We know affirmative action is a bad thing, right? At least we keep being told so. “People must be selected on merit, not having the right genitalia.”

What about negative action? Is that a bad thing?

Like that applied to Jenny Collier for example?

Haslemere Thursday 15th May – cancelled

7 March 2014 17:32

Hi Jenny

I’m really sorry but the venue has decided they don’t want too many women on the bill and unfortunately we need to take you out of this one. We hope that this doesn’t cause any inconvenience.

Oh no, of course it doesn’t. How could it possibly cause any inconvenience to be “taken out” of a gig you were scheduled to do, on the grounds that the venue doesn’t want “too many” of you pesky women?

No, it’s totally understandable. Don’t forget: women aren’t funny.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another shrewd bit of ad-targeting on Facebook. Yes, I will certainly find this persuasive:

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Sikivu Hutchinson tells an important story at Religion Dispatches.

On Sunday morning I went to a church service for the first time in decades.

I was there as a community member to support Pastor Seth Pickens of Zion Hill Baptist church in South Los Angeles. A few days before, I’d received an urgent plea from Teka-Lark Fleming, publisher of the local Morningside Park Chronicle newspaper, encouraging progressive black folk to show up at Zion Hill in support of Seth’s pro-LGBTQ stance.

After publishing a column entitled “The 10 Reasons I Love LGBTQ folk” in Fleming’s paper, Pickens came under fire from church officials.  The controversy erupted on the heels of internal criticism he’d received for performing a marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple last year.

Well yes; that would be a compelling reason to go to a church service.

The controversy at Zion Hill is emblematic of a national climate in which traditional black churches are increasingly being challenged on their homophobic policies. Nonetheless, the rhetoric that homosexuality is a white European phenomenon artificially imposed on African descent peoples is still a recurring theme in some black churches. Recently the ATLAH church in Harlem made headlines for a viciously homophobic marquee sign equating homosexuality with whiteness. And terrorist anti-gay legislation in Uganda and Nigeria (sparked and endorsed in no small part by the anti-gay crusades of white American evangelicals) has heightened the stereotype that both African and African descent people are inherently more homophobic than other groups.

Leo Igwe and Yemisi Ilesanmi have both written about this “homosexuality is un-African” bullshit. Props to Sikivu for doing what she can to support Pastor Seth Pickens.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

If there’s a thing too ridiculous and hostile and contemptuous to be said, you can be sure there will be people to say it. On Reddit. To be passed on by Manboobz.

Her choice in clothing didn’t expose what he took a picture of to the public. He didn’t take a picture of her shins or her knees, he took a picture of the section of her that was under the skirt. It’s exposed to the sidewalk and the floor, but it’s not exposed to the public.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Massachusetts legislature fixed that particular omission.

Massachusetts lawmakers Thursday passed a bill banning “upskirting” in response to a ruling by the state’s highest court that said a law aimed at criminalizing voyeurism did not apply to the snapping of secret photos up a woman’s skirt.

The bill now goes to Gov. Deval Patrick, who has publicly committed to signing it, his office said Thursday.

The bill would make photographing or recording video under a person’s clothing illegal, according to a statement from the office of Senate President Therese Murray.

Good. Thank you.

By the way…Is it illegal in Massachusetts (and all the other states) to, for instance, drill a hole in a neighbor’s wall to insert a tiny camera for the purpose of spying on them? Is that covered by the law aimed at criminalizing voyeurism?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

It creeps me out to do this because it’s so me me me but Melody says it helps so I’m doing it anyway. If you’re planning to go to Women in Secularism 3 but haven’t gotten around to registering you should do it today if you want the chance to win a signed copy of Why Truth Matters.

Register here.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A very important thing, that I did not know about: the white man march.

If you go to the home page you will see a photo of four of the whitest white people anyone ever saw. They are dazzlingly white; whitely white white. They are posed as a family group but who knows if they are really a family. They could just be the four people who won the contest in each of four divisions:

• whitest little girl
• whitest little boy
• whitest woman
• whitest man

There’s an explanation or FAQ page for people who wonder what the white man march is all about.

The White Man March is scheduled for March 15th, 2014, and will involve coordinated pro-white activity around the world. The purpose is to spread information through activism, but also to make a statement that White people are united in their love for their race and in their opposition to its destruction.

Non-white groups such as La Raza have monthly marches and gatherings with many thousands of participants, while groups advocating for White interests remain relatively silent or hidden from the public. One of the major goals of the White Man March is to demonstrate that pro-White people are able to form a unified front and participate in large-scale action simultaneously, which will send a powerful message to our supporters, our enemies, and those of our race who are still on the fence. We also seek to set a precedent that other pro-white organizations can follow in the future.

Where’s the part about why it’s a white MAN march?

I guess that’s just taken for granted, because why would women be included? Crazy idea, amirite?

3. What are the main political and cultural statements you are hoping to make with the White Man March?

We are planning to show that White people are organized and impassioned, that we know what the anti-white agenda is all about, and that we are dedicated to waking up as many of our folk as possible. We will make it clear that we will not sit idly by as our race is discriminated against, mocked, displaced, and violently attacked, all of which amount to white genocide, according to the United Nation’s own definition of genocide. This is why one of our big messages, which will be displayed on many large banners, is “DIVERSITY” = WHITE GENOCIDE. These banners will spread the message to the public at large in the most effective way possible. This “diversity” agenda is being directed at white countries (and only at white countries) with various programs to ensure that there are less white people at schools and in the work force, which is unfair and discriminatory, taking away money and opportunities from the indigenous white people. “Diversity” is a codeword for White Genocide.

The indigenous white people. This is an American group, a US group, and this guy thinks white people are indigenous here. Oy

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by mildlymagnificent on Or even another Tosh.

My own feeling about the far too many self titled skeptics that I deal with online is that they’ve not really learned to be appropriately skeptical. The first and most important lesson for a real skeptic is to acknowledge that it is no longer possible, if it ever really was, to be a “renaissance man” or a fully rounded autodidact.

There really is a limit to how much of the available knowledge and skill in any given topic a non-expert can acquire. So the first responsibility of being skeptical is as accurate an assessment as possible of one’s own expertise.It really doesn’t matter how clever you are or whether you’ve acquired advanced qualifications of various sorts. Knowing everything is just not possible and you mustn’t let yourself fall into the trap of thinking you can know everything.

To be thoroughly and conscientiously skeptical, you have to develop the skill needed to judge the value of the baying hordes of people claiming expertise in all sorts of areas. If you prefer to say that you can’t venture an opinion until you’ve worked whatever it is out for yourself, then you’re abrogating your responsibility to stick with properly evidenced positions. You simply cannot check all the work of all the astronomers and microbiologists and road builders and physicists and veterinarians and sociologists and epidemiologists and car mechanics and agricultural hydrographers and your own doctors, you have to pick and choose.

It’s how well you pick and choose the experts you will listen to and how you go about judging the quality of the evidence you rely on that makes you properly skeptical. Not a cynical dismissive waving away of everything you’ve not seen with your own eyes or worked out for yourself from first principles. That’s not skeptical. That’s being arrogant or suspicious or untrusting or fearful or some mixture of any of those.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So, it’s International Women’s Day on Saturday. Well how fucked up is that, am I right? When is it ever International Men’s Day? When is it Rich People’s Day? White People’s Day? Straight People’s Day? Are we not all human beings???

Fortunately, the president of the Humanist Society of South Australia, Justin Millikan, is on the case. He posted a super-appropriate item on the HSSA page to make this very point. What super-appropriate item is that? A link to an article with the brilliantly aphoristic and wise title:

It is about humanism, not simply feminism

Oh, yes; thank god somebody said that at last. The hell with all this feminism and anti-racism and anti-colonialism and gay rights, the hell with anti-poverty campaigns and affirmative action for dalits and First Nations and indigenous Australians; it is about humanism, period.

Elle Hardy writes:

It is assumed that all women want equality, when many of us simply want opportunity. Indeed there are many of us who stridently oppose quotas, and who believe the merit of the individual should be the sole determinant of success.

Damn, why didn’t I think of that? How stupid of me to think genitalia or skin color or country of origin should be the sole determinant of success.

Except I didn’t think that. What I did think is that the merit of the individual is already not the sole determinant of success, it’s just that people like to assume or pretend it is when in fact other factors play a part in whose “merit” gets evaluated at all. There are filters on who gets called for an interview that are not labeled “merit” but rather things like “similar to me” and “the kind I want to have lunch with” and “the type we are used to seeing in jobs like this” and “looks right for the part” and “seems authoritative and tough.”

Opportunity for women in our country is generally not lacking. We are no longer institutionally subordinated. To phrase it more crisply: one is far better served by being a white female than a black male in Australia.

Er…that’s not the relevant comparison. Is one far better served by being a white female than a white male in Australia? Is one far better served by being a black female than a black male in Australia? Those are the relevant comparisons if you’re trying to claim that women are treated equally or even better.

A couple of women on the HSSA page handed Justin Millikan his head. It’s too bad one of them isn’t president instead of him.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

An eyewitness tells us in a comment that some of the people at Lev Tahor have fled.

I live less than a kilometre from this group’s houses (I can see them from my backyard across the cornfield) and in the country news travels fast… My neighbour called this afternoon to say that seven cop cars were blocking the entrance to the housing units.

It seems these persecuted families are on the move again…. The Chatham Daily News is now reporting that the 13 children who were due to be taken into protective care today and their parents have now fled to the Caribbean to frustrate justice AGAIN.

Before I saw that comment I saw an email from a reader with a link to the CBC reporting the same thing, along with the news that it looks as if the attempt to frustrate justice will fail. It looks as if they will be sent back to Toronto.

Some members of Lev Tahor, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect from Quebec that fled to a town near Windsor, Ont., last November, have apparently flown the coop again, this time to Trinidad and Tobago, where their journey has been halted.

Immigration authorities said the sect members were in transit to Guatemala, but officials in Trinidad and Tobago have prevented the members from flying to Central America after the authorities allegedly found some inconsistencies in their responses.

Well done, officials in Trinidad and Tobago.

Members of Lev Tahor arrived at Piarco International Airport Monday and have refused to leave, an immigration officer at the airport told CBC News.

The members are not being detained as fugitives.

A spokeswoman with Trinidad and Tobago’s Ministry of National Security said the group was offered hotel accommodations, but the sect members refused.

She said sect spokesman Avraham Dinkel has continued to negotiate with local authorities to travel on to Guatemala and not return to Canada.

A statement released Wednesday by Trinidad’s Ministry of National Security said, ”the Immigration Services have been advised to pursue the decision of having the group return to their port of origin,” which is Toronto.

Very good.

The flight south comes as two families were scheduled to appear in a Chatham-Kent, Ont., court today to learn the result of their appeal of an earlier court judgment that demanded the children be returned to Quebec and placed in foster care.

Stephen Doig of Chatham-Kent Children’s Services said his agency has alerted sister agencies with offices along the Canada-U.S. border after the families in southern Ontario could not be found at their homes.

So that will be the seven cop cars our commenter’s neighbor saw.

Last month, an Ontario judge upheld a Quebec ruling ordering 13 children in the Lev Tahor sect to be surrendered to child welfare authorities. After being denied an appeal by a Quebec court, the group issued a request for appeal to an Ontario court.

This came after the Quebec and Ontario provincial police forces raided the Lev Tahor homes in Chatham.

Quebec’s Youth Protection Services alleged in court that children living in the sect were medicated with melatonin to control their behaviour, couldn’t do basic math and were married off as young as 14.

Protect those youths.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

WHAT????

CNN reports the Massachusetts Supreme Court says upskirt photography is legal.

Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person’s clothing — a practice known as “upskirting” — prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

Unnnnnnnh? Yes they were – under their clothes, they were stark naked. Remember that book title – Naked Under My Clothes? It was a joke, but – yes, if someone shoves a camera down your pants, you’re naked, which is why the someone shoved the camera down there. It’s the same with upskirt.

The ruling stems from the case against Michael Robertson, 32, who was arrested in 2010 and accused of using his cell phone to take pictures and record video up the skirts and dresses of women on the trolley, according to court documents.

Two separate complaints were filed against Robertson with the transit police. Authorities then staged “a decoy operation” to catch Robertson, who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity. Police observed him point a cell phone video camera up the dress of a female officer, court documents state.

Secretly – key word there. If the women wanted guys photographing their crotches, they would leave the skirt at home, or they would just invite guys to shove cameras up their skirts. When the aspiring photographers do it secretly, it’s a safe bet the women didn’t want them doing that.

Prosecutors had argued that the current statute, which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is “nude or partially nude,” includes upskirting, according to documents.

But Robertson’s lawyers that the female passenger on the trolley was not “nude or partially nude” and was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to court documents.

Excuse me? Not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sense of not having her clothes torn off or cameras shoved up between her legs? Really? Passengers on trolleys don’t have a reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to retain their clothes and not have strangers sticking cameras or phones under their hems? Silly me, I thought they did. I guess we should all solder everything closed before we get on the bus.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Amy has a good project: skeptics and atheists do good things and say you’re doing them.

Over the years I have self-identified as an atheist and as a skeptic. But lately, I look around these communities and I don’t see much that reflects who I am or how I feel about the world. I see no need to go into details about that. If you read this blog, you know that over the years many of us who have dedicated our time and money to advancing skepticism in particular, have been let down by the majority of people in leadership positions. Those leaders are not my leaders anymore. They do not stand for my ethical principles. And the good news about that, is those leaders are not needed for the majority of us to make a positive impact in this world.

I have been thinking a lot about the value of ones life in a godless community. As an atheist, I do not get to find solace in the idea that I have an afterlife to plan for. I have to make peace with the idea that this one life is all that I have and that every single solitary moment counts right now. It counts in moments, that are slowly ticking away. And while I also have to realize that while there is no God keeping track of those moments and my actions within them, that none-the-less they matter. They matter because each of us has in their power in every single moment, an opportunity to lead by positive example to make the world a better place each and everyday. A place where we can peacefully co-exist and grow without religion and without superstition as a driving force.

There actually are reasons atheists could be better at this than theists are. They’re not reasons atheist must be better, but they’re potential reasons for atheists to be better at it. Atheists have some advantages when it comes to doing good.

Atheists aren’t misdirected in the way theists are. They don’t waste their good deeds on an entity that doesn’t need or care about them. Atheists realize that the proper recipients of kindness are human beings and other animals, not gods, any more than pots and pans or bricks.

We should be doing a better job of building on that advantage.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by Marcus Ranum on Separating god from morality.

Morality is such a human concept, it’s hard to see how it would apply to a god, anyway. What does “fairness” mean to a god? Or “honesty”? Can you “steal” from a god? Could a human and a god have a meaningful conversation about morality, especially given the vast power-differential between us?

Epicurus touched on this in one of his sayings:

A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.

By the same token, I think the idea of a god loving a human (or all humans) makes about as much sense as loving your intestinal flora. Suppose I had moral expectations of my intestinal flora. What would those expectations look like, perhaps? And how could I communicate them to my intestinal flora in such a way as to transfer the moral burden of compliance to those bacteria? Let us imagine that I have a dictate I wish to make to my intestinal flora, namely that they not produce too much methane. Because, I their god, am an angry god when I fart in elevators. So, um, see the problem? I can hardly blame my intestinal flora for making methane when, after all, that’s how they work. And I didn’t really tell them “no hydrogen, either” but mostly the problem is that they are not equipped to understand the will of god so they can’t be blamed for just doing what bacteria do. Socrates let Euthyphro off lightly, really.

Atheism is a statement about morality because it discards the “sky hook” that there is a divine moral expectation or some kind of external moral code. Atheism forces us to define “morality” in terms of purely human concepts, which is why we get mired down in moral nihilism: we can’t(*) Belief in a god is often used to sweep the whole question under the carpet.

(* DIsclaimer, I am a moral nihilist, in that I am unconvinced that objective moral frameworks – other than self-referential/tautological definitions like Richard Carrier attempts – are possible or even desirable)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I wonder what the fans of pope Francis will make of his claim that the church has been the best ever at rooting out sexual abuse of children. I know what I make of it, but then I’m not a fan.

Pope Francis has defended the Catholic Church’s record on tackling the sexual abuse of children by priests, saying “no-one else has done more” to root out paedophilia.

“The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No-one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked,” he said in an interview with Il Corriere della Sera daily published Wednesday.

Transparency! All that sending abuser priests to a different parish to predate on other children, all that never reporting abuser priests to the police, all that insistence that it was a matter for the church to deal with – that’s transparency?

Isn’t not bearing false witness one of the ten? One of the three that actually make any sense?

Last month, the United Nations denounced the Vatican for failing to stamp out child abuse and allowing systematic cover-ups, calling on the Church to remove clergy suspected of raping or molesting children.

It accused the Vatican of systematically placing the “preservation of the reputation of the Church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims” – an accusation which was heatedly rebuffed.

The Argentine pontiff, who will celebrate the one-year anniversary of his election on March 13, said in the interview that the abuse cases “are terrible because they leave very deep wounds.”

“The statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show that the great majority of abuses are carried out in family or neighbourhood environments,” he said.

Ahhhhhhh Mr Pontiff that’s not the point at all. No no no no no no. How could you think it is? Since when are holy people supposed to point and shout, “they do it way more than we do!!”?

I’m surprised at you, Mr Pontiff. I thought you were better at PR than that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

What’s the thing about skeptics?

Is there a thing about them? Yes, I think there is. They tend to attract assholes. They tend to be assholes. I know lots who aren’t assholes, but I also know, and know of, lots who are. More than many other groups and movements and “communities,” skepticism seems to be a recruiting hall for assholes. Why is that?

Jason talked about this issue yesterday:

I do not consent to the skeptical “brand”, insofar as there is one, being represented by malicious con-men and other ne’er-do-wells. The skeptical way of thinking is a toolset that supplements a person’s identity. Not every person’s identity toolset is complete — many people lack empathy or a strong moral compass, among other numerous lacks. The skeptical toolset has too long been associated with amoral Libertarian con-artists that comprise the big-name skeptics, like Dunning, and I’d very much like that to end now.

That, I think, is the thing, the one I asked about above. What’s the thing about skeptics? That. The fact that skepticism is not enough, not nearly enough. It’s useful, but it’s woefully inadequate as a foundation for morality or a worldview. It has nothing to do with concern for fairness or equality, it has no connection to kindness or generosity or even politeness. It presents a constant temptation to be a smug superior jerk.

It’s not enough, and it attracts a lot of people who seem to think it is enough – people whose first loyalty is to the skeptical “movement” and other skeptics. It’s becoming more obvious all the time that the result is a movement packed to the rafters with noisy abrasive belligerent assholes, people who think they’re another Christopher Hitchens but are actually another Penn Jillette.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

About this god person.

I’ve been arguing about it with Michael Nugent on the Atheist Ireland Facebook group. It started from an aphoristic remark Michael made there yesterday:

Because theism is a statement about the nature of reality and morality, atheism is also a statement about the nature of reality and morality.

I said

I think both theism and atheism are statements about reality. I’m not sure either is necessarily a statement about morality.

There could be a theism that posited a “god” with no interest in humans and thus no interest in giving them moral instructions.

Michael’s view is that belief even in a god with no interest in humans is still a belief about morality.

I agree that it can be, but I disagree that it has to be. Believing that an infinite array of things have nothing to do with morality isn’t a substantive belief about morality (except in the attenuated sense that it’s a belief that some things are about morality while others are not). I don’t think the moon has anything to do with morality; that’s not really a belief about morality.

(Well I suppose you could make a case that it is, in the sense that it’s a belief that gravity isn’t the foundation of morality, that morality isn’t influenced by the tides, and faintly absurd notes like that. But I don’t think that’s what we mean by “about morality.”)

My objection to the idea (and I do object to it, as well as just disagreeing with it) is that it buys into the conventional assumption that god just is about morality, when instead we should realize that that’s a contingent belief, not an inherent aspect of belief in a god or some gods.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)