Shut up about shutting up.

Alright, well as always I seem to be a little late to the party with my blog topics, but since Mr. Lindsay (who I might add, sold a membership to CFI with his speech in regards to the "shut up and listen" meme) kindly opened the doors of battle on this one, I figured I'd wade on in.

The thrust of this post will be in regards to why having experienced something does not make you an expert in it, but I'd like to address a certain bit of hypocrisy first.

Anyone who has A) Complained that Richard Dawkins marginalizes sexual abuse because he is a man and B) Has not themself been physically sexually abused and C) Has ever uttered "shut up and listen". Get the fuck out of here now, you're a useless hypocrite and cannot be made to understand anything.

For the rest of you with half a brain, listen in and your might learn something, shutting up is optional, though shouting at the text might ruin your concentration.

There are two main problems with the typical boisterous idiot who shouts "shut up and listen" at people, wielding it as if it were some sort of club to smite one's foes with. I'll address each in turn, but they are firstly: The assumption that one's own experience allows one to speak for a group, and secondly; The fact that experiencing something does not magically grant any sort of insight on how to solve the cause of the problem.

So here is the big problem people don't seem to understand, when you speak about your experience about being underprivileged, regardless of how you come by that, you speak for no one but yourself. Let me drill that on into you, since so many people don't seem to understand this, you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for all women, or gays, or blacks or Latinos or poor people or the mentally disabled or amputees or any other group, underprivileged or otherwise, you speak for yourself.

Now if you mean to say "Shut up and listen to ME!" that's fine, but unless I consider you some sort of expert my response is going to involve me telling you to go fuck yourself. I guarentee I am better at shouting than you, and if you want to talk, you don't start by shouting at me to shut up. If something is new to me, I'll say so, and odds are at this stage in the game I've already talked to a dozen or more people on the subject before you. When you tell me to "shut up and listen" to the women about conference harassment policies, I already have. The fact that the other women say something that doesn't agree with your philosophy is tough nuts for you. The same goes for gays, minorities and so on.

Understand that when I disagree, or criticize, I am not criticizing your people, your race, your gender or anything else, it is your ideas and your presentation of them which I am criticizing. The fact that your people are oppressed, regardless of  whom they are, does not in any way make -YOU- automatically correct or above reproach. You can be gay/woman/man/white/black/purple and still be completely, fucking, wrong. Get it?

"You can't possibly understand Islamophobia (sexism/racism/homophobia etc.) since you aren't a muslim. (female/black/gay)"

Sound familiar? Enough said.

Onto the problem of expertise and experience. So, you've been in a position where you're underprivileged, you're discriminated against for no reason other then a factor your can't control. This sucks, I feel for you bro/sis. But does this grant you some magical power to understand how to fix the problem? It does not.

I'll give you an example I know how to work with. I've never disarmed someone with a knife in real life. Whether through coincidence or the fact that I avoid situations like that, I've managed to avoid ever facing a knife wielding opponent, maybe I need to get out more, I don't know. Regardless of this fact I've practiced many of these scenarios with rubber knives, and I teach some basic knife defenses (run if you can, and how to not get stabbed if running is not an option), when I run a self defense seminar (we practice with washable markers and white t-shirts to see how well we did, its actually fun as well as informative and potentially life saving.)  If someone came in, and showed me a knife scar, then told me that I shouldn't teach this because I have "never been knife attacked privilege" and that the best way to avoid knife attacks is to leap at your attacker, I would laugh him out of the room.

This is a bit unwieldy of a metaphor, but I think I've made the point, one can talk on a subject without having experienced it, and the fact that one has experienced something does not necessarily confer the knowledge of how to fix the cause. Lastly, be aware that me "shutting up and listening" to you, does not in any way make you except from critical thought or peer review afterwards. If your ideas can't stand up to criticism then you're just wasting everyone's time, whether we shut up or not, you wouldn't accept such nonsense from a christian, I won't accept it from you.

In dealing with the issue of talking about privileged persons, it's important to keep in mind a very important point, that issues of class/race/gender/creed etc. are extremely complex, so it is possible to disagree in good faith, and come to different conclusions as to what needs to be done. If there is a problem with a reasonable solution, we can address it, but on the other hand, if enough people from the group you claim to be speaking for don't agree with you on the nature of the problem, you might want to consider the fact that you're acting like a whiny entitled snowflake.  Bear in mind the solution might not be what you want, and there is an old saying that goes sort of like this "A good compromise leaves both sides pissed off and whining about privilege."

-Shadow
Stand up and Fight!

A Welfare Copypasta

Ok so this was a copypasta email I was sent the other day by my GF, it's in relation to welfare in texas, but I think there is some interesting stuff in there, and it's worth discussing. I'll post the content here verbatim and go over it, original email in black, my commentary in red.

Let's look at this motherfucker:


This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. 

Ok So the Lone star card is specific to Texas, but I would echo the sentiment. The specific choices of food are not particularly good. Change the selection of food. Canned tuna or cheap parts of chicken or ground beef or some other relatively cheap but real meat is required for proper protein intake, and there ought to be some canned vegetables in there too, cheese is pointless and expensive, cut it out. Make the rice brown, its healthier, and no one wants to eat it, thus it will encourage people to get a job to buy other food. There is no point in putting someone on foodstamps/cards etc. if its going to ruin them or cause medical issues through malnutrition, but steak and frozen junkfood shit aren't doing anyone any good, and that should be done on one's own dime.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

100% agree with the drug testing, I understand this is an "invasion of privacy", however, there would be an expectation that one waives that right in exchange for money. The tubal ligation is ridiculous, as that is an outdated and dangerous operation, but mandatory birth control seems quite reasonable. This would save both the state the money of paying for a child that the parents cannot afford, and the parents from dumping the welfare cycles onto another generation.
 
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

This part is probably my favorite part of the copypasta and the part I agree with most. when one is on government housing, one should understand that it is not a permanent home for anyone, it is a place for you to stay until you can afford one of your own, and it should be kept in proper condition for the next occupant. The military barracks might be a little over the top but not by much, part of the point is that it should be more comfortable to go out and find a job then it should be to stay on government assistance, otherwise why should anyone find a job?

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good..

Although I'm sure the highway cleaners union would complain, fuck them. If you're taking a government cheque, you do the work expected of you to earn that money. I would prefer to substitute this for some form of job that would give the applicant a marketable skill (IE, if you can't get a job today, then you are working towards being able to get one tomorrow), as I'm a firm believer in the "teach a man to fish" principle. If you have an objection to working, then you don't need to be taking everyone's money. The taking of pre-existing property is untenable though, and I do not agree with that part at all.

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self-esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem. 

I agree about the whole self-esteem thing, your self esteem is irrelevent, the country isn't heping you because your feelings are important, it's helping you so you can get back on your feet and get back to contributing to the society that has been taking care of you. It's meant be give and take, not take and take.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. 

Agreed, the system should be designed to make sure no one starves or freezes and prepares them to re-enter the working world. LArgely now all it does is prepare them to game the system.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

This part is ridiculous for two reasons, the first being that the right to vote, in America, Canada and many other places throughout the world, supersedes all others, without it one cannot have a representative government and this whole discussion is pointless, and secondly, everyone always votes in their own self interest, if this created a conflict of interest, no one could ever vote at any time.

All in all, I'm in support of a system that keeps people fed, clothed and with a roof over their heads. It shouldn't be comfortable, it should be uncomfortable but liveable, it should encourage people to get off it as soon as possible and prepare them to do so. We live in a world where we should have the empathy to say "I understand you're having a rough time, let's keep you and yours safe and fed until you can get back on your feet." We'll give you a ride, not a free ride, not an easy ride, but a ride none the less.

I might make a post later dealing with what my own recommendations for a welfare system would be, (not that anyone cares), but we'll see.


-Shadow
Stand up and fight!  

You got your atheism in my skepticism

So ladies and gents, there has been a lot of talk online lately in the skeptic and atheist "communities" about the overlap between atheism and skepticism, especially where it relates to conferences, gatherings, pow-wows, group huddles and the like. So here is my 5 cents on the issues. (We retired the penny in Canada, so you get the whole 5 cents, suck it down.)

Atheism, in and of itself, is either a belief (there is no god(s)), or the denial of a proposition (I do not believe in your god(s), there is not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that a god(s) exists). In and of itself, this is no kind of reason to hold a conference, unless your goal is to hold a big ole mixer for non-believers, and although I'm as big a fan of blasphemous keg-stands as the next guy, this is about as useful as a tit on a bull in the grand scheme of things.

Although one could hold an atheist church meet, where everyone gets up and testifies about when and how they discovered there was no god, and we all read pages from the god delusion and god is not great, insult and talk bad about the believers, most of us want to leave the cult like aspects of religion behind, and so this doesn't happen either, ridiculous attempts at "Atheist congregations" non withstanding.

Therefore atheism conferences tend to focus on one of two things, firstly secularism, and how Atheists of various types can make their way in society, especially in societies which are largely religious. This is a noble goal in and of itself, but not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

The second focus is skepticism and critical thinking, and this is what I'd like to bitch about today. Skepticism in the end, is a methodology and a way of thinking, the attitude that all things need to be questioned, to get at the proverbial why and how. It's close friend, critical thinking, specifically the examination of why we think and believe the way we do, teams up with the former to become the gateway most of us take on our journey to atheism or at the very least agnosticism. The reason being, that if you didn't come to atheism by way of skepticism, then you are really just a believer, or the kind of person who makes atheism into it's own "religion". One can become an atheist simply because one's parents are, but this type of atheist is not necessarily skeptical.

When applied to religious beliefs the only end of the road for skeptics and critical thinkers is either weak or strong atheism, yes this is an assertion, others have proved it better then I, but suffice it to say, if you are still a believer in the bible, or the koran, or the baghavad gita etc. Then you either have not applied your skepticism to your beliefs or you have admitted to yourself that this is just a bunch of stuff someone wrote down and you're going to believe it despite the parts that don't jive with reality.

Skepticism is the opposite of faith, and this is where the overlap of atheism and skepticism comes into play. Atheists by and large reject the notion of believing in something without cause to do so, and with the exception of the "true believer" atheists, we came to this result through a skeptical approach. So that all being said, the reason why the atheists seem to want to take over skeptic conferences is simple, they already have. Skepticism applied to religious belief results in atheism, either the weak or the strong kind, so when believers come up on stage to proclaim that bigfoot, or UFOs, or the lizard people don't exist, it looks to everyone in the audience to be the pot calling the kettle black. I'm all for people believing in whatever they want, but you can't be a skeptic, a critical thinker and one of the faithful at the same time, some things are mutually exclusive. A psychic with a the tarot deck disproving bigfoot is not any more ridiculous than a bible thumping christian disproving el chupacabra.

This is why there is an overlap, and why so many atheism conferences deal with skepticism, because the spreading of skepticism means the spreading of atheism, that's not going to change. If you want to have a bunch of believers come to your conference, have at it, as far as I'm aware all atheist conferences welcome the faithful as long as they are well behaved, I see no reason why this shouldn't be true of skeptic conferences regardless of how many atheists show up. But don't throw someone who believes in an invisible sky wizard up in front of a bunch of skeptics and expect us to take him at face value, that wouldn't be very skeptical would it?


-Shadow
Stand up and fight!

Pledge of Allegiance

Atheism+

 I hereby pledge to listen to and believe anything any woman says. Unless they disagree with the feminist du jour, in which case I pledge to claim they are a gender traitor and sister punisher or chill girl. I pledge to protect the special snowflakes at all costs, and let none of them melt, nor be melted upon upon my watch. I pledge to fight in the Social Justice Wars(TM) and to lay down my life, and my privilege for all the white middle class women with college degrees and internet access. I pledge to never ask a woman for coffee on an elevator, or off an elevator, or even at all, lest I potentially rape her, like Schrodinger did. I pledge to show that "morals and values" are a part of atheism, and not simply an individual trait, because this is not something atheists have argued with Christians about for decades, no sir it's not. I pledge to denounce the evils of gnu-atheism, and the evil rich white old men who dare to write books about it. I pledge to never stalk, nor harass any woman online, by such means as reading their blog or twitter, or politely disagreeing with their opinion. I pledge to agree and unquestioningly accept the tenets of feminism, of all varieties , because just like Christianity, all the different denominations agree on all the same central tenets and all of these are true. I pledge to knell before P-zod, for he gave up his credibility to redeem us of our sins. And also I think there is something about not believing in a god.

Atheism

I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support the premise that a god or gods exist. Also why do I need a pledge?

H+S Stuff

So after a break from blogging for a while, I've decided to weigh in on some general shit you all ought to know about the gym and health+fitness in general. This is not going to be a typical "wipe down your machine after use" type blog (though seriously, wipe down your shit.) I'm going to avoid the type of thing that will be posted on the gym wall and focus on some unwritten rules and miscellaneous information that you should be aware of. Without further ado, here we go.

Working in  

Everyone ought to know that you should let people work in between your sets, however when approaching a machine or piece of equipment, consider the following before asking to work in.

• Are there already 3 or more people on the equipment, if so, do not ask to work in, even if they let you, it means you are slowing everyone elses workout down at this point
• Do you need to remove more then one set of plates from each side of the bar? If so do not ask to work in, not only will you embarrass yourself, but you are needlessly slowing down everyone else's workout
• Are you going to add more then a set of plates to each side? If so do not work in, not only will you embarrass whomever is already lifting, but you're slowing down their workout, and nobody is impressed.
• If you are working in, work in as soon as the previous person is finished, having a long conversation while holding up everyone else makes you an asshole, no matter how well little Jimmy did on his math test. (Not even the guy you're talking to cares)

Time and place 

Some things are appropriate in a gym, and some are not, some of these I really shouldn't have to post here, but here we go anyhow.

• Staring at the hot trainers and gym rats is not nice, even the ones who look like they're dressed to be stared at probably just do it to stay cool.
• That being said, gym rats, don't encourage this, if it's not that type of gym (and you'll know the moment you step in), then do not wear nothing but hotpants and a sportsbra (ladies) or the least possible amount of thread which counts as a shirt (gentlemen). This only encourages the gawkers, and none of the ones gawking are the ones you want to gawk at you, trust me on this.
• Fucking in the hot tub, not sanitary or appropriate, same goes for fapping. Doing either in the sauna is both unsanitary and life threatening. Either will get you barred from the gym.
• Crossfitters, unless you are in a crossfit gym, keep your douchebaggery to yourselves. Dropping weights is something you do to save your life, not to show off, if you can safely set it down, set it down. Unnecessary grunting, screaming and shirt removal doesn't impress anyone in a real gym, though it gives most of us a good laugh.
• The above mentioned line applies to all douchebags, not just those who wear it like a brand.
• Do not mock your fellow members technique, unless they're obviously a crossfitter, even then it's fair more productive to offer a helping hand or tip, you might even make a difference for someone.
• The gym is not a singles bar. In the words of the most interesting man in the world; "There is a time and place for pickup lines, the time is never, I'll let you figure out the place on your own."

Personal Training

Some helpful tips about trainers and how we work from a longtime member of the profession.

• Most trainers will be happy to assist you with technique or a spot, provided we are not currently with a client. Our clients pay between $50 and $100 (sometimes more) per hour to train with us, and any trainer worth their salt gives the client their undivided attention for that hour.
• Yes, I will gladly offer you a free hour to do an assessment. Yes, this means you get to sit through a 5 minute sales pitch at the end. I bill myself out at $75 per hour, and I guarantee I'm worth every penny. If you don't think $68 dollars of free training and education is worth 5 minutes of your time, then don't sign up for it, and don't complain.
• Yes I will try and sell you a long term training plan after the assessment, yes it's the best way to reach your goals, no I'm not just selling it to you to drum up business (Some trainers do this, I'm not one of them). Bad clients are bad for business, and I won't take you on if you're not going to benefit.
• No I won't take you on as a client if you won't get results or I think you're a bad fit. I have integrity that way (some trainers don't). If I cant help you or don't think we'll work, I'll happily refer you to someone who can.
• Yes I understand the only time you can train is 530 PM, no, the 5 person waiting list for that spot is not going away.
• I understand $75 per hour is expensive, that's the rate I have to bill at to cover expenses, gym fees, insurance, equipment and have enough left over to feed and clothe myself without taking on 15 clients a day. The internet is free, and fitness magazines are cheap, just remember you get what you pay for.

Nutrition

Ahh food, OMNOMNOMNOM

• Yes It's important, Yes I can help you with it, Yes most of what you read in newspapers is wrong.
• Protein is indeed important , however odds are that the MEGASUPERWHEYMUSCLEDRINK V3.45 you bought from GNC is only going to make you fatter.
• Unless you are a pro (meaning someone is paying you, and this person is not your mom) bodybuilder, model, athlete or similar, odds are you do not need any supplements other then basic vitamins, yes there are a ton of great things that come in bottles out there, but for most, it's about cutting thins out of your diet, not adding them in.
• Unless of course it's green vegetables, just about everyone needs more of those.
• Second most unhealthy thing you can do in terms of diet? Vegetarianism. Least Healthy? Veganism. Do your research people, neither of these ideologies is either moral or healthy.
• Cutting out the following: breads, rice and pasta, is a good dietary choice for almost everyone.
• The food pyramid is full of shit, it was made by the food industry lobbyists, not health or medical professionals.

That's about it for now, There's lots more, perhaps I'll do another of these posts in the future. Anyone interested in more health and fitness info or has any comments, shoot me a message or comment.


Have a nice day'


-Shadow
Stand up and Fight!

Freedom of Speech vs The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So, there has been a whole lot of talk on the twitterotubesphere lately regarding the freedom of speech and what constitutes a breach of it, and a big part of the problem seem to be that one side (I won't say which) seems to be mixing up the 1st amendment of the united states constitution and the concept of "free speech".

Now I'll get this out of the bag, this post is directed towards Matt Dillahunty, a man whom I have had great respect for, and continue to have a lot of respect for, and his recent exchanges with Thunderf00t, a man who I don't always agree with (seems like I do less and less these days), but tend to agree very vehemently with when I do. I know Matt (or anyone else), won't likely read this, but if you do, please have a listen, as this is a point I think he's got right and you have wrong.

The 1st Amendment is as follows (from Wikipedia).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This fantastic bit of text is possibly the greatest part of any document in the world, and one of the prime principles of one of the greatest nations in history, the lack of similar in many countries being the cause of tremendous strife and pain. And no one, not one single person I have seen is accusing anyone of violating this, if it were true, you would be in front of the supreme court for judgement, and not the judgement of your internet fans and peers. But why then, do people complain?

The answer is thus; there is an idea, a concept, a thought, called "free speech",  and the first amendment was designed to protect that concept. Without this, skepticism cannot truly exist, because without the ability to speak and discuss ideas freely and openly, without the ability to question without fear of suppression, bullying and censorship, ideas cannot be truly debated on their merits.

So how does this relate to you, well in two videos of yours, you have come out with shameless support of censorship, on two separate levels, not censorship in violation of the 2nd amendment, but censorship of ideas, I will link both videos below for context, and go over each point individually.

For the record, I am not arguing with the points on feminism in the first video, those points can be discussed in other blog posts, I am merely addressing the free speech issues, anyone reading this who has not seen both videos should watch both now.

So lets start out on the bit about PZ blocking comments on youtube videos, (and really, this applies to the whole FTB crew, the twitterati, the youtubers and paranoid pre-emptive blockers like Melody Hensley and Greg Laden.) But you specifically mentioned PZ, so we'll stick with that.

When you post a public video on youtube, you are stepping into the public square and shouting out your ideas for the world to hear. Or possibly making a hand puppet remix of Gangnam Style. But we'll stick to cases of the former. In the very spirit of free thought, once an idea is out there, the people will discuss it, debate it's merits and flaws, and decide whether to adopt it for themselves and propagate it, or reject it and move on to other ideas. Youtube may infuse this process with an unhealthy dash of trolling and foul language, but in the end, people who agree will like the video and share with friend, or debate it in the comments, but the idea will receive discussion and debate and hopefully both the viewers and video maker learn something.

When PZ Myers disabled comments on his youtube videos, he was well within his rights to do so, he did not violate the constitution in any way, but what he did was turn himself into one of those street preachers who bellows into a megaphone from the corner, hands out pamphlets and ignores anything anyone has to say to them. He's said to the masses "THESE ARE MY IDEAS, THEY ARE FACT AND YOU MAY NOT DEBATE OR DISCUSS THEM!". "But wait!" You say, "PZ allows commenting on his site.". Indeed this is true, so now, you get to go to the street preacher's house to discuss his ideas, where he has in fact outright stated that he will ban anyone who has ever posted in a site he doesn't approve of.

I hope you've had conversations with him about this Matt, and not pleasant ones, ones that involve the words "IT'S FUCKING CENSORSHIP!", in that order. The fact is, these are creationist tactics, you may not have hung around youtube long enough to be familiar with VFX, Yokeup and their ilk, but this is what people who are too scared to face criticism do. If your ideas are sound, then they will stand up to both the opposition and the mightiest of trolls, only those who fear the fallibility of their ideas (or in cases o the world where free speech is not permitted, the reprisal of the government and law) will not subject them to public scrutiny.

He may have the right to block these comments on youtube, and the internet, and anyone not on it, has the right to call him a censorious coward for doing so, because that's exactly what he is.

If I am to receive a medication, I prefer it to be one that was tested in clinical trails and peer reviewed before being used on me, and not something that the chemist only tested within his own basement, because he was afraid of opposing ideas or trolls. The process f discussion and debate, much like peer review, is far from perfect, but is a far cry better then "I said it, take my word for it, no discussion allowed."

Now onto your suggestion that conferences are private events and are not subject to free speech laws. Firstly, see above, and secondly, since when does "it doesn't violate the letter of the law" have anything to do with "is it true" or even "is it right." If you want to suppress clothing you find offensive, for -ANY- reason, then you are violating free expression, and when you ban speech that creates a "sexualized environment" you are suppressing free speech, and doing it while at the same time allowing presenters to make sexualized jokes on stage, is suppressing free speech in a hypocritical manor. (It's OK when "the Party" does it, right?).

All you are doing with these videos Matt, is proudly proclaiming to the world; "I've destroyed the concept that the first amendment protects, and there is nothing you can do to stop me! BWAHAHAHA!".

Its not illegal, but I don't agree with it, lots of people don't agree with it, and even if you don't do it yourself as much as Thunderf00t suggests, you are outspoken in the support of suppression of free speech. The fact that you didn't violate the constitution while doing do doesn't put you in the right, it only makes you the asshole who got away with murdering free speech.

Have a nice day.


-Shadow
Stand up and fight!

 

PZ Myers is the new Godwin

Well shit, here we go again, I was about to lay off the whole atheism blogosphere bullshit scheme and make a nice post about gym etiquette, when someone, the baboon pope himself, general P-zod, comes out and makes a post so ridiculous, it makes those fuckwits in the discovery institute seem like a bunch of rocket scientists by comparison. I am going to quote the rage inducing paragraph in it's entirety for context's sake.

"I remember following the events of that day intently, horrified that there are people who will kill women simply because they are women. And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice."
-P.Z. Myers,  post entitled "Never Forget" from Pharyngula Dec 6. 2012.

For the full context, go to his site and read the article, I refuse to link it here. PZ is referring to the Montreal massacre, in which Marc Lepine murdered 14 women and injured another 14 women and four men before committing suicide.

I've seen a bunch of articles explaining this due to various factors, including abuse from his father, mental disorders and various other factors and I want to make something clear; none of that matters. This was a heinous act committed by a monster. He did it because he hated women, why he hated women is not relevant, but it's clear that he did, and is about as pure a form of misogynist as you will ever find. Period.

That doesn't excuse your bullshit PZ. When you spout shit like this, you not only make no sense, but it calls into doubt any of the words you've spouted from your mouth ever. "DISSENTERS ARE THE ENEMY! ANYONE WHO INSULTS MY CAUSE IS A SERIAL KILLER IN DISGUISE!" Do you read this shit before you post it?

Even if I granted that your brand of feminism is right, it wouldn't excuse that in the slightest, not even close. I'm curious if you think that these people are actually serial killers too cowardly to kill, or if you just equate them all the same. Lets take a look at both options, though it's hard to see which one make you look more like the recent victim of a lobotomy.

Option A - PZ is suggesting that anyone who disagrees with his ideology, insults him or uses any terms he deems misogynistic is actually a serial killer, they're just too cowardly to kill anyone.

By this logic, rock n roll causes devil worship, video games cause violence and saying "mangina" makes you a serial killer. Have you been drinking with Tipper Gore and Patricia Pulling lately? This has been proven to be bullshit so many times over the last 30 years you could fertilize a field with it. I give you credit for still having a little bit of brains left in you, so lets move on to option b.

Option B - PZ believes (or believes enough to state on his blog) that disagreement with his cause, or the insult of it, is worthy of as much scorn as a mass murderer.

This at first seems to be the more reasonable option, as instead of making PZ look like he escaped from the local loony bin, it just makes him look like a jackass, but I would argue, it's even less so. Do you really think grade-school level insults are on the same level as multiple homicide? Is an offhand remark worth life in prison as per murder or would you just rather see people "re-educated"? Tell me have you instituted the two minutes hate against your Emmanuel Goldstein / Marc Lepine?

Despite all the nonsense over the past few months, I hadn't lost all respect for you yet, I disagreed with the particular brand of feminism you exposed, there are problems that need to be fixed, it was more a disagreement on the methods of doing so. (Blog post on this coming, I suppose). But you crossed the line, you're an extremest in every sense of the word, just like the jihadis and kamakazi, and while by your logic you've not got the courage to actually suicide bomb an MRA meeting, you've kamikazi'd yourself out of any relevance on the internet.

Insulting a woman isn't the same as killing one, even straight up hating a woman isn't the same as killing one. There are a fair few people I don't like, I'm sure as hell not going to kill any of them. Saying "mangina" or "cunt" or "twat" doesn't kill anyone, it doesn't encourage anyone to kill anyone, it doesn't condone killing anyone. Saying that it does, however, does indeed make you an idiot.

I'll leave with my proposition for a new word for the internet - "Pzodding" - The act of losing an argument and all respectability instantly due to comparing people who a) disagree with you or b) use terms you deem as offensive, to serial killers.

-Shadow
Stand Up and Fight