Thoughts on hyphenated Americans, racism, and cynicism

Is it dogmatic to question dogma? Only if atheism is somehow equivalent to a conservative religion.

Yes, we could be crass cynics like Matt Stone & Trey Parker are, and spew forth flatulence which while briefly humorous becomes quickly sick and putrid.

People of a certain color can't jump. People from another culture tend to have trashy back yards and are not noted for high quality craftsmanship. People from another culture get very angry indeed at cartoons or other humor revolving around past historic and non-historic figures.

Everyone's a bit racist. The hyphenated language that permeates forums such as NPR is key evidence of this. Frankly, I don't care if you're a hyphenated American this or that. Get on with life and do something useful, other than obsess about which hyphenated phrase you can associate with yourself and others.

Is such a request cynical dogma? A dogmatist is unwilling to question his own suppositions. People on the right and left perfectly fit into the same box in this regard. The main thing I question about hyphenated Americans is that their labels take too much of my verbal time to state the self-assigned labels. And the second thing I question is that maybe the hyphenated phrases people assign to themselves & others aren't really all that accurate.

For example:

Who is a Native American? Anyone born in America. That is the traditional definition of the word "native."

Who is an African American? All humans in America, because we all came out of Africa.

And what was adding a religion to the hyphenation?

Muslim American

Mormonism American

Catholic American

Scientologist American

Idiot American

What a waste of time and language to merge these words together.

Who are your ancestors? It's ok to use labels to describe your ancestry. But adding the word "American" to your label is a lame, time wasting, pompous, and superfluous.

That Shitty Chicken Place: I never eat there anyway

I never eat at the chicken place currently being mentioned in the news, and haven't done so since maybe one time about 15 or 20 years ago when Crossroads Mall was still open. Should gay people get married? I don't think the law should ban adults from doing what they please with other adults. I'm still in favor of questioning all suppositions and dogmas, left and right alike. So I'm willing to listen to all sides. But I don't think the force of law should be used to keep people from doing what they please with other adults.

However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785

Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?

Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?

In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.

Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion

Back in December of 2010 I wrote this article about Scott Atran. Atran has many basic misunderstandings about what it like to live in a conservative religion.

On February 23, 2011 Atran wrote this article criticizing Harris's new book the Moral Landscape. On page 6 of Atran's article he claims that Sam Harris has proposed a ban on Islam, but he fails to provide any references.

Harris has talked about the dangers of Islamic ideas that lead to suicide bombing.

One strange thing I heard today though was that Harris is supposedly a racist for wanting to ban Islam.

There's two really big problems with such a claim:

Problem 1: Islam is not a race. It's a religion.

Problem 2: Sam Harris has never proposed that there be a ban on Islam.

Maybe children should not be abused with having lies shoved down their throats by ignorant abusive parents. That's my view. Whether Harris was expressed concerns about this or not is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell he's never proposed a legal ban on Islam. And even if he had, such a view would not be racist, because Islam is not a race.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist. Avenue Q has stated this as well. And even with this being the case, Islam is not a race. It never was. It never will be. Religion is not a race. And, Sam Harris never said that Islam should be banned. You think he did? Prove it. And Scott Atran is an idiot, and a defato purposeful apologist for Islam and abusive religion.

In America we have freedom of religion, and thankfully increasingly freedom from religion.

Children should be educated about all human religions, their history, and so on.

Children should be educated about science, and about how in the past religions were very fearful about what science showed - for example about the Earth, the sun, the stars, and our geographic place in the Universe. Religion is still fearful about what science shows, about their supposed gods. Children should not be lied to. They should be taught the truth. And religions are full of lies, lies supported by fear & control, arguments from authority, and arguments based on abusive psycological manipulation.

People like Atran have no concept of this because they haven't lived it. Here's links to some people who have:

Me: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm
Others: http://exmormonfoundation.org
http://ex-muslim.org.uk
A guy who lived in hard core sexually repressive Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&feature=plcp

---

More info:

letter to Scott Atran - regarding his debates with Sam Harris and his views on religious belief
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-scott-atran-regarding-his.html

Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"

Here's some additional thoughts of the recent thunerf00t thing and some further digging revealed the following on a conservative wiki site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_Elevatorgate_comments Dawkins' comments have been removed from PZ Myers' website but I found the above link.

I'm not a big fan of the wiki site referenced above but at least they've got some documentation about what has occurred in the past. I believe I do share the following key value with anti-authoritarian conservatives expressed by the following phrase: "Go F yourself and stop taking yourself so F'ing seriously." While the ideology test at www.politicalcompass.org shows that I am a left leaning anti-authoritarian, I do find shared value in this phrase that is basically an appropriate response to liberal authoritarians who want us all to be censored and suppressed apparently just as much as the conservative authoritarians do.

Go F yourself and stop taking yourself so F'ing seriously.

The above phrase really is quite useful. It can help us all improve our lives and the lives of others to a great extent. And frankly, the anti-male anti-normal-human-relations type rhetoric which is criticized on the following website also yields this reaction:

http://open.salon.com/blog/jason_m_wester/2011/07/12/rebecca_watsons_misguided_boycott_of_richard_dawkins

And here is a link to the crazed demented drivil from a woman who's got a number of skeptical undies in a bundle: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

But thankfully, in addition to thunderf00t's responses*, here's an appropriate response I found today:

http://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Rebecca_Watson&oldid=394926

And a very good video from the above site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QqU9JFbtucU#!

The phrase "don't sexualize me" by Ms. Watson reminds me of the anti-sex anti-normal-human-relations rhetoric from the book Miracle of Forgiveness, a book that draws a direct link between masturbators and murderers. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness book was and is used as a virtual bible in Mormonism to teach children to hate their own bodies as they are coming of age.

And similarly, this femist bullshit concept that naked women, or women in general shouldn't be "sexualised?" That sounds like the same abusive anti-human rhetoric I heard as a boy in the Mormon Church. And the response to such a request should be exactly the same as what I should be to the Mormon Church:

Teaching children to hate their own bodies is abusive.

And, so is asking that men & women "de-sexualize" their brains and the natural responses thereof as we open our eyes and look out on the world.

The knee-jerk reactions from some quarters of the "skeptical" community in response to Ms. Watson's pedantic bayings are as follows:

CFI (Center For Inquiry) announces an anti-discrimination policy:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/center_for_inquiry_announces_policy_on_hostile_conduct_harassment_at_confer/

And here's my response to CFI's overreaction:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/11017/P135/

*Some of thunderf00t's responses:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/skepchick-embrace-victim-hood/
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feminist-reduced-to-tears-by-t-shirt/
and more info is at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html

New Balance model 812 shoes: Blisters after only two days

Regarding the new model 812 New Balance shoes: I purchased the supposedly similar 811 model for many years. New Balance did away with the 811 model and has stated many times that their 812 model is a direct replacement. It is not. After only two 14 hours days of wearing a new pair of 812 model shoes I had blisters on the tops of both of my pinky toes. I stopped wearing the 812 model shoes and went back to an older 811 pair I happened to have. I cannot wear the 812 model shoes and will not wear them in the future. Only two 14 hours days of wear resulted in open blisters on my feet. The 811 model shoes never did this – and I have purchased many pairs of 811 shoes.

I called New Balance to report the open blisters on my feet. In response a supervisor called me back. He expressed tonal and verbal irritation that I had made an injury report in the first place. While it's true that New Balance has offered to replace the current pair of 812 shoes, they were also irritated that I called them to report product related injuries.

Left toe images:

 Right toe:

The 812 is not a replacement for the 811. The claims of New Balance in this regard are unfounded and damaging.

Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma

Here are two interesting videos I found on feminism:

Cristina Rad on feminism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqPG8Gvu5UU

Feminism and the disposable male:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Liberal dogma should be thought about and challenged just as much as conservative dogma is. Dogma is the problem. Maybe the truth will eventually overturn hysterical, frantic, and angry political correctness. Let's hope so.

New Balance 812: blisters after only two days

Regarding the following New Balance shoe: 812 - also known as the MW812 and MW812BK

I bought the supposedly similar 811 model for many years. New Balance did away with the 811 model and stated many times that the 812 was a direct replacement. It is not. After only two 14 hours days of wearing a new pair of 812 shoes I had blisters on the tops of both pinky toes. I went back to an older 811 pair I happened to have. Problem solved, for now. I cannot wear the 812 and will not wear it in the future. Avoid the 812. It is N-O-T a direct replacement for the 811. Beware. Rest in peace 811. We asked for your return, but New Balance has ignored all our requests.

------

An addendum to his article can be found by clicking here.

Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules

On the CFI forum here I just added the following post:

The workplace harassment classes and policies have made people afraid to engage in normal human relations at work. Extending those hysterical over-the-top fear-based policies to conferences is childish and petty in my view.

We could well draw up a huge list of things prohibited at conferences.

Simply use the following phrase template:

If you do XXXXXX to someone at our conference you will be ejected.

Here's some possible things you can plug into XXXXXX:

1. Showing your underpants to other conference participants.
2. Emitting a particularly smelly fart.
3. Doing more serious things which any reasonable police officer could arrest you for.

Some things REALLY DO go without saying. And saying them increases the amount of negativity in the air - at a conference.

The stuffy workplace is one thing. A conference is another. A conference is supposed to be a social gathering, N-O-T work.

I agree with the general French appraisal that American workplace sexual relation rules are insane. And it's also a bit crazy to have to spend one second putting into the face of conference goers this type of thing.

Go to a bar and expect drunk men to hit on you. End of story.

If you're an a-hole at a conference, maybe you'll be ejected.

Just simplify the policy to be "anti-a-hole." But if we phrased the policy like that I can easily think of one particular biologist who'd be banned immediately. And also so would the crazies who think we need to put into everyone's face this type of verbiage and text in the first place.

Speaking generally: Imposing your fears and insecurities onto other people as a matter of policy really is abusive. Not everyone is as uptight or as fearful as you are.

And no this doesn't apologize for behavior which is ACTUALLY illegal. If something illegal happens, call the cops. But conference organizers aren't our parents, nor are they cops.

The above are general comments based on general trends, and what I've been able to gather so far from the fuss.

My related post: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html

Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t

Remember the old days on the Internet, when we spent most of our time on Usenet and on certain older listserv's (email discussion groups)? And what of trolls? They certainly still exist.

Anyway a few years ago I discovered the blogs of a guy who has been increasing in prominence within the "atheist" community called P.Z. Myers. His blogs are at two locations apparently:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
The first one is more longstanding but the second one relates to a more recent spat online.

My long developed evaluation of Myers is that he tends to attempt to use science to justify his ultra-left-wing views. Maybe I share some of those views, but I also think that all of our views should be up for debate. And after reading a lot of Myers' blog posts online over the years and hearing him speak more recently, I've basically come to conclude that the guy is about 30 to 40% interesting and 60 to 70% like an a-hole who acts and talks like he has a big stinky thing up his rear end on a permanent basis.

I know some people like the guy, but to me he's acerbic in a non-useful way. Hitchens was acerbic in useful ways, but Myers often comes off as a petty retard - just my view. Hitchens was acerbic and smart. Myers is acerbic but usually is also often petty and inappropriately hostile. So this was my view before the more recent spat - see below...

Next, I heard about this show called the Magic Sandwich Show, and on that show there's this guy named thunderf00t (AKA Dr. Phil Mason, a chemist) who sometimes was on that show. I took no special interest in the guy other than that he seemed interesting when he spoke.

Next I found the following blog:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/07/pz-myers-apologizes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FypxUn+%28Debunking+Christianity%29
via looking on http://www.atheistblogs.co.uk/

So what's my reaction to this spat between two somewhat prominent web & video bloggers? I'm not surprised frankly. Dr. Mason (AKA thunerf00t) probably made a mistake to associate with Myers in the first place, because Myers has a long standing tradition of booting off detractors from his own blogs in rather petty ways. This has been going on for years now. So when Dr. Myers' virtual boot hit the virtual bum of Dr. Mason, where's the surprise? There is none. It's par for the course.

I'm all for having a crucible where people can discuss things openly. As long as personal threats are not made, people should be able to debate issues and disagree openly, even vociferously, in public forums - again as long as people can avoid threatening each other or wasting space with spam.

Anyway PZ Myers' actions in this case are par for the course. Thunerf00t AKA Dr. Mason should not have been surprised. He simply got treated the may Myers tends to treat everyone in his little corner of the Net.

There is a certain hysteria in the ivory tower of academics when it comes to hearing views which are critical of the ultra-liberal status quo - speaking and saying this as a liberal myself. Reference the work of Sam Harris & Steven Pinker on this front. Myers is apparently so closely tied to the quick-willingness to pounce on perceived detractors to the hysteria that he's willing to apply the same shallow tactics to people he invites onto his blog as to all the other people he's booted off of his blog over the years now.

So, in this debate I'd tend to stand with thunderf00t (Mason) as well. Mason can start his own blog and he has one. Myers really is part of the "old school" of Internet discussions, where you could routinely get your virtual head cut off for asking an otherwise innocent question. Myers has apparently spent so many years in a virtual sewer (partly of his own making) of Internet discussions that he is apparently unable to act in a non-petty and non-shallow way himself. Spend enough time shoveling crap and eventually you'll start to enjoy the smell. So anyway that's my view on all this. Who was "right" in this recent debate? Thunerf00t, yes. Myers, no. That's my vote.

Here's more videos on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G72r6rkSfU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6iGBEFMOHU

And related blogs: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/
http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.com/2012/06/pz-meyers-finds-bars-of-mass-harassment.html

No one wants to be abused. But I agree with Mason that when we're too vocal about there being a problem when the problem really is relatively small, then that means we're more hung up than needs be and detracting from other issues. We're also using an inappropriately broad brush and painting & tainting otherwise innocent people who really don't need to be treated like children.

If you don't want to be hit on my drunk men don't go to bars. End of story. No more needs to be said, and in my view atheist conference organizers do not need to treat attendeeds like they're guilty until proven innocent, nor like children.

People shouldn't be censored for speaking their mind, or shut down or shut out for saying what they think and feel.