling all the evidence that “severe pathogen stress leads to high levels of civil and ethnic warfare, increased rates of homicide and child maltreatment, patriarchal family structures, and social restrictions regarding women’s sexual behavior.” (No, seriously, WHAT.) They went further, noting that societies in which pathogen-avoidant behaviors flourish are likely to coalesce into repressive and autocratic government systems. Ethan Watters, writing in the Pacific Standard, noted:

Even the most obvious counterexamples that spring to mind can, on closer inspection, seem to offer oblique and even surprisingly overt support for some version of the pathogen stress theory. It’s rather conspicuous that Nazi Germany—probably the most famous modern example of an ethnocentric, bellicose, authoritarian regime—arose in a northern clime, and not in some tropical latitude. But consider that the Nazi party began its rise to power in the aftermath of a Spanish flu pandemic that had killed over two million people across Europe—over half a million in Germany alone. And remember that much of Hitler’s poisonous rhetoric specifically suggested that Jews were disease carriers. Again and again, his rants portrayed Germany as an organism fighting disease—caused, among other things, by “Jewish bacteria.” Did Hitler manage to manipulate an unknown psychological mechanism that had been triggered by the threat of disease in the German population?

Fortunately, the opposite dynamic also appears to work: “If promoting democracy and other liberal values is on your agenda, health care and disease abatement should be your main concern,” Thornhill has said. “If you increase health then people will become more liberal and happier.” In much the same way that our biological immune systems can be tricked into positive action by vaccines, perhaps the behavioral immune system can be recruited to virtually eradicate conservative pestilence (<—see what I did there? Hahaha.). It will be no easy task—but it might turn out to be easier than we think.

We can start here:

medicare4allMEDICARE for ALL.

Horsemen of the Atheist Douchepocalypse.

Listen. All human beings have huge blind spots: in the neurological/cognitive sense, the pernicious cluelessness inherent in the very nature of privilege, and cavernous gaps in our knowledge and experiences—all of which by definition cannot figure into our judgements. As it turns out, it is only to the extent that we acknowledge these truths about ourselves that we stand any chance of becoming more enlightened about the realities of the world, and, perhaps, better human beings. In this regard, certain Horsemen have been a bit of a disappointment—to put it mildly.

Richard Dawkins.

I have read every book The Dawk has ever written (although I admit I got lost about halfway through The Extended Phenotype). He was hardly the only author I read during my torrid affair with evolutionary biology: Carl Zimmer, Jerry Coyne and Neil Shubin come to mind, and there were others. But I have to say that—especially by the measure of “wow” moments, where I found myself gaping in awe at the wonders of life on Earth—Dawkins reigned supreme. He is a naturally gifted writer, with that rare talent for explaining complex scientific subject matter to the uninitiated. The God Delusion was a great read too, of course. But as soon as he started fapping away with that Dear Muslima shit and just kept doubling down, I wrote him off. The mask had slipped, and underneath I saw an ugly, arrogant asshole who could never be wrong about women or sexism—or about anything at all, for that matter.

Here is a man worth an estimated $135 million pettily accusing bloggers who criticize him of bullying, faking outrage, and doing it all for the page clicks. You see, no one could possibly be criticizing him for saying factually wrong and harmful things in the (futile) hope that he will stop doing that. Well, okay, in my case I mock him for the lulz, in part because I thoroughly enjoy skewering unrepentant shitweasels. But I also think it’s important and necessary to do so—if, that is, one wishes to change the culture in which said shitweasels operate with impunity. But even though in this instance his “page clicks” accusation is embarassingly wrong, does he write for free? No? I didn’t think so. And while there is nothing wrong with making money from writing, bloggers make chump change—which makes the clickbait j’accuse particularly hilarious coming from an obscenely wealthy author. And as for the “bullying” charge—coming from the man who shat forth Dear Muslima—I’ll just quote PZ: “since when is standing up to the two biggest names in the atheist movement a case of bullying? That’s simply delusional.”

And here is a “rationalist” who writes, with zero sense of irony or self-awareness, in a blog post entitled Are there emotional no-go areas where logic dare not show its face? that it is:

deplorable that there are many people in the same atheist community who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as those I have mentioned in this article. They are afraid – and I promise you I am not exaggerating – of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell’s Thought Police.

Rebecca Watson deals very nicely with “witch-hunting” here, but suffice it to say that telling someone “you are demonstrably wrong and saying harmful things, here is why, please stop doing that” is not in fact a witch hunt, an Inquisition, or thought-policing of any kind: Dawkins has built an entire career out of saying EXACTLY THAT to creationists and godbots. For fuck’s sake.

What a douche.

Sam Harris.

I’d never been a big admirer of Sam Harris, but since my good friend SJ is a fan I’ve had occasion to look at some of his work more closely. My main problem is that I find him a tedious writer (and speaker). Whatever brilliant insights he may have (if any) are often difficult to tease out of a morass of bland wankery: I feel like I’m back in college slogging through a boring textbook I have to suffer through to pass a test. Perhaps this is just a matter of personal aesthetic taste: what my brilliant friend finds incisive and clear, I find witless and dull. I would argue however, that if Harris is so often misunderstood by his critics—liberal or otherwise—that ought to count as evidence against incisive and clear. But beyond that, if your erudite moral philosophy has lead you to justify torture, yer doin’ it rong. Not a priori, either: even tossing aside basic human rights (!), torture doesn’t work. (And, interestingly enough, it also has negative consequences for torturers.) Harris’s latest gender-essentialist drivel and subsequent ‘splainin are pure comedy gold, coming as they do from such an Esteemed Intellectual™, but it’s not as if I feel personally disappointed by his douchiness or anything. I’ve just never held him in very high regard.

[UPDATE: Amanda Marcotte’s PWNage of Harris is superb.]

Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens was a brilliant writer: the d00d spewed liquid fire from his pen. I followed his writings religiously (<—hahaha omg I crack myself up) in Vanity Fair, and his books just lit me up. Wit, passion, eloquence, astonishing historical and literary knowledge, and an unrivaled sense of glee at knocking down sacred cows, with great panache. He held some truly horrendous opinions about war, and more to the point here, wore his misogyny like a fucking badge of honor. World Class Douche, I’d say. But you know what? At least I knew where my gender stood in his estimation, so I could keep him at a safe distance like a creepy uncle. Frankly, I much prefer that to watching clueless and arrogant weasels enamored with their Superior Intellects™ spin embarrassing rationalizations for the sloppy and demonstrably false sexist shit they spew—all because they can never, ever be wrong, or gawdferbid apologize.

Tick-tock, tick-tock…

Is it only a matter of time before Daniel Dennett says something epically misogynist? I don’t know about you, but I’m not waiting around. (For all I know he already has. Whatever.) And for the record, the Horsedouches are hardly alone: James Randi, Ron Lindsay, DJ Grothe, Phil Mason (“Thunderf00t”), Michael Shermer, TJ Kincaid (“The Amazing Atheist”) and other so-called “leaders” in the movement have all been appalling shits to women. When Steven Novella recently spoke to a reporter, he recounted that “Back in the ’90s, up until our movement exploded online, this was an old boys’ network. The guys would look around and go, ‘Where the hell are all the women?’” Great question. Except it has long been evident to me that not everyone asking that question has the same motivation. Let’s bring more women to the table because we want to expand our movement and they have so much to contribute is not quite the same sentiment as let’s bring in more women so we can hit on, harass, abuse and maybe fuck them, heh-heh. Extraordinary women have already bailed, and who knows how many others have taken one look at the movement, and run.

Of course atheism has a misogyny problem. The internet has a misogyny problem. The entire world has a misogyny problem. You can choose to be part of the solution, or to bask in the comfortable ignorance of unjust privilege and ancient superstition, and thus accept and perpetuate a very ugly status quo.

There are too many smart, fiery thinkers and writers who want to be called out on their privilege when they fuck up (as all of us do), who are eager to learn from others’ knowledge and experiences and de-center their own, who are delighted to change their preconceived notions upon consideration of evidence and reason, and who can somehow manage to say these words: “I’m sorry. I fucked up. I now understand why. I will do better in the future.”

It’s really not that hard. Unless, of course, you’re a narcissistic little shitweasel. In which case, please accept this hearty Palace fuck you.

palacefuckyouHave a nice day. :D

Richard Dawkins, hysterical dumbass.

[UPDATE: cross-posted at Secular Woman.]

[CONTENT NOTE: misogyny; harassment; rape; rape apologia.]

Richard Dawkins has been keeping himself very busy indeed during his stay as an involuntary organ donor in the Palace Abattoir. In response to a widely-read piece by Mark Oppenheimer about misogyny in the atheoskeptisphere, he has bravely taken to Twitter to defend his BFF Michael Shermer, the notorious subject of multiple accusations of predatory sexual behavior toward women. Shermer’s MO, as described in the Oppenheimer piece by TAM staffer Alison Smith, shares most of the typical hallmarks of an overwhelming number of rapists-at-large: boundary testing; planning assaults using sophisticated strategies to isolate victims; deploying psychological manipulation, e.g., power, control; and last but certainly not least, using alcohol deliberately in order to render targets more vulnerable if not outright unconscious. They calculate, quite correctly it turns out, that this particular modus operandi puts them at miniscule risk of ever being accused—let alone reported, investigated, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed. Regardless of whether you believe Smith’s or other women’s accounts regarding Shermer, these are just facts, and this is how rape culture works in the real world.

But not in Dawkinsland, it doesn’t. Nope! Yesterday, in defense of Michael Shermer the Infallible King of Reason tweeted:

RDtweetdrunkdriving“Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.” -Richard Dawkins

Astute readers will note that this is Richard Dawkins taking Smith’s allegations as true, knowing that by all accounts (including his own) Shermer was sober during the alleged incident, and then oh-so-very-cleverly sneering that she is responsible—by likening an alleged rape victim to a drunk driver.

Here’s Stephanie Zvan with a nice fisk:

He doesn’t appear to believe Shermer’s story, which is that Shermer had sex with Smith after she sobered up. Dawkins took Smith’s story as read, although he isolated it from Ashley’s story and Pamela’s.

Then he ignored the parts of that story that make Smith’s lack of consent and Shermer’s knowledge of it clear. He ignored that Shermer followed Smith away from the party. He ignored the promise to help Smith back to her room, only to end up in Shermer’s. Instead, he grasped the fact that Smith was drunk to the point of not remembering parts of the evening and used that to assign responsibility to her. He claimed Smith was responsible for the encounter despite the one fact that both parties agree on being that Shermer was sober.

He believed her story, not Shermer’s.

He believed she was intoxicated.

He knew Shermer was not, from all sources of information.

He believed Shermer deceived her in the process of getting her past the point of being able to consent.

Then he tweeted that she was responsible for the encounter.

Then he compared Shermer following Smith away from the party to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer taking Smith to a different room than promised to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer sexually assaulting Smith to Smith driving drunk.

I’ma say this once more for the cheap seats:

THE ONLY THING A RAPE VICTIM HAS DONE “WRONG” IS TO FIND HERSELF (OR HIMSELF) IN THE PRESENCE OF A RAPIST.

Fortunately, the vast majority of men do not rape. But those who do can always rely on victim-blaming shitweasels like Richard Dawkins to provide comfort and cover, so they can continue to operate unimpeded.

Then the Lord of All Logic tweeted this:

RDtweetREALrapecultureThe REAL Rape Culture: “All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.” -Richard Dawkins

No, my precious little cupcake: All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is consent. This is really not difficult for most people to grok. And I find it… telling interesting when people are so highly motivated not to grok it. Before he deleted this tweet (“claiming it was sarcastic. There’s no word on what part of it he didn’t mean, however…”), he responded to a follower concerned that he “might fall in trouble again with Feminists”:

 

RDtweetcertainkindoffeministWith a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims -Richard Dawkins

This one sent PZ off on a righteous rant (which I highly recommend reading in its entirety):

Who are these mysterious patronizing feminists? They don’t actually exist. You are echoing a strategy of denial: you approve of feminists, but not the ones who actually point out sexist problems in our culture, or fight against discrimination, or point out that they’ve been raped, or abused, or cheated in the workplace, or any of the other realities of a sexist culture. This is what anti-feminists say: be quiet about the problems. If you mention the problems, you are perpetuating the sisterhood of oppression, you are playing the martyr, you are being a pathetic victim who must be treated with contempt.

But if no woman speaks out about the problems, how will we ever know to correct them? If we shame every victim for being a victim and daring to reveal her victimhood, it becomes very easy to pretend that there is no oppression.

Oh, silly PZ! You see, in Dawkinsville there are no “victims,” only irresponsible drunk drivers crashing themselves willy-nilly right into rapists’ penises!

But this morning’s tweet absolutely takes the cake:

RDtweetjailingRaping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.” -Richard Dawkins

Heh.

Hahaha.

HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

Now, Twitter is a unique medium with pros and cons like every other; suffice it to say it does not particularly lend itself to schooling pompous assholes on the many wonders of reality. But I did my best:

iristweetfalsereports

@RichardDawkins false reports: est. 2-8%. Rape hugely underreported. 3% of rapist[s] do jail time. Now go away and learn how to think. -Iris Vander Pluym

(Incidentally, citations for these statistics can be found all over the fucking internet here and here.)

iristweetevidencetoodrunk@RichardDawkins As if men are prosecuted when “the sole prosecution evidence is ‘I was too drunk to remember what happened.'” #dumbass -Iris Vander Pluym

Jeezus. “I was too drunk to remember what happened” is exculpatory evidence: it creates reasonable doubt and nearly always benefits the accused. That is why prosecutors almost universally do not take such cases to trial: when they do, they lose, and this is true even when they present heaps of additional incriminating evidence to a jury. Seriously, this has got to be the stupidest thing His Intellectual Excellency has ever said—and that is saying something, my friends.

PZ’s plea to Dawkins closes:

And could you please stop supporting reactionary anti-feminists? Thanks.

No, he cannot. Because the World’s Greatest Rationalist is a reactionary anti-feminist, and thus there is no reasoning with him.

[for Tony.]

BREAKING: Richard Dawkins, live organ donor!

I’ve got a new post up at Secular Woman: Loyal Readers™, please give Richard Dawkins a warm welcome to the Palace Abattoir!

RDvesuviusdonor

No doubt he will have much to discuss with his fellow involuntary donors-in-residence, as they pass the time waiting until someone has a life-threatening condition requiring one (or more) of their body parts. Just for starters, there are the 447 active and retired members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who I am told are most anxious to hear more of his insightful pontifications on the relatively minimal harms of “mild pedophilia.”

Happy Labor Day Weekend, USAians! Remember when the U.S. labor movement was really something to celebrate? Yeah, me neither.

Reality: It’s Not For Everyone.

[UPDATED: added new and/or improved links. Also, WordPress ate my post title. I found this entirely unacceptable, so I am putting it back. Take that, WordPress!]

People, I just don’t know why I bother to click on linkbait at mainstream American media outlets like the Washington Post. Today, I got suckered by We think our enemies are idiots, and that’s a problem: The psychological explanation for our partisan strife, by psychologist and assistant professor of management and organizations at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Adam Waytz. The piece is full of false equivalencies between conservatives and liberals, and finishes up with the usual pointless whinging:

“if we believe our political opponents are as rational, thoughtful and empathic as we are, then we are likely to pursue political compromise through rational debate, civil discussion and collaborative analysis of the facts.”

What bubble does Adam Waytz exist in, where American conservatives are rational, thoughtful and empathic? In this amazing Bizarro Bubble, the Republican party actually wants to pursue compromise, and Fox News thrives on rational debate, civil discussion and collaborative analysis of the facts.

FACTS?! Bwahahahaha!

If you truly believe that women cannot get pregnant from “legitmate rape,” you are definitely not rational or thoughtful. If you think uninsured people should be left to die, you have a cavernous empathy deficit. In either case, you should not be anywhere near a public office, because holding an “alternate view of reality” is not only about being flat-out wrong factually, it has demonstrably harmful and often deadly consequences. That makes it morally wrong, too.

Here is the gist of what apparently passes for insightful analysis at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and as publication-worthy by the esteemed editors at the Washington Post:

Another example is Thomas Piketty’s claims about income inequality to climate change. His champions who believe in rising income inequality and his detractors who see little cause for concern both say the other side is biased. Climate change believers and skeptics alike see their opponents as mistaken and lacking in basic analytical skills.

The arguments here, such as they are, rarely grapple with the interlocutor’s alternate view of reality, let alone the merits of the point. Rather, they center on the other side’s deficient mental capacity, and all the ways that “you” are less reflective, less rational, less empathic and more biased than “I” (or “we”). In other words, we see our opponents’ minds — their capacity for reason, emotion, thought and desire — as less sophisticated than our own minds, a phenomenon my colleagues and I have termed the lesser minds problem.

That’s pretty hilarious, because “the lesser minds problem” is a perfectly apt description of both the source of this crap and how it ends up in the Washington Post. You see, in the real world, income inequality is either rising, or it is not. (SPOILER: it is.) Man-made climate change is either happening, or it is not. (SPOILER: it is. Even the Department of Defense knows it, and is acting accordingly.) “Rational debate, civil discussion and collaborative analysis of the facts” will get you precisely nowhere with those whose minds are not remotely interested in actual, verifiable, demonstrable reality.

Remarkably, Waytz comes close to nailing the problem with this:

If I believe that I think more thoughtfully than you and feel more deeply than you, then it makes little sense for me to try to reason with you, much less listen to what you have to say.

Exactly correct. But he thinks the problem lies in merely believing that one’s political opponents are less thoughtful, rational and empathetic, not whether this is actually true and what to do about it. Worse, he appears to have no idea that conservatives are not only constitutionally resistant to facts, but that exposing them to more facts makes conservatives even more resistant. It does indeed make little sense to try to reason with conservatives, much less listen to what they say (except to mock it, of course).

Waytz really thinks he’s on to something when he scolds us:

This suggestion to disavow oneself from beliefs of mental superiority is preached often, but rarely practiced.

And thank the fuckin’ Lard it is rarely practiced. I hate to break it to Waytz, but conservatives in both parties (and Republicans especially) are openly waging war on Social Security. Unions. The environment. Education. Food and water. Immigrants. Cancer patients. Muslims. The poor. Gay and trans people. The oceans. Palestinians. The middle class. Black people. Brown people. The young. The elderly. The disabled. Science. The Earth. The godless. History. Women.

If conservatives were even remotely rational, thoughtful and/or empathic, would any of that be the case? Further, even if it were possible, when we are talking about life and death issues, why would anyone with any sense and empathy ever want to pursue “political compromise” on such matters, through “rational debate, civil discussion and collaborative analysis of the facts” or otherwise?

You know what? It doesn’t matter to me one whit if global warming deniers think I’m the one with a lesser mind. “Alternate interpretations of reality” are neither legitimate nor worthy of respect to the extent that those interpretations do not comport with, you know, actual reality. I am sick and tired of the Waytzes (and Linds, and Mooneys) not only ignoring reality themselves, but urging us all to respect and accommodate those who remain stubbornly, intractably untethered to it—and proud of it.

Lesser minds, indeed.

Ask Iris: Do you wish your mom erred on the side of abortion?

A stranger named GoodChoice wandered into the Palace last night, reeking of the distinct stench of an entirely unwarranted sense of superiority and smugness that has lately become all too familiar around here. Has Dunning-Kruger released a new fragrance or something? Anyway, GoodChoice spouted off in response to a comment by giliell, but it might just as well have been directed at practically anyone else participating in that thread. So please, giliell, if you would be so kind and allow me the honor of responding. 

Q. Do you wish your mom erred on the side of abortion?

A. Hahaha. HAHAHAHA! Did you really think this question was, I don’t know, some sort of gotcha? Is this the kind of thing you Forced Birthers sit around trying to come up with, then snicker at your own cleverness and slap yourselves on the back? I mean, this question is so utterly devoid of thought, so patently ridiculous, that you should probably stay far, far away from the internet so you do not continue to embarrass yourself.

NEWSFLASH: My mom had an abortion. If she had not, then it is probable that neither I nor my amazing sister would be alive today. Nor would my amazing nieces exist.

OMFG I AM SO HAPPY MY MOM HAD AN ABORTION!

You see, the way reality works is that that when a pregnant person chooses to abort, her life takes a different trajectory than if she instead carried the fetus to term. It’s true! And it is especially true for young women without committed partners or the support and resources required to raise a child. It is also true for women with existing children (the majority of abortion seekers, BTW), and for women who care for others already dependent upon them. All of those lives would be profoundly disrupted by the presence of an unwanted child, and sometimes even by the pregnancy itself. The number one reason women have for choosing an abortion is “concern for/responsibility to other individuals,” which certainly puts the lie to the Forced Birther claim that women who abort are “selfish.”*

Further, there are indeed many people who would answer this inane question with “I wish my mother had aborted me.” They have thought deeply about the implications. I will not speak for them here; I will only say that your ignorance of their very existence is inexcusable, and rather telling.

Here is some free advice, cupcake. Learn to think competently. It will make a positive difference in your life, the lives of those around you, and the world at large.

We hope this edition of Ask Iris has been helpful.

__________
*Actually, I would go even further in reply to the demonstrably false “selfish” claim: so the fuck what if she puts herself and her own happiness first? The cultural trope that the expected and proper role for all women at all times is that of self-sacrificing caregiver cannot die in a fire soon enough. She can have an abortion and finish high school or college. She can have an abortion and more easily get out of an abusive relationship. She can have an abortion and not interrupt her important research, or her promising career at a critical stage. My mother might not have had the extraordinary career she did. And that would have been a tragedy not just for her and her kid(s) after my father ditched her, but for all of the people whose lives she touched along the way—including, incidentally, the patients at a local abortion clinic.

Iris HEARTS Neil deGrasse Tyson.

neildegrasstysonNice interview at io9: Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the new Cosmos matters so much.

Tyson: I want to clarify that the goal of this Cosmos is not to update the science. A lot of science has happened in the last 35 years. We’ve discovered a thousand exoplanets, for example. But that’s not the goal, because any time of day you can channel surf and find a documentary about black holes, colliding galaxies, the search for life, the Big Bang, dark matter, the Higgs-Boson, etc. There’s no end of documentaries that serve that goal.

Cosmos has, as its mission statement, the effort to convey to you why science matters. That is a different motivating factor than “Here’s all this science I want to teach you.” When you take ownership of why science matters, then you are self-motivated, driven. You take the responsibility yourself to continue to learn. It’s a new Cosmos not because there’s so much more universe to talk about, but because the country and the world needs to know more than ever why science matters.

The director of photography for the new series is Bill Pope—the director of photography for The Matrix trilogy. OMFG I am totally geeking out ovah heeyah.

The new Cosmos premieres this Sunday, March 9th on Fox.

Aww, you guys…and it’s not even my birthday!

Oh, you jokers! Okay, obviously one of my beloved Many Tens of Loyal Readers™ has an absolutely brilliant talent for satire and parody. A comment we received today (on a 3 year old postnice touch!) is way too hilariously, jaw-droppingly stupid to have emanated from an actual conservative. In fact it is so perfectly idiotic, it’s fucking genius. Behold “olliek”:

The characteristics attributed to the fictional CPD perfectly describes the modern statist liberal. I suggest a reading of “Liberty and Tyranny” by noted conservative Mark Levin just to test depth of your ignorance regarding the nature of conservatism. Indeed, it is liberalism that is a mental disorder as it rejects the lessons learned by humanity over the millenia in favor of a mythical utopia that will never be realized, but has been the reason that hundreds of millions of people have been executed or killed in the attempt at implementing such a twisted vision of human order. As Thomas Sowell has said: “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”

Awesome, amirite? Nearly a dozen symptoms of Conservative Personality Disorder are on vivid display in just those four sentences. But the thing that really puts it over the top, and had me rolling on the floor with side-splitting laughter when I saw it, is the Gravatar image of “new” Palace commenter olliek:

olliekgravatarGravatar image of “new” Palace commenter olliek. Hahaha!

liberalfascism

Goldberg’s hilarious book with Hitler smiley face.

Geddit? It’s a smiley Obama, ‘shopped with a Hitler mustache and Hitler hair!  Wow, way to resurrect a classic old trope—why, it was all the way way back in 2007 that the irrepressibly flatulent Jonah Goldberg shat forth “Liberal Fascism,” a spectacular embarrassment even by conservative standards. And that is saying something, my friends.

Well, I don’t know what to say. I am so humbled and grateful to have a readership as sharp and witty as mine clearly is. This “comment” is one of the most touching and meaningful gifts anyone has ever given me, and I shall treasure it always. Drinks are on me at the Palace Bar! We will be serving Mustache Rides (equal parts butterscotch schapps, grain alcohol and milk—soy milk for vegans!— mixed with crushed ice and garnished with mint leaves).

*cheers!* Whoo-hoo! You guys are awesome!

What?

Okay fine, you all seriously want to pretend this is for real? All right, I’ll bite. It’s the least I can do for you comedians. Pencils ready, class?

__________

The characteristics attributed to the fictional CPD perfectly describes the modern statist liberal.

Projection: it’s not just for movies anymore!

The symptoms characteristic of CPD as delineated in my piece are not “attributed to” a “fictional CPD.” These are behaviors observed in self-proclaimed conservatives.

Before moving on, let us also take note of olliek’s use of the word “statist.” Although we sometimes see this word deployed as a slur by the leftist anarchist—with whom we share a good deal of common ideological ground, by the way—it is usually a dead giveaway that we are instead dealing with a particular subspecies of conservative, the Libertariansus wankerpus. When spotted in the wild, specimens can be easily identified: plumage is typically blindingly white, and males are frequently observed jerking off furiously to Ayn Rand’s terrible, terrible books.

I suggest a reading of “Liberty and Tyranny” by noted conservative Mark Levin just to test depth of your ignorance regarding the nature of conservatism.

Mansplainer is mansplainy: film at 11.

As Loyal Readers™ well know, I have spent much of my adult life to the study and careful analysis of conservatism (as well as much of my childhood surviving it). I have pored over endless tracts by William F. Buckley, Phyllis Schlafly, George Will, Milton Friedman and Ann Coulter; I have sought enlightenment in the work of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and S.E. Cupp. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News for hundreds of hours. I am a regular reader of The Wall Street Journal editorial page as well as various and sundry right-wing publications and blogs. Moreover, I have witnessed along with the rest of humanity the horrific destruction and devastation unleashed upon my country, people all over the world and the planet itself by the conservative policies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and a long line of predecessors, both within government and without.

And yet! I am still directed to read this or that writing, by so-and-so Big Willie or such-and-such doucheweasel. Listen: I have satisfied myself beyond any reasonable doubt that there is nothing new in any of it. Not one single thing. All of it boils down to: an entirely unwarranted sense of self-regard and entitlement; desperate and fanciful rationalizations for one’s own unearned privilege, resulting in the characteristic detachment from reality, wild mischaracterizations of history, and rejection of hard-earned knowledge; and a blundering, comical narcissism. Or, in more colloquial terms: “I’ve got mine, jack! Fuck you! And especially fuck THEM!”

Indeed, it is liberalism that is a mental disorder as it rejects the lessons learned by humanity over the millenia in favor of a mythical utopia that will never be realized,

Wow, the dumbassitude is strong in this one.

First, we note that our new friend neglects to say exactly which “lessons learned by humanity over the millenia [sic]” liberals reject due to our unfortunate mental disorder. Here are some lessons that, broadly speaking, liberals have gleaned from history:

  • Religion is a blight on humanity and has absolutely no place in governance.
  • Humans are a social species, with all that entails. We are interdependent. Chew on your bootstraps while you think about the ramifications of that. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
  • Humans flourish far better with government structure and a meaningful social compact than without.
  • The rule of law is a necessary but not sufficient for justice.
  • Diversity is a strength.
  • Empathy is not a weakness.
  • Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
  • Social democracy is so far the best of all these terrible democratic systems.
  • Free markets aren’t free. We all pay the price—except for the richest of the rich, who just collect the spoils.
  • War is stupid, evil and expensive. It is rarely necessary, and justified only in self-defense. Defense contractors should all be non-profits, because war profiteering is a terrible idea.
  • Women are people.
  • Corporations are not people.
  • Conservatives are dangerous shitheads, and we should never let them anywhere near power. They have shown themselves to be enemies of democracy, opposed to equality in principle.

Meanwhile, all conservatives have apparently gleaned is the following:

“I’ve got mine, jack! Fuck you! And especially fuck THEM!”

Second, the myth of the “mythical utopia” is a favorite trope conservatives like to fling, right along with their poo, and yet no liberal worth her L has ever seriously advanced such a notion. No, I’m afraid that distinction belongs to kooky separatist conservatives, Christian dominionists, and delusional supernaturalists of many stripes who conveniently claim with certainty that utopia exists all right, but only after you die.

What’s really going on in olliek’s fevered mind is as simple as this: conservatives are pathologically terrified of change. They cling so desperately to entirely fictional notions of “order” and habitual routine that they will resist any change, no matter how minor or beneficial to themselves and everyone else. So when anyone comes along and says, “gee, maybe racially targeted mass incarceration and private prisons are terrible fucking ideas,” or “hey, let’s legalize pot and tax it to pay for education,” without fail the conservative subject will become noticeably animated and apoplectic, spewing forth bizarre non-sequiturs like “mythical utopia!” and “death panels!” and “global warming is a hoax!” (See also: “Benghazi!”)

The reality of course is that there is nothing remotely “mythical” about social democracies: they actually exist. They are by no means perfect, but they are demonstrably better by nearly every metric of human happiness and well-being than the dystopic shithole these depraved conservatives want to see the U.S. become.

but has been the reason that hundreds of millions of people have been executed or killed in the attempt at implementing such a twisted vision of human order.

You see, our friend here pretends to understand a correct and proper vision of “human order.” Ooh! Ooh! Lemme guess: it’s a “natural” hierarchy, which just so happens to have arrogant white male fuckwits prancing around on top of it.

Once more: social democratic welfare states actually exist. It’s true! And yet remarkably, instead of executing and killing them, these nefarious regimes actually provide their citizens with things like single payer healthcare, so that they live longer and happier lives than Americans do. (Christ what a dumbass.)

As Thomas Sowell has said: “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”

In case it matters (it doesn’t), Thomas Sowell is a conservative liberturdian “free-market” proponent out of the Chicago School of Economics, à la Milton Friedman. That would be the very same “free market” that gave rise to the 2008 banking collapse, and to the unregulated chemical storage facility that leaked (again) in West Virginia. From his statement we can readily see that Mr. Sowell, like every fascist, is anti-liberal and anti-intellectual (despite having earned a Ph.D. himself). He has also apparently never heard of Sweden, Spain, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, France or the U.K.

How…sad.

In short, it is well worth remembering exactly what it is that conservatives wish to conserve: a status quo that is racist, sexist, violent, amoral, ubercapitalist, hierarchical, heteronormative, patriarchal, and viciously social Darwinist—an imperialist oligarchy in a state of permanent war.

Thanks to “olliek” for the timely reminder.

You guys…!