Category Archives: crap
Suppose someone imagines himself to be a slug, rubs oil all over his body and rolls around all day in his backyard, comporting himself, basically, slug-like, and insists — no, demands — he be referred to by others with the pronoun ‘it’.
Suppose, too, that a powerful hive-mind (read: a group of bullies) had collectively suddenly decided that telling him he’s not actually a slug and is really a man is a jarring, unforgivable slight against all that is good in this world and can get one to not only lose his job but to also go down on his knees offering obsequious apologies and vows to reform.
Suppose, also, that the argument offered pro our subordination to this insane state-of-affairs — which, as it were, required we not only acted around the man as though he were a slug but that we also referred to him using the ‘proper pronouns’ and joined an irrational mob in demanding for others to do the same — is simply that, according to the man, he identifies as a slug.
Well, welcome.. to America. Where it’s said that reality can simply be felt into existence!
Courage used to be about doing things one rather not do but for which a moral imperative exists. It’s about doing things that need to be done despite all the disincentive involved. So why they award someone who did what he did for no one else and nothing else other than his own vanity, and who then thusly encourages others to do the same, is what the outrage is all about.
Caitlyn — no, Bruce– Jenner, does not deserve an award. Neither does he deserve recognition for mutilating himself into being someone he isn’t, nor can he rationally be said to be a ‘hero’. There isn’t anything courageous about what he’s done. In fact he’s made more money off of these recent shenanigans than most people would make had they had a hundred lives to live.
Body dysmorphia is a mental disorder. Bruce Jenner’s condition is a form of it. But somehow when it involves the genitals, you’ll get a powerful interest group backing you up who has the power to bully everyone else into accepting their narrative, and then suddenly it not only becomes kosher, it becomes something for which you can be said to have courage and be a hero about.
Society isn’t going down the toilet. It’s been in that fecal stew of ‘progressive’ irrationality for a few decades now. It’s only now that people are noticing the stink and calling it for what it is. And now, more than ever, one must pay zero attention to those who bully others with words like “intolerant” and “bigot” into accepting that that stink is the sweet smell of ‘progress’. One must refuse to be bullied into calling this shit they feed us caviar, since we damn well know it isn’t.
presciently foretold the coming of people like Bruce Jenner:
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other—until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” – Ayn Rand
For all her nauseating blowhardiness and philosophical ineptitude, she at least got a couple of things right. The tactic is really simple: defining yourself in terms of what you indulge in gives you warrant in taking any criticism of your behaviour as a personal affront. Anyone who disagrees with what you do can now be said to be an intolerant bigot. Because, by spinning the narrative as progressives are wont to do, what you do, or rather what you like doing, has magically now become who you are. We are reliably informed by ‘progressives’, however, that the exception is religion, where it’s possible to mock the idea and not the person. Sounds familiar, does it not?
Not that I give a rodent’s posterior about Dawkins, of course. He’s a guy who’s made a living out of peddling strawmen. And it’s more than a little befuddling that he doesn’t see the irony in accusing his critics of bullying when he has gone on record as saying that mocking and ridiculing the religious is an expedient way of convincing others that religion is bull-plop. But I am slightly bemused by the fact that it was not just a bit more than a moment ago when this guy served as the low-rent atheist’s template for rationality. He was voted one of Britain’s top intellectuals and was part of Time’s most influential list. Now though, he has, according to one influential atheist blogger, “been eaten by the brain parasites..”
Why is the world’s most famous anti-theist now being abruptly purged from the godless left’s pantheon? Well, because, for them, Dicky Dawkins is being insufficiently subordinate to the feminist cause. And behaviour like that simply won’t fly. I mean, how dare he tweet his support for Christina Summers who’s been vocally against ‘victim feminism’!
If you want another illustration of how feminists infiltrate movements and interest groups then inject their ideas and attempt to eliminate those who don’t fall in line, this Dawkinsian affair will be as good as any. They’ve done it to hollywood; they’ve done it to the comic book industry; they’ve done it to the occupy movement; they’re now doing it to science fiction writing and the video game industry. See, nowadays, you can’t just make a video game or write a novel or do anything else for that matter that’s enjoyable or will turn a profit, you’ll have to incorporate strong female characters, avoid sexist tropes and do a score of other things first, nevermind whether any of them had an iota of contextual sense — because feminist feelings. You’ll be well-advised — well advised! — to consider these feelings, which will be tricky considering ‘feelings’ is one thing they have in abundance, and anyone who’s been careless enough to offend them is a horrible, horrible, evil, potential-rapist, misogynist bastard who needs to check his privilege. Attempting to safely navigate through the minefield that is the feminist brain is also a fool’s errand, because they, day in and day out, trip themselves over looking for things to be outraged about. It’s true.
Equal rights, sure, sign me up, why the hell not. That’s how it should be. But that’s unfortunately not what today’s social justice warrioring feminists are about, despite all the effort on display trying to couch it in those terms — like what we saw in the recent platitudinous speech of one famous feminist. Oh no, no, gone are the old-school, ‘first wave’, equity feminists of the past who, like Christina Summers, were genuinely against inequality. Now, they’re more about hypersensitivity and manufacturing outrage by blowing things out of proportion so that others won’t escape noticing how such special snowflakes they are. In fact, here’s an example of them doing just that.
Remember Balloon Boy? Or the gay waitress who was given a rude “tip”? Or how about the gay couple whose garage was vandalized? Or the girl — whowuzit? — on whose face acid was recently thrown? (Actually, this may have happened a long while back.) Those were all hoaxes. Balloon Boy wasn’t on some stupid weather balloon. The gay waitress received nothing like the “tip” she claimed to have received (the asshole..). It’s true the gay couple’s garage was vandalized — by themselves! And the girl who claimed to have had acid thrown at her face in fact did it to herself for attention.
Pretty much like this latest sob-story, it seems. I thought it fishy that they’re claiming a scarred 3 year-old was asked to leave KFC because she is ‘scaring’ customers. That is just so unlikely to happen in real-life, and moreso in a place like KFC. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
It’s also mildly amusing that some commenters who’ve been pilloried at the comboxes of some news sites for expressing their suspicions about the whole thing are now having the last laugh.
Now, through the donations of some extremely gullible people, the grandma — and quite obviously the perpetrator of this hoax — is more than a hundred thousand dollars richer than she was a moment ago. I am downright annoyed by this.
If there’s any real victim here, it’s not the people who sent in donations — it serves them right losing a bit of money for being so gullible. Rather it’s the 3-year-old girl who is being used by a bunch of people who seem to have less than the required number of brain cells to make informed decisions.
While it’s normal for most families to have at least one member who is for all practical purposes considered the resident douchebag, it is rare, however, when ones inclusion to the category ‘douchebag’ itself (having done douchebaggery at such an epic scale) manages the almost impossible feat of adding insult to injury to the run-of-the-mill douchebag.
Joony (name has been altered — or, actually, maybe it hasn’t), is that guy; he’s a douchebag. Not just any ordinary douchebag, mind you; he’s the douchebag with which the douchebaggery of other douchebags simply pales in comparison.
Suprisingly — or, perhaps, unsurprisingly — Joony is a pastor. He claims to be the ‘best example’ of God’s love because (or so he alleges) he had such a shitty life and was able to turn it all around. Followed the light and shit. Of course it isn’t all shenanigans. But a lot of it in fact is:
It’s true that Joony, as a boy frollicking through life as it were, barely rose above the excremental because of drugs and the various assholery people are known to do under its influence. But while he likes to claim this was all daddy’s fault, the fact remains he has no one else but himself to blame. Daddy didn’t lay a finger on him any more than he needed.
He knows this. Anyone who has had the misfortune of knowing him and who has zero incentive in perpetuating the fraud knows this. The only actual question is whether he’ll admit this.
He won’t because one simply does not get to bible-thump, make self-righteous religious pronouncements and pastor like a boss if all one had going for oneself is that he were once an asshole who did drugs. If your daddy spanked you with wanton cruelty, however, then you’re the man who can tell people how to do shit. If you’ve endured beatings as a child, which presumably got your head all messed up as it were, then, obviously[!], it could’ve only been through divine intervention that you got straightened out! Hell, it would all have been nothing short of a bona fide miracle, and, thusly, confirmatory to all else that one is, like one probably keeps claiming, not only privy, but intimately so, to the word of the one true God!
“I’ve been there! I’ve turned it all around! Can you not see the tears in my eyes!? Can you not see the pain I’ve been through: beatings from daddy, drugs and shit! Therefore listen to me! I know shit! Oh.. and.. we’re having a second collection..”
It’s not like Joony-boy was delicately stretching the truth about his past, exaggerating here and there. Rather, he outright lied about it. Bearing false witness is low, sure, but bearing false witness and sullying the name of the man for whom you were everything for pastoral credibility is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
It’s also more than just a curious thing that this fraudulent (and flatulent) dim wit loves to subvert responses to his verbal attacks by pointing out how awesome his family is. And by ‘awesome’, he means he hasn’t left his wife. No, really, that’s what he means. It’s a strange thing because by gloating about something so galactically mundane, he actually succeeds in doing the opposite of what he intends. Which is to say, he tells us there isn’t in fact anything awesome about his wife. Surely it isn’t just me who thinks that if one always feels compelled to remind people one hasn’t left his wife, then perhaps it’s time that one does in fact leave her.
Lastly: it’s amusing, if not downright bizarre, that Joony only challenges people to a fight — and not just a ‘fight-fight’, but the full-contact MMA kind — after threatening to sue. That is the oddest thing. Is he not aware that thou who threatens violence whilst threatening to sue shall be referred to as ‘pussy-boy’?
Here’s the best piece about the Hitch’s, how shall we call it, ‘scholarly work’ that I’ve read thus far.
Unsurprisingly, Sam Harris, the Hitch’s fellow horseman, takes umbrage:
“I do not object to hard-hitting debate, but I do object to bad journalism and the malicious distortion of our views.[..] Personally, I will have nothing to do with Salon in the future–and I recommend that atheists and secularists who care about rational discourse boycott the website.”
Sam means he’d like for every atheist to boycott Salon because they espouse views that are opposed to his and because its writers are polemically capable of giving him ButtHurt and BadFeel. How’s that for “rational”.
While there’s been a lot of distortion of Sam’s views in recent memory, Sam seems to keep resorting to the claim that his views are being distorted whenever the bovine stink of said views are expressly pointed out.
Needless to say, the indignation over his views being distorted is also quite rich given he’s well known for distorting the views of others:
Let’s recall that, Of Scott Atran, Sam scathingly said:
“I have long struggled to understand how smart, well-educated liberals can fail to perceive the unique dangers of Islam. In The End of Faith, I argued that such people don’t know what it’s like to really believe in God or Paradise—and hence imagine that no one else actually does. The symptoms of this blindness can be quite shocking. For instance, I once ran into the anthropologist Scott Atran after he had delivered one of his preening and delusional lectures on the origins of jihadist terrorism. According to Atran, people who decapitate journalists, filmmakers, and aid workers to cries of “Alahu akbar!” or blow themselves up in crowds of innocents are led to misbehave this way not because of their deeply held beliefs about jihad and martyrdom but because of their experience of male bonding in soccer clubs and barbershops.”
Of course Sam wants us to think it absurd that Scott actually believes ‘soccer clubs’, ‘barber shops’ and the like are actual places of terrorist indoctrination. That would in fact be absurd. Only it isn’t what Scott actually meant. Not that anyone other than Sam needed the clarification, but Scott went on and gave it anyway, consquently showing us how Sam’s brand of silly rhetoric, as an approach to rational discourse, is only best suited to the playground:
“Sam Harris posted a recent blog about my views on Jihadis that is unbecoming of serious intellectual debate, if not ugly. He claims that I told him following a “preening and delusional lecture” that “no one [connected with suicide bombing] believes in paradise.” What I actually said to him (as I have to many others) was exactly what every leader of a jihadi group I interviewed told me, namely, that anyone seeking to become a martyr in order to obtain virgins in paradise would be rejected outright. I also said (and have written several articles and a book laying out the evidence) that although ideology is important, the best predictor (in the sense of a regression analysis) of willingness to commit an act of jihadi violence is if one belongs to an action-oriented social network, such as a neighborhood help group or even a sports team”
Of course, examples of Sam Harris “distorting” other people’s views abound. In fact most, if not all (especially The End Of Faith and Letters To A Christian Nation) his books are distortions of other people’s views. The rebuttal he lays out, if it could even be called as such, against the First Cause argument for God’s existence, even, is a distortion of the views of everyone through out history (Aquinas, Leibniz, William Craig, etc.) who’s used the argument.
Sam has mastered distorting people’s views while claiming they’re distorting his. But that is to be expected — in fact it’d be silly to expect more — from a man who makes stunningly stupid statements such as these:
“I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.”
Well, now, that just permeates all levels of stupid. Man’s intrinsic self-worth was a purely (mono)theistic “myth”, Sammy boy. You’d rather have zero religion than zero rape? Seriously?!
What’s more hopeless than a world that turns away from religion is a world that turns away from religion on the basis of Sam Harris’s arguments.
The problem with Dennett’s theory of consciousness is that it doesn’t exist. So committed is he to strong materialism that this is for him an axiom — the axiom — and therefore the starting point from which his conclusions are based. But the immateriality of subjective experience (consciousness) and therefore its irreducibility to mere brain stuff, however, is the big, pink, defecating elephant in the room that is, by Dennett, being largely ignored.
See, rather remarkably (if not incredulously), Dennett believes subjective experience — those inner feelings — can be fully accounted for by science in that anyone can, in principle, know what it’s like to be Dennett. Anyone can know exactly what it’s like to be Dennett. Dennett’s only advantage over anyone else in Dennett-knowledge is that he hangs around a lot with Dennett. In other words, the question of what it’s like to be you, or what it’s like to be a bat, say, can in principle be objectively accounted for if we had enough knowledge about the workings of the brain. This is all of course to be expected from someone who stridently believes there’s nothing for which science cannot in principle give a full account (subjective experience being no exception). Thusly, to Dennett, thinking and photosynthesis are different merely in degree and not in kind, as was (or still is) conventionally believed.
If the error isn’t clear still, to repeat: Dennett believes objective science can give us a complete picture of subjective experience. Acutely, we see the corollary of this seems to be that subjective experience cannot exist, since if it is something for which a full objective account can be given, than it is objective! In other words, to Dennett, consciousness or subjective experience doesn’t really exist!
Now, of course, this would be all well and fine if this were something for which he had any evidence. But he doesn’t. He just likes to say that materialism is true and therefore that’s how it must be; it goes against intuition that particles bouncing around can produce consciousness, but since we are both particles bouncing around and conscious, then particles bouncing around must somehow be able to produce consciousness. In fact, Dennett will push the bullet even further down his throat and say consciousness is the bouncing around of particles. Problem solved!
No. If anything, the problem becomes more confounded, for now he must deny consciousness exists, or at the very least say it’s an illusion (which would actually still be to say it doesn’t exist). But in so doing, he denies the reality of that which he started out trying to explain in the first place!
Religion tells us that sin is what justifies eternal punishment in the next life…this is, to my mind, the mother of all cultural war issues. This is where science really pulls the keystone out of religion.
If you recall the general picture, we’ve all inherited original sin because Adam and Eve misused their free will. And then for eons, God gave us no guidance whatsoever. And then he wrote a few uneven books that were filled with rumors of ancient miracles.
And then he holds us responsible for the slightest doubt we have about his existence on the basis of these books — though he has stacked the deck against us by giving us a faculty of reason and strangely, an ability to write better books than the ones he has supposedly written.
— Sam Harris, author of The End Of Faith and Letters To A Christian Nation.
(Although Sam must’ve said this particular tripe years ago, I just encountered it now — from nowhere else but Facebook, of all places. Of course, I’ve been able to read all sorts of garbage from Sam for many years now, so not that it matters.)
Although much can be said about it, let’s overlook for now, to keep ourselves from breaking out in hearty guffaws, Sam’s implication that his books are better than the bible.
The above quotation is a clear example of how far removed Sam Harris is from that which he continually devotes his attention to attacking. He peddles these strawmen of religion, waxes incredulous about how ridiculous they are, then he, as if he hasn’t shown enough dim wittery on the matter just yet, self-aggrandizingly calls himself a “bright” after so doing. Priding himself in his ‘reason’, however, is the big irony here that will unfortunately be lost on him as he keeps epically failing to see how understanding religion (Christianity in particular) is a requisite to having credibility in whatever offensive you’re mounting against it.
Sam, in this instance — in every instance he goes on about religion, actually — gets the Sunday school version and says “Oh! Look how silly that is!”
Of course it’s silly, Sam — almost anything will be once you oversimplify it in the way you have.
You know what else is silly, though?
You — that anyone is still actually listening to you.
Especially after you’ve, uh, rather moronically, suggested this in your book about people of religion: “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”.
Now that is silly.
You are aware that, using your logic, it would be entirely in keeping with your own ethical standards to kill you for believing it would be ethical to kill others for their belief, right? Right.