Friday, May 27, 2016

Ultra-leftists force women to use the men's restroom at UMOCA

Utah first? Opposites attract? In the shadow of the Temple the Utah Museum of Contemporary Art forces women to use the men's - since both restrooms are now man-welcome.

Not just femmy men. Not just Bruce Jenner deranged gender dysphoric  messed up men. All men - can use both restrooms at UMOCA, and so women have no choice but to watch men use the restroom and to allow easy access to their restroom activities.

Ultra-right wing Mormons spawn and attract ultra-left wing abusively permissive moronic dogmatic Stonewall-agenda leftist fascists.

Strange but true. Welcome to Salt Lake City. The shadow of Stonewall is higher than the shadow of the Mormon Temple. Is that a good thing?

Ask a socially conservative atheist woman from rural China with zero connection to the Bible and Book of Mormon: It's a genuinely dangerous and stupid and abusive idea to have mandatorily all-gender and all-outlier crazy dysphoric fool welcoming restrooms.

I love rebellious cutting edge art. I love pissing off Puritans and ultra-leftists alike.

But look: outliers exist. Dangerous predatory men exist. Women and girls need protection from such men, period.


August 2017 addendum, video commentary:

link to video:

The Woo of Sam Harris: Consciousness, Censorship, Drug trips, and Woo

Sam Harris, previously a horseman of the new atheist apocalypse, is full of woo.

Today I posted a long analysis of Harris's recent podcast where he chatted at length with Chalmers. I posted this text on a few Facebook forums and on Harris's page. The posting on Harris's page was deleted after about 10 seconds - probably by Harris or his family I bet.

Here's the text which Harris deleted or allowed to be deleted from his Facebook page:


Harris & Chalmers vs Dennett on Consciousness:

Harris & Chalmers:
Dennett v Chalmers & then more of Dennett:

As per Dennett and as per my own evaluation, Harris and Chalmers apparently see consciousness as an ineffable glow or hum. You know, mostly the same fluffamuff glow one sees with 'light' ghostly mystical deistic Christianity (Anglican, Catholic, etc.).

I've tried very hard to wade through the first video with Sam's podcast. But every time I listen to a few minutes, I feel as if every single step further & further is chock full of woo filled treacle.

Harris & Chalmers sometimes partially and sometimes fully misrepresent Dennett's views. I don't think Dennett is saying consciousness doesn't exist. He's saying the woo-type doesn't exist. However the biological-computer virtual-machine type *does* exist, and he's not saying otherwise from what I can tell.

Related articles:

A lot of verbal & mental masturbation that happens during Sam's podcast (and I say this with the greatest respect for all forms of masturbation) is just plain crazy woo. Examples: We live in a simulated world? Woo. One *key* thing about even beginning to consider such a possibility is one of *perspective.* Who's watching the 'screen or monitor' of such a simulation? Computers who run sims respond to *us* and show *us* what they are doing.

If we did live in a simulation, the >simulating computer< would be generating results, presumably, for an *observer*. Thus there's no need for simulants to have any perception whatsoever of a *real* inner life, really. The hardware on which the sim is running has presents the sim world to an observer, period, right?

As independent biological machines we perceive our inner life because we're independent. If we were in a simulation, there would be no need (nor mechanism?) for simultants themselves to have any perception. The *observer* of the *entire* simulation just needs to be presented with a reasonable simulation, end of story - perhaps.

That's one objection. There's others. But assuming exponential curves for growth is perhaps misplaced. Just seems woo-ey.

Lastly Harris had plenty of time to read up on Dennett's views on consciousness before this most recent podcast with Chalmers, and to chat first hand with Dennett about these matters in detail, before Harris felt inclined to quickly publish a very rough hewn pamphlet on free will - thereby creating a new distance between himself & Dennett, and which is why I believe Dennett doesn't wish to engage in first hand chats with Harris on these matters now.

Harris's entire approach, to free will, and now to consciousness, seems lazy, woo-ey, and hobbled in part by previous exposure to woo Buddhism, and an over ascribing of far too much analytical experiential value to a past drug trip.

Buddhist ideas polluting science & reason: free will, the self, and consciousness

Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions

I posted the above text on Sam's own page over at

It was deleted within about 10 seconds. I don't think he liked my critique of his podcast & so on, if it was his hands on the delete button - probably.

----------------- end of quote of my edited Facebook post where I note the observed censorship down toward the bottom.


In another forum someone asked how big the batteries shall be on the future simulating computer. My response:

As big as Sam Harris's and David Chalmers' egos.

The brain which must be uploaded first is Dennett's. 

Feels like if it weren't for his matter of fact common sense evaluations, woo-meisters like Chalmers and Harris would have free reign.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness (Chalmers, Dennett, & Hoffman)
The New Woo of Chalmers and Harris sounds and feels very much like Deepak Chopra smokey long time running woo.

The Future of God Debate Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston

Sam has gone off the rails since the above debate.

And Harris has been very lazy regarding his entire approach to free will and consciousness. 

Harris has these 'deep' chats with people now on his podcsst. But Dennett rightly apparently doesn't want to play Harris's game.

Harris had all the time in the world to read up on Dennett's writings and talks on both subjects. And even to talk to him first hand.

Instead he lazily revealed his own uneducated illformed poorly crafted naive Buddhist hippie drug trip views as some sort of 'revelation.' 

Harris is lazy and sloppy, and has revealed himself slowly and concisely to be a petty woo-meister himself.

B. Alan Wallace and Buddhist Dualism

"...he utterly mangles quantum mechanics theory in an attempt to argue that – science says the world is weird, and my beliefs are weird, therefore science supports my views. The logic of this argument fails, but it doesn’t matter because the premise if wrong – quantum weirdness disappears at the macroscopic level.

In the end Wallace does no better than anyone who tries to subvert science to support any ideology..."

---end of quote

Chopra & Chalmers & now Harris do also. Woo-meisters all. The conflation of science with mystical charlatanry

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Review of Tim's Vermeer : creation of a masterwork grade painting on a first attempt using ~350 year old technology.

So, we saw this movie last night:

Got it from the library.

Regards Tim Jenison's efforts to find out how the painter Vermeer painted such accurate paintings of real world objects and rooms, with exquisite detail.

Using two lenses and a mirror (apparently):

Also check:

But the guy must have some skill to engage such fine brush strokes (see the film).

There's several reasons to believe that Johannes Vermeer used lenses and a mirror or mirrors to create his paintings:

Reason 1: The level of light, shadow, & object detail in his paintings would be difficult to create extemporaneously (without preparation - just putting brush to paper and painting).

Reason 2: Objects in Vermeer's paintings, their size ratios & etc. match up with each other (see the film also).

Reason 3: Also in a print of an original Vermeer Mr. Jenison noticed painted elements which match up with distortion effects which result from using curved mirrors. True that Vermeer may well have corrected for some such effects, but he wasn't perfect and one part of a painting was curved when it should have otherwise been straight.

In college I did take an art overview class. In that class I remember the teacher bleating on about the distinction between technology and art. What a bunch of bullshit though - especially in light of the findings of Mr. Jenison and related people.

A bit of googling shows that there may be "10 reasons to doubt" Jenison's hypothesis. And there may be 50 reasons why the author of such an article is a petty & shallow moron.

An untrained artist creates a masterwork grade painting, using lenses, mirrors, paint, a set, canvas, and light.

More on the thesis:

I'm a believer in the clear observational & experimental evidence.

Examining preexisting paintings. Conducting an experiment. Creating a masterwork grade painting on a first attempt, in about ~120 days (actual painting work) using ~350 year old technology. Why object?

Additional reviews:

More info:

Monday, May 9, 2016

U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

The U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

On the back of Modified and Enlightened and Evolved Christian tradition.

So not directly from the Bible, but it was done by children raised within the general European Christian tradition that's true.

When I examine who on the social & political landscape supports a.) the freedom to draw Mohamed, and b.) the publishing of such cartoons, the list is very small: Libertarians who're mostly conservative, and a few very (very) lonely leftists.

When Obama states that his preferred future belongs to people who never talk smack about Mohamed or the prophets of other religions, he's turning his back on the principles of The Enlightenment, principles which allowed America and it's Constitution to exist in the first place. He's also turning his back on all the people who want to (f-ing) leave abusive cults like Islam (& Mormonism & other highly abusive religions).

more info:

So, it's true that ex-Muslims / atheists who pop up, rather naturally these days, within Islamic theocracies are little gems who should be valued & protected. They exist & live within countries which are essentially meat grinders, grinding against all opposition to the status quo.

Here's a special vid of an atheist visiting Mecca:

I'm sure that Obama would be upset by such a vid, as per his past comments about the supposed strong need to never offend a devout cult member.

Before 9/11 I had mostly zero idea what Islam was about. After 9/11 I woke up & realized that people in Islamic countries sometimes find their lives to be so shitty that they lash out in unhinged ways - misdirected anger. The 9/11 attacks were performed by men who were angry - but they should have been angry at their religion rather than at 3000+ innocent people in those towers.

The Enlightenment human tradition is a unique one, and one that should be valued. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom of commerce (mostly). Governmental transparency (hopeful). Freedom for science to progress. Freedom for science to question traditional religious dogmas & doctrines regarding literalist interpretations of a god. When leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky (& many other 'regressive' leftists) blame America first for all that is wrong with the Middle East, they're also turning their backs on the Enlightenment tradition which allows them to speak & exist in the first place.

Mr. Greenwald is gay for example. If he lived in an Islamic theocracy he'd be suppressed at the very least or killed at worst.

The cold war abuses of America are not responsible for every single thing that ails the world. Religious theocracy, that of a specific religion, is largely to blame. And yes, it's a religion - that is Islam is a religion.

Before 9/11 I sat in my little ex-Mormon chamber and just thought about ex-Mormon things. I knew Joseph Smith was a charismatic charlatan. I know Brigham Young was an abusive authoritarian theocratic bozo. I relished the works of people like Monty Python with their general criticism of Christianity (eg: Life of Brian), and of Mormon specific humorist organizers like Steve Clark (operator of Latter-Day Lampoon now renamed The Salamander Society).

Consider what Muslim versions of the following works of art would look like?

Life of Brian:'s_Life_of_Brian

Latter-Day Lampoon (aka Salamander Society):

Would Obama approve?

How about your average MSNBC & CBC & BBC presenter?

So I was raised in an itty-bitty religion which has as it's key tenant a required cult of personality revolving around this guy named Joseph Smith. Then when I got older I wised up & left that religion.

That whole experience provided greater insight into the entirely of the situation with Islam, it's followers, and those who want to leave it and be free of it.

A communist who left it (Maryam Namazie):

A libertarian (Ayaan Hirsi Ali):

Another libertarian & big Ayn Rand supporter (Bosch Fawstin):

And some people stay in to varying degrees, or are just 'marginally' in:

Maajid Nawaz:

Tawfik Hamid:

Maajid is considered an 'Uncle Tom' by hijab-loving Muslims though. And Tawfik is a former hard line Muslim w/key info re how Sunni flavor Islam prompts young men within it to consider getting virgins in paradise via suicide as a viable option for sexual expression (check the vid linked to above).

Charlie Hebdo was mostly killed off, and it's remaining members have given up publishing drawings of the prophet of Islam. So Obama's preferred future has been fulfilled re Hebdo. Hebdo was and is an ultra-leftist publication, but one which was 'very lonely' on the left - lonely like Bill Maher is, and lonely like Sam Harris is, and like Salman Rushdie is. Lonely leftists who could never get a Mohamed cartoon published in any mainline leftie publication if they tried.

In any case, I was raised an American Democrat. Now I'm a general middle of the roader. A moderate Republican/Libertarian, or a very very blue dog Democrat. But as per the response of the left to Hebdo (the murder of the artists) & Garland (Garland, Texas cartoon contest attempted to be shot up by Islamic adherents) though I'm a bit loath to refer myself as a Democrat at all. The response of the left to those events shows that the left, as it stands today, as nothing to offer people who want to a.) leave Islam, or b.) criticize Islam exactly the same way we've been criticizing Christianity for hundreds of years.

Also America isn't a full democracy. It's a republic. A representative democracy. There republicanism helps to quell craziness & chaos & stupidity which can come from 'full democracy.'

When 'democracy' came to the Islamic middle east, the secularists were mostly drowned out by the thoecrats (so far).

Where in an Islamic 'democracy' is one free to draw Mohamed? Nowhere? Then the principles of the Enlightenment are not being fully engaged. Freedom of speech. Freedom of though. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom for science to examine & critique literalist religious claims which touch upon the physical world. And so on.

There's slight bright spots here & there. Example:

But in which Islamic country can one be an atheist openly? Criticize Mohamed? Draw Mohamed? Lampoon Mohamed - EXACTLY the way Monty Python did regarding Anglican Christianity? Nowhere yet.

But some ex-Muslims (and friends) somewhere shall do this someday soon I hope (parody Islam in total Life of Brian style & more).

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Gay rights has made us dumber: Atheists of Utah prime example.

"Gay rights has made us dumber..."

And the dumbest of these are the frantic crusading moron Stonewall warrior children who run Atheists of Utah (Dan Ellis dumbshit et al.) and similar groups...

More info on the general topic Milo talks about in his article linked to above:

Speaking as a straight man who's been to many gay parties via a nephew, I can confirm that there's a very dark and abusive side to current gay culture.

Yes I like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.

But children needs a mommy and a daddy. Evolutionary evolved human animal born children. 385 million years of sexual history and 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history ought to count for something.

And there's only one type of marriage: one where inherently reproductive human animals hook up, period.

I like the art of Michael Zichy and Thomas Rowlandson (classic graphic erotic art) as much as the next guy. And certainly people like Spencer Kimball and Boyd Packer should rot in hell for eternity.

But not every dumbshit idea that pops into the brains of leftist snowflake children should be honored and highly valued.

So you're a man who thinks you're a woman and you want to visit women's restrooms? WGAS - and stay the F out of my wife's and daughter's restrooms.

This is the precise and proper response to such gender dysphoric bleatings from poor morons like Bruce Jenner.

And yes simultaneously masturbation and oral sex and good things in spite of what evil men like Spencer Kimball claimed. And a bit of porn 2 and 3.0 isn't such a bad thing.

People such a Milo Yiannopoulos and Douglas Murray (a gay neocon whom I admire) show there is a non-wastrel side to people with such dispositions (ie: male attraction to other men).

What would a rural Chinese person do who's had zero exposure to the Bible or Quran? They're naturally socially conservative. Whodathunkit.

more info:

I still likes them boobies and all pretty kitty cats. I just suggest there's some value to outlier-trait male humans continuing to like them as well, and female outlier trait types finding (femmy) heterosexual men to mate and stay with rather than dreaming of a parthenogenic future. And to their all keeping their John Thomases and hoohaws away from the abusive overly permissive deadly evolutionary dead end wastrel glory hole culture of the left.

Having my cake and eating it too? Why not.

Breeders will inherit the Earth.

The talk I gave at my mother's funeral - February 2010


As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.

As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.

In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.

Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.

It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state.

Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.

There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.

What we teach our children about science may save humanity.

There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.

We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.

Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.

---end of excerpt

Quite so.

And if you've found yourself to be a gender or sexual orientation dysphoric human male or female, I suggest there's high value in your tying into inherent reproduction, rather than trying to cheat nature & evolutionary history via trips to the sperm bank.

Children need a mommy and a daddy. And there's only one type of marriage: the naturally inherently reproductive type. And as an enlightened post-leftist atheist I get to have my cake & eat it too on these fronts...


Additional links: