I see Nicholas Wade has a new book out. I reviewed a book of his, The Faith Instinct, for Free Inquiry in 2010; I disliked it quite a lot. It was full of windy speculation about the putative evolutionary advantages of religion, which I had zero confidence in because he’s a journalist rather than a biologist and also because his speculation was so speculative. Also his claim didn’t even make much sense – the idea was that religion is good for group cohesion, so people who do religion have an advantage so they win all the wars. Huh. Really? What about the way group cohesion can lead to fights with those outside the group? Maybe they’d all have been better off with mild hostility to everyone, ingroup and outgroup alike. It was a simple-minded claim, and argued simple-mindedly. It was a science reporter taking on a subject that needs a lot more academic expertise than he brought to it. It was Dunning-Krugerish.

So I’m not surprised to see that his new book apparently includes a lot of blather about genetics and that he gets it all wrong.

Eric Michael Johnson has a scathingly witty review at Scientific American.

Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes.

Pause for laughter

In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances.” It’s not prejudice; it’s science.

Well at least he took on a tidy, discrete, small subject, that can be deal with without huge amounts of knowledge and theoretical understanding. No biting off more than he can chew there, hell no.

What makes Wade’s book so troublesome is that he offers no scientific evidence to support his racial hypothesis. None. In fact, Wade acknowledges himself that his ideas on this topic are “leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.” Nevertheless, because he thinks academics have suppressed the importance of genetics and race in human history for political reasons, Wade charges ahead and concludes, confidently, that Western civilization is a Darwinian success story.

Some people can do good work at places like “the interface of history, economics and human evolution” – but they are very, very few. It takes a lot of knowledge and it takes a very sharp mind. Nicholas Wade does not have a very sharp mind. Not at all.

People who try to do sharp mind stuff when they don’t have sharp minds make me tired. It’s a particular form of Dunning-Kruger that really gets on my nerves.

Wade argues, essentially, that in the last 12,000 years, Europeans evolved beyond our early tribal heritage but other races did not. In Africa and the Middle East, for example, Wade says that tribal systems of government, in which allegiance to family and clan is paramount, continue to this day. In both Africa and the Middle East, therefore, the “failure to develop modern institutions” must have a deeper explanation than centuries of colonialism, a post-World War II economic model centered in Europe and the US, Western support for regional dictators, degradation of the local resource base, limited access to quality education, poor sanitation, lack of a public health system, inequality, patriarchy, or differences in culture, religion, history, economics, law, and geography. Wade doesn’t consider any of these other factors, but he doesn’t need to; genetic biology trumps history and culture. For Wade, tribalism is in their nature and it will take a long time before those people are ready to join the civilized West.

 

Tribal behavior is more deeply ingrained than are mere cultural prescriptions. Its longevity and stability point strongly to a genetic basis…The break from tribalism probably requires a population to evolve such behaviors as higher levels of trust toward those outside the family or tribe.

 

That’s downright creepy – it’s racism in its purest form.

Of course, the question about the historical rise of Europe in world affairs is certainly not a new one, nor is it unimportant. Perhaps the most well known explanation in recent years is that by UCLA biologist Jared Diamond in his 1999 Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond argued that geography, not biology, was the key to understanding the fates of human societies. Up to 12,000 years ago all humans lived as hunter-gatherers. But different regions around the globe had different plant and animal species to draw from when some societies turned towards domestication as a survival strategy. Those societies that lived in regions accidentally containing species more suitable for domestication ultimately had a head start over other, less fortuitous societies. Europe’s rise to dominance, Diamond argued, was a coincidence of geography.

The geographic explanation in Guns, Germs and Steel is, in many ways, the antithesis of Wade’s race-based narrative, so it is telling that he submits Diamond’s book to special scorn. According to Wade, “Diamond’s argument seems designed to distract and confuse,” and “its anti-evolutionary assumption that only geography matters, not genes…is driven by ideology, not science.” There are certainly reasons to challengethe all-encompassing explanation presented in Diamond’s book, but it is strangely inconsistent for a journalist who admits his scientific argument is not based on evidence to charge a trained biologist with being anti-scientific.

The accusation of being driven by ideology not science is strange, too. Does Wade take “Tribal behavior is more deeply ingrained than are mere cultural prescriptions. Its longevity and stability point strongly to a genetic basis” to be science? And not ideology?

A Troublesome Inheritance has been roundly criticized by scientists and journalists alike. Biologists such as H. Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne have pointed out its many scientific problems. Statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman has identified the “naivete” in Wade’s eagerness to assume a genetic cause for any change in social behavior. Following their debate, the anthropologist Agustin Fuentes observed, “Wade ignores the majority of data and conclusions from anthropology, population genetics, human biology and evolutionary biology.” Even Wade’s former newspaper, the New York Times, carried a review panning the book. Unfortunately, readers lacking a background in science or journalism may not so easily spot Wade’s many errors. This could lead to even more troublesome issues given the excitement the book has generated among those predisposed to accept its conclusions.

Has it? Oh good grief. I thought The Faith Instinct was hack-work (and very ideological, by the way), but this is some levels worse than mere hack-work.

“Wade says in this book many of the things I’ve been saying for the last 40 years of my life,” said David Duke, the white nationalist politician and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, on his radio program on May 12, 2014. “The ideas for which I’ve been relentlessly villified are now becoming part of the mainstream because of the irrepressible movement of science and genetics.” Duke devoted his “blockbuster” show to a discussion of A Troublesome Inheritance and celebrated how Wade bravely took on the “Jewish Supremacists” and their “blatant hypocrisy over race and DNA.” There have also been multiple lively discussions about the book atStormfront.org, the online forum Duke created and one of the most visited white supremacist websites on the net with about 40,000 unique users each day.

Over at The American Renaissance, which the Anti-Defamation League identifies as a white supremacist online journal, dozens of articles have been published about the book over the past two months. “People who understand race are clearly rooting for this book,” wrote Jared Taylor, founder and editor of the publication. Other white power advocates see the book’s arrival as a call to battle. John Derbyshire, a self-described white supremacist and former columnist for the National Review, wrote triumphantly, “Wade’s calm, brave assault on the enemy’s lines will likely be repulsed, but not without enemy losses, making the next assault more likely to break through.”

Arrgh!

…when a thesis is known to be politically incendiary it is the responsibility of both scientists and journalists alike to ensure that the evidence is, in fact, valid before it is presented to the public. False scientific conclusions, often those that justify certain well-entrenched beliefs, can impact peoples lives for decades to come, especially when policy decisions are based on their findings. For more than 30 years Wade worked for the New York Times, an institution whoseStandards and Ethics states:

[I]t is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

Nicholas Wade has failed spectacularly. A Troublesome Inheritance is wrong in its facts, sloppy in its logic, and blatantly misrepresents evolutionary biology. If the white power movement views this book as a triumph it is a sad reflection on the state of their ideas. Instead of providing a Darwinian success story, Wade’s thesis deserves a quick extinction.

Why did the NY Times have this guy on the staff for 30 years?

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

The more I look at that picture, the more I’m just…amazed and repulsed.

This isn’t at a party, or even a banquet or a reception. It’s for a group photo of Very Important People in the Global Secular Conference; it’s for the home page, the front page, of this Important new organization. Six adults and one frat boy. Yeesh.

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

The US is sending support personnel to Chad to help look for the Nigerian schoolgirls.

“These personnel will support the operation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area,” [the administration] said in a letter.

“The force will remain in Chad until its support in resolving the kidnapping situation is no longer required.”

Also, the UN angle.

Also Wednesday, Nigeria asked the United Nations to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization as its escalating attacks spread alarm nationwide.

If approved, it will enable countries to impose arms embargoes, travel bans and asset freezes.

A United Nations al Qaeda committee is expected to decide when it meets Thursday. Nigeria’s request lists the terror group as an affiliate of al Qaeda.

This is a “significant step” in the fight against terror, said Joy Ogwu, the Nigerian ambassador to the United Nations.

There certainly doesn’t seem to be much room for doubt that that’s what they are. Kids getting a little carried away with a prank? No. They’re terrorists doing terrorism.

There was the horrendous attack in Jos yesterday but there were also smaller ones before that.

In separate attacks in Borno state this week, at least 30 people were killed by members of the terror group, according to local residents.

Boko Haram attackers swooped in on motorcycles Monday and killed 10 people in one village, residents said.

A day later, gunmen stormed a nearby village and killed 20 others, residents said.

During the attacks, Boko Haram set fire to homes and food stores, residents said, and fired machine guns. The group has not claimed responsibility for those attacks.

I’d call that terrorism. It sounds terrifying.

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

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

Oops. There’s a thing called the “Global Secular Council.”

First? It’s not so global. They’re nearly all American or Ukanian, and the whole thing is clearly Anglophone.

Last? Its team of experts – 23 of them. Five women. Five.

Look at the glam picture at the top of the front page – what do you see? Four men and three women – not parity, not more women than men, but close to parity. Funny how the conspicuous glam photo on the front page looks as if there are almost as many women as men when in fact, there are not.

That’s not all you see, but I won’t go into that.

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

The decision is here.

Page 17

The parties to this action certainly do not dispute that the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individuals the fundamental right
to marry. They stridently part company, however, over whether the fundamental
right to marry encompasses the right to marry a person of the same sex. Plaintiffs
contend that the fundamental right to marry belongs to the individual and protects
each individual’s choice of whom to marry. In stark contrast, Defendants contend
that, because “[t]he United States Supreme Court has never recognized that the
fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry a person of one’s choice,”
the Marriage Laws do not violate Plaintiffs’ due process rights. (Doc. 117, p. 20)
(emphasis in original). Against this jurisprudential backdrop, and in view of the
parties’ polarized positions, we are tasked to consider and address the scope of the
fundamental right to marry.

If the fundamental right to marry doesn’t already include the right to marry a person of one’s choice, then it ought to, just as it also ought to include a right not to marry a person not of one’s choice.

Page 18

While the Supreme Court has cautioned that the Due Process Clause only
“protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, . . . and implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997) (internal
citation and quotation marks ommitted), the Supreme Court has clarified the
boundaries of the fundamental right to marry when tested by new societal norms.
Perhaps the most classic example of such clarification is Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1 (1967). In Loving, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s laws against
interracial marriage, finding the state’s anti-miscegenation statutes violative of
both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court characterized the right to marry as one that “resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Id. at 12

But people now balk at applying that to the sex of the person chosen, because that seems so much more basic. Well get over it. “Seems” is the operative word. “Seems” can be changed. Race seemed just as basic to many people at the time of Loving, and “seemed” can be changed.

In a retrospective discussion of Loving, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that
its decision to find Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional was
entirely correct, despite a long historical tradition in this nation of prohibiting
interracial couples from marrying. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 847-848; see also
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[N]either
history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from
constitutional attack.”), overruled by Lawrence, 478 U.S. 186; Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 992 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“[T]he Court
recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark
contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.”).

Despite their historical prevalence, you see – yes it seemed that way for a long time, but we can get over it; what seems can change.

To be continued.

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

At Songdhammakalyani monastery in Thailand…

The unassuming monastery in Nakhon Pathom, an hour west of Bangkok, is the only temple in Thailand exclusively devoted to female monks, known as Bhikkhunis. In 2003, its abbess, the Venerable Dhammananda became the first Thai woman to ordain as a Bhikkhuni in Theravada Buddhism – defying tradition by travelling to Sri Lanka for the ceremony. Her decision sent shockwaves through the deeply conservative Thai Sangha Council, which explicitly banned the ordination of women in 1928.

But now it’s all ok? No. The Sangha continues to be against it.

According to the abbess, the challenges reflect decades of institutionalised patriarchy, rooted in the belief that being born female is a manifestation of bad karma and that women cannot attain enlightenment. Women are not even allowed to touch monks out of fear that it might pollute their sanctity. Traditionally, female monastics are confined to the life of the white-robed Mae Chees, or lay nuns, deemed so inferior that they are only permitted to serve food and clean for the men.

The Vatican has learned to disguise that by calling it “complementarity,” but the outcome is exactly the same – women are permitted only to serve food and clean. That’s their special purpose in life, along with of course babies and not marrying priests.

Analysts say the Bhikkhuni controversy mirrors a broader culture of misogyny in Thailand, which persisted despite the election of the country’s first female Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra in 2011. “During her campaign, she claimed to care about women’s issues, but since coming into government the only thing she has done is create a women’s fund,” says Dr. Sutada. (Shinawatra was ousted as prime minister in early May.)

Thai women still hold only 16 percent of parliamentary seats and only four percent of political positions at the local level, while domestic violence is a rampant problem – affecting a staggering 33 percent of families. Activists say it is directly linked to patriarchal notions about karmic justice, which serves to perpetuate the practice of victim blaming.

“When my father became violent, my mother would say ‘This is my karma,’” says Ouyporn Khuankaew, Director of International Women’s Partnership for Peace and Justice, a grassroots organization that trains monks and nuns on gender and LGBT issues. “And when my sister was in an abusive relationship – a monk told her the same thing.”

And who else says that? Yes! All the other religions; that is correct.

Buddhist notions about karma have a particularly harmful effect on women, the disabled, and the LGBT community, warns Ouyporn, adding that even the most progressive monks are susceptible to these prejudices.

Not prejudices! Spiritual beliefs! Totally different thing. Or rather, identical.

Ironically, the ordination of women has caused more of a stir than a string of high-profile scandals to rock the Thai monkhood. Last year, 33-year-old Wirapol Sukphol, nicknamed the jet-setting fugitive monk, shot to the headlines amid allegations of wide-scale corruption, promiscuity, and crimes ranging from statutory rape to manslaughter. Although he was promptly expelled from the Sangha, there remains little public scrutiny over the monkhood. Meanwhile, the Thai Sangha has stayed curiously tight-lipped over the rise of Buddhist extremism in neighboring Myanmar, where the hate preacher Wirathu is leading a vicious campaign against the country’s Muslim minority.

Again, very Vatican-like: child abuse is something you hide and excuse, but ordination of women is a terrible sin and contraception is an outrage. It always boils down to men domineering over women as The Most Important Thing.

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

Jesus and Mo is now on Patreon.

This was my idea. [smug]

So if you want to help Jesus and Mo thrive and prosper, and get a reward, you can do that.

Here is the new Jesus and Mo:

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

A federal judge in Pennsylvania today ruled a state ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports:

“By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth,” wrote U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III.

The ruling comes in a case filed in July by 11 gay couples, two teenage children of one of the pairs and a widow. The couples include Deb and Susan Whitewood of South Fayette, Diana Polson and Dawn Plummer of Point Breeze, and Lynn and Fredia Hurdle, of Crafton Heights.

It overturns, <<unambiguously>> and with rhetorical flourish, the 18-year-old state Defense of Marriage Act.

And the kicker is – did you spot that name? U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III? That’s Judge Jones! The judge in Kitzmiller! The judge appointed by Bush, the Republican judge, whose ruling in Kitzmiller is a joy to read.

O blessed judge.

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

This is what we were laughing about – Soraya had said “I’ll text you” to Taslima and I pointed out that she’d automatically made the flashing thumbs gesture while saying that, so we all laughed and did flashing thumbs and typing gestures.

Brian D Engler

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

One of my favorites of Brian Engler’s many fabulous photos from Women in Secularism, which he kindly permits me to post.

This is a couple of minutes before the panel on multiculturalism started; Taslima and Soraya and me having a laugh.

Brian D Engler

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

Ok be warned: this is shocking and horrible.

The Independent reports on a young woman whose employer poured boiling water on her. I can hardly stand to read any more than that.

A Filipino woman was left with severe burns after her Saudi Arabia employer allegedly poured boiling water on her.

The 23-year-old household service worker, from Pikit, North Cotabato, suffered burns to her back and legs after being doused with the scorching liquid in the incident in Riyadh on 4 May, ABS-CBN News reported.

…

According to ABS-CBN News, the mother of Fatma’s employer became angry after Fatma was slow to bring her coffee and then poured boiling water on her.

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

Originally a comment on Missing parts

There’s a pattern, here–and forgive me if I’m restating what others might find obvious–but the general inappropriateness of citing Mill to justify misogynistic harassment–it fits again so well, I guess I felt noting this again is almost a forced move.

Mill’s essay is largely about the relationship between the state and dissenters, but not quite so exclusively–as it’s also more generally about relationships between majorities and minorities. The conclusion I can summarize quickly–anyone wants to argue otherwise, let me know, but to borrow from Mill himself: ‘… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection…’

… note that Mill doesn’t restrict this to physical coercion and legal penalties (also his words). Look at the sentence right before that one, which mentions also ‘the moral coercion of public opinion’. And yeah, that’s an important addition, and a thought provoking one, I’d say. Mill seems to have recognized well enough the immense informal power a social hegemony can have. You don’t have to have formal laws forbidding the expression of a particular opinion if there’s sufficient dislike of it within a community*.

Anyway, I wonder if the people citing Mill figure that’s their out: they figure they can say, look, you can’t silence my odious opinions and threatening speech, with or without the force of law (and, okay, yes, I’m probably giving them too much credit; did they actually read Mill? Reilly-Cooper, I suspect, would equally wonder, but anyway, but this may be irrelevant; let’s just parse the logic of it anyway, I guess), because this isn’t really about self-protection…

Completely overlooking the reality that, yes, if they continue, en masse, to threaten anyone speaking for feminism, they’ve become, in fact, the very overwhelming, silencing social force Mill’s essay seeks to defang. Any number of targets of such harassment will tell you how very difficult it becomes simply to go on, simply to continue expressing themselves, under a sufficient volume of such vitriol. Even as their harassers warp themselves in this convenient cloak of victimhood, loudly proclaiming how stifling progressives are. It’s a bit of a confusion, I think, born of this technology**: a mob wielding truncheons and growling ‘shut it bitch or this is going to get ugly’ is more visible in physical space; in this decade, it hides from making such an evocative spectacle of itself in discrete packets, delivered a kilobyte at a time…

And, of course, arguing it’s not about self-protection is to have a rather precious and self-serving definition, too, of just what constitutes harm. No one I think at all responsible seriously questions that these campaigns of hatred can genuinely hurt people. One skilled harasser can drive their target to suicide, and it will make the news; what a mob of them can do is likewise clear enough.

What would Mill have said? Honestly, I find it a bit of an academic question, anyway; it’s the same problem we get when we make idols of the US founding fathers and ask what would the framers of the constitution have made of whichever point of contemporary law…

The point being that the question is more for ourselves: yes, still considering these larger principles held up in the past with some reason as wise, what matter of society do we want to make, given this new connected, online world, immediate communication, the ability to put hate mail on someone’s desktop half a world away with the click of a mouse or tap on a touchscreen?

And about this inversion of victimhood. Again, it’s probably saying the obvious, but I figure this is much of the source of mischief, here. People can become right rat bastards, whenever they imagine themselves the wounded party. Seems pretty much to take the ethical brakes right off them. Am I hounding someone to their grave with my hatred? Whatever. They’re a feminist, and I’ve managed to convince myself feminists are this terrifying social force; they’ve taken over the courts, they’re dominating the conversation; I’m just looking out for my remaining rights, under siege, as I’m sure they are. That I’ve got to pick my evidence rather selectively to believe this, well, whatever; I have so done, so have at them. This, I figure, is much of what makes the MRAs so incredibly toxic: this imagined victimhood, this very cooked sense of injustice. When a de facto hegemony with really rather overweaning economic power and ongoing social advantages they keep working to avoid even noticing convinces itself they’re this hunted, besieged minority, watch out.

The also kinda a funny thing: I like Mill***, but he did write this bit a little while ago, and it did have its context and thrust. And, of course, in fact, we actually have laws against threatening speech, and I’d say for good reason. That this becomes very quickly real intimidation very likely to suppress ongoing expression from the recipient–and see again what Mill makes of silencing speech in general; this being, generally his concern inOn Liberty. (And note also, as I’m amused to do, one of his clear reasons for defending speech as he does: that suppression of an idea that may well be correct does us a disservice, if we miss hearing a good idea just not popularly held; it’s a bit of a stretch seeing this applying terribly well to physical threats, and hateful taunts, in general****.)

But it continues to amaze me. Got into–or I guess more just witnessed–another thing online just last week–yer standard MRA going on about how it was somehow a dreadfully oppressive thing he was being asked to examine his own privilege. And I think, watching that, growing rapidly into the same bleating dimensions of how victimized he apparently was as always, and watching it start to creep again to really rather (I thought) pushy, abusive behaviour–that it’s mostly, again, largely about privilege: roll it back, even a tiny bit–hell, even seem to come within a mile of doing so–and all of a sudden whomever had it is deeply aggrieved. It’s the peculiar blindness of that state, I figure: when you don’t know how good you got it (or, the more suspicious man in me keeps whispering, were working rather hard not to know), being asked to take a look does cut awfully close to the ego. Shitty behaviour will follow.

Recommendations for addressing this? I dunno. A little introspection, I guess, might cure a few things. Recognizing that look, just because you were bullied in high school or women rather generally rejected your requests for dates ten years ago doesn’t suddenly mean you can’t become the socially poisonous force that’s driving all the oxygen out of the discussion today. The monsters in the room happy deliberately to terrorize won’t be reached by this, but at best, I guess, I can hope people might avoid making themselves their accessories.

Know thyself, I guess. We’re back to that. Be prepared to acknowledge the bully within. I guess I’m probably not going to get it published as a classic essay, in that state, but anyway.

(*As any atheist, for instance, who lives in a nation where theoretically freedom of religion is guaranteed, but voicing certain opinions aloud will kill your social life–and potentially your business–as dead as if it had been hanged; I expect I should be preaching to the choir here.)

(**Or, okay, this is probably naive. Born of the technology, or enabled by it? As I do expect some of the more deliberately manipulative asshats in this thing know perfectly well what they’re doing, and use this feature knowingly. And are probably just as honest in their pose of ‘victimhood’.)

(***Oh, fun if mostly I guess irrelevant fact: I’m probably related to Mill myself, if less directly than Ms. Reilly-Cooper–Mill’s father was born a Milne, in the same general bits of Scotland I got that surname from myself; his mom allegedly found the name sounded too yokel-ish, in an era that was kinda the perception of Scots. But I suspect my forebears were the poorer relations in that bunch, and that’s saying something–more rag and bone men and sharecroppers, not so much shoemakers; anyway. Anyway, you needn’t file this particularly under ‘annoyed relatives of Mill’ so much as ‘annoyed/amused readers of Mill’. But yeah, still, whatever, this being 2014, let’s see what else we can’t cook up, here, anyway, shall we?)

(****Also for your consideration, maybe not so directly relevant, but still something to put in your file: read the dedication to On Liberty. And Mill’s own The Subjection of Women. I expect the precious wankers who pull this crap will insist oh, they’re all for equality, really, rape threats employed to silence notwithstanding, and somehow Mill would have agreed with them–forgive me, Ms. Reilly-Cooper, yes, we’re probably better off not even considering this–mind, so, yeah, it’s probably hardly worth mentioning.)

AJ Milne

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

Via Gnu Atheism on Facebook

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