I went out to do some things, as one does, and when I came back I found an envelope from Free Inquiry in the mail. I thought it must be the check for my most recent column, although it was an odd envelope for that – brown, and larger than a letter envelope. I opened it and found another envelope, a letter one this time, addressed to me c/o Free Inquiry.

I opened that and found a sick little thing from Martin Wiesner, aka Pogsurf, who started trolling me a week or so ago, for reasons I don’t know.

At the top it says

A SHORT QUIZ ABOUT THE PANELISTS @

Empowering Women Through Secularism,

Dublin 2013

Then it has the head shots of all the panelists except one.

Then it asks four questions.

1. Who amongst you enjoys anal rape jokes?
2. Who knows that making violent sexual threats are [sic] wrong, but has never apologised for doing this themselves, and for encouraging others to do the same?
3. Who joked when the UK’s Astronomer Royal won the Templeton Prize in 2011 that he should be anally raped?

Bonus question

Which branch of feminism or skepticism endorses rape culture?

Then Martin Wiesner’s signature.

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

Via Maryam – how to tell “conservatives” from “reformers” in the Iranian elections.

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

There are people who think there’s such a thing as “benevolent sexism.” What’s that? Like, holding doors open? Not necessarily. One definition I’ve seen is

Benevolent sexism is when, for example, you think a woman can’t “take” a clumsy attempt at flirtation.

Ahhhhhhh is that what it is. It’s a new word for the kind of feminism that thinks women should be able to work without constantly being interrupted by “clumsy” attempts at flirtation.

Ok look. No. It’s not that we think a woman can’t “take” a clumsy attempt at flirtation. Don’t insult me with that shit. It’s that we don’t think women should have to “take” clumsy (or graceful) attempts at flirtation when they’re trying to do something else. Ok? It’s not about incapacity. It’s about wanting to be able to be free to concentrate on something else.

This idea is very similar to the bullshit about thinking we’re too fragile to put up with the occasional joke. No, that’s not it. It’s that we shouldn’t have to. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Now it’s true that there are some women who are (or claim to be) perfectly happy to be subject to clumsy attempts at flirtation (and plain old propositions and gropings) at all times in all situations. I think some of them claim this just to disagree with feminists, and think somewhat differently when dealing with actual clumsy attempts – but never mind that; take them all at their word; I still don’t think their wants should trump the wants of women who don’t want that.

There are much more reasonable definitions and explanations of “benevolent sexism” though, like this one in Scientific American last April. It’s not about “versions of feminism I don’t like”; it’s about patronizing views of women.

Something can’t actually be sexist if it’s really, really nice, right?

I mean, if someone compliments me on my looks or my cooking, that’s  not sexist. That’s awesome! I should be thrilled that I’m being noticed  for something positive!

Yet there are many comments that, while  seemingly  complimentary, somehow still feel wrong. These comments may focus on an  author’s appearance rather than the content of her writing, or mention how surprising it is that she’s a woman, being that her field is mostly filled with men. Even  though these remarks can  sometimes feel good to hear – and no one is  denying that this type of  comment can feel good, especially in  the right context – they  can also cause a feeling of unease,  particularly when one is in the  position of trying to draw attention  towards her work rather than  personal qualities like her gender  or appearance.

In  social psychology, these seemingly-positive-yet-still-somewhat-unsettling comments and behaviors have a name: Benevolent Sexism.  Although it is tempting to  brush this experience off as an overreaction  to compliments or a  misunderstanding of benign  intent, benevolent sexism  is both real and  insidiously dangerous.

Completely different kind of thing.

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

You may be aware that Dave Silverman went on “Brave Hero” radio yesterday to give some advice about how to be a good activist instead of a dedicated shit-flinger. It was an interesting listen.

The pushback went into indignant overdrive before the show even started, and is no doubt still roaring and raging now.

PZ even ventured into the chatroom there; he reports on it at Pharyngula.

I was in the chatroom for the show, and it was like being in a mob of baboons. They were barking mad and raving — rather than arguing for Vacula, their approach was solely one of throwing around false equivalencies, in particular, demanding that Silverman denounce me as severely as he was the slymers (this was before I’d even logged in. Silverman was not there to talk about me, it was a debate between Silverman and Vacula, but Vacula and his cronies did an awful lot of yelling about me.) It ended up with a bunch of them just typing in all caps that I SUPPORT TENTACLE RAPE, and that I HATE ATHEISTS IN THE MILITARY, so I left.

It was ridiculous. Here, I’ll make it easy for everyone: let’s stipulate that I’m an evil, lecherous old man, creepy and horrible, far worse than anyone on the slymepit; Pharyngula is a hotbed of wickedness, all the commenters here are demonic (sorry); and that everything I’ve ever done has been irredeemably destructive to atheism, skepticism, science, and the American way. OK? Call me the Atheist Satan.

Now, what the heck does that have to do with the Silverman/Vacula discussion? How does it excuse fake twitter accounts, rape threats, bad photoshops, a multi-year campaign of denigration against Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Amanda Marcotte, Jennifer McCreight, and basically anyone who argues that the atheist movement ought to support greater equality? How does it justify Vacula acting as a representative for A Voice For Men at conferences advocating for greater support for women in secularism, a cause he opposes?

I don’t know the answer to that question. Perhaps someone does.

There was quite a lot of discussion of the photoshop of our atheist solidarity picture – a picture for Maryam to send to the persecuted atheists in Bangladesh – which Reap Paden turned into a picture of us declaring our love for Vacula. Lots of jeering and sneering about “slacktivism” and how hard it was to read our signs. Reap Paden should go tell Maryam what a “slacktivist” she is.

Stephanie has another excerpt that demonstrates their willingness to crap on any project at all as long as it’s one of ours.

ReapSowRadio: I have a sound bite where it sounds like she says “I have a nice cock”

ElizaSutton: LOL he says infighting & egos affects small groups (not large groups????)

ReapSowRadio: is he on sephanie zvan’s high school project she calls a radio show?

ElizaSutton: “we love Amanda here” (said about Amanda Kneif, by Zvan) – how often would a male staffer be referred to that way?  (I’m not saying it’s BAD, I’m saying it’s a casual manner in which people more often refer women than men, esp in jobs)

ElizaSutton: Jewelry ad.  Restaurant ad prominently featuring gluten-containing foods.

ReapSowRadio: Im going to Write a review of Atheists Talk…They asked me to!  On the website. I’ve listened to lots of their shows.

zenbabe: Grats Reap

ReapSowRadio: It s no big deal  really  anyone can do it :$

ElizaSutton: Reap – you serious?  “they” asked you to?  Woot!

ReapSowRadio: well the website aksed me to …that counts right?

ElizaSutton: LOL we’ll take it

Stephanie comments:

LOL. Yeah.

We’ll take a radio show that does long-form interviews of activists, scientists, artists, and scholars, a show that supports a community of atheists and humanists, a show that a team of volunteers sinks a lot of time into, and we’ll have it reviewed by a guy who’s tickled that he has an audio clip that sort of makes it sound like I said something I didn’t say. Yeah, let’s encourage bad reviews for the lulz!

All because I work on the show.

If you wondered at all why Dave Silverman took such a strong stand against what’s going on with that crowd, there’s all the answer you need. Listen to a show with me talking to Dave Silverman about American Atheists and the general state of the atheist movement and feel moved to prevent other people from listening to the show. Because I work on the show. Because that’s how you make the movement better.

Yeah.

LOL.

Allies? Not so much.

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

Remember Torcant Torcant’s guest post on Sevan Nişanyan? Later he sent me a link to an interview with Nişanyan.

2. Prosecutors have accused you of “overstepping the boundaries of freedom of speech and criticism.” What is your response to this accusation?

The quality of legal education in Turkey is abysmal. Evidently this young prosecutor was under the illusion that saying something mildly distasteful to the prevailing religious opinion is beyond the boundaries of free speech.

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

Fighting dirty, in other words.

“I am now being branded by personnel around the country as being a murderer – that I am going to have on my soul the death of 20 million babies,” he told the Dáil.

“I am getting medals, scapulars, plastic foetuses, letters written in blood, telephone calls all over the systems and it’s not confined to me.”

What about the dead women? Don’t they count?

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

You know how people who claim the death of Savita Halappanavar was just a sad accident also like to claim that Ireland has a very low maternal death rate? I always wonder, when I see that, if Ireland massages the numbers. Well guess what.

Savita recorded as only maternal death despite five further fatalities

THE death of Savita Halappanavar is the only maternal death recorded by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) last year – although at least five more fatalities were reported by maternity units.

Hmm. The dog ate their homework? The check is in the mail? They had a spot of amnesia?

It has already been reported by the Coombe Maternity Hospital in Dublin that two women died there last year, including a mother of twins.

There were three maternal deaths in Cork University Hospital last year, including two women who died in pregnancy and after giving birth. A new report last year indicated for the first time that some deaths are being missed and the rate of maternal death in Ireland is double the official figure.

And given what we know about why Savita Halappanavar died, it seems likely the figure is even higher than that.

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

So Ireland needs to change its abortion laws. They’re working on it. And they’re getting harassed by the anti-abortion crowd as a result.

The Taoiseach responded to concerns over the legislation, published overnight, after an Independent TD warned about a pro-life mob ambushing politicians in a widespread campaign of intimidation.

John Halligan, from Waterford, claimed he was confronted by a gang of seven campaigners on the promenade in Tramore in May and told to change his views on abortion, or they would be changed for him. One of the group called to his house late that day and stuffed leaflets through his letterbox.

Mr Halligan also recalled the experience of Fine Gael TD Regina Doherty who was threatened via email with having her throat cut to her naval. She was also told her house would be burned down.

Because pro-life.

Mr Halligan made his claims in the Dail as he called on Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore to condemn the Catholic Church for not criticising anti-abortion campaigners who attack politicians. The Tanaiste refused to condemn the church for lobbying over the abortion issue but went on to describe some statements from the bishops as exaggerated. Ireland’s Catholic bishops reiterated their opposition to the abortion reform this week and warned that it was a defining moment for the country.

Ireland’s Catholic bishops are happy to see women die of miscarriages because hospitals refuse to do abortions, are they? They think that’s a good outcome? They’re glad Savita Halappanavar is dead?

Yes, apparently. They have big plans for tomorrow.

The Catholic Church will chastise the Irish state  from the pulpit this weekend when, at the request of the bishops, priests across  the country will read out their latest response to the Irish government’s  proposed legislation on abortion at Masses this weekend.

According to the Irish Independent, the bishops will also invite the priests  and mass goers to pray the specially designated ‘Choose Life’ prayer in the hope  that ‘the dignity and value of all human life will continue to be upheld in Ireland.’

No, not all human life. Not the human life of a woman having a miscarriage at 17 weeks. Her life doesn’t count.

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

A report on the death of Savita Halappanavar was published on Thursday.

The report, described by Minister for Health James Reilly as a “hard-hitting report which spares nobody and doesn’t pull any punches”, identifies three main factors which led to Ms Halappanavar’s death.

They include:

- A failure to adhere to clinical guidelines for prompt and effective management of sepsis when it was diagnosed

- Not offering all management options to the patient as she experienced inevitable miscarriage, even though the risk she faced increased from the time her membranes ruptured

- Inadequate assessment and monitoring that would have allowed the clinical team to recognise and respond to the signs that her condition was deteriorating.

That seems like a less than “hard-hitting” and no punch pulling way of putting it. It’s not just that the hospital didn’t offer the patient all management options, it’s that the hospital refused the Halappanavars’ urgent requests for the most obvious and effective management option. Refused them. Repeatedly.

The report, which does not mention any names, also makes significant recommendations aimed at improving legal clarity and medical handling of complicated obstetric emergencies, including sepsis which led to Mrs Halappanavar’s death.

It found an apparent over-emphasis on the need not to intervene until the foetal heartbeat stopped and not enough emphasis on the need to focus on monitoring and managing the risk of infection. “The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland, and particularly the lack of clear clinical guidelines and training, is considered to have been a material contributory factor in this regard,” the report added.

Deranged focus on the heartbeat of a fetus that is not going to survive, at the expense of focus on the condition of the adult woman who wants to live and get pregnant again and be happy. It’s a sick, morbid, hateful system.

Among the report’s main recommendations are:

- The Oireachtas should urgently consider amending the law – including any necessary Constitutional change – to help provide clinicians with a clear legal context for the management of “inevitable miscarriage”

If the bishops will let them, or fail to prevent them.

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

From Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s first novel, Amrita, published in 1955.

Amrita, a young woman, goes with her boyfriend and a friend of his to a café. It’s crowded, and they’re seated at a table in the middle of the room.

Amrita felt very much embarrassed. She did not dare to look up, for she knew she was being scrutinized from all sides; as was every woman tolerably young and pretty. Hari did not notice the offensive stares that afflicted her; he had been born into a society unused to disguising its interest for the sake of  politeness, and considered staring at young women a perfectly natural reflex action. He did it himself without the slightest reticence.

“Reticence” is the wrong word, but never mind – you know what she means.

A few pages later, she is talking to someone else about the café.

“And I feel so embarrassed,” she went on; she rather liked confiding to him. “When everybody stares so, all the men, it is terrible. Krishna…will men always stare at us like that?”

“Until we are used to seeing you move freely among us.”

Yeah. Not there yet.

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

There were sculptures of horses on a roundabout (a traffic circle) in Abu Arish in Saudi Arabia. That sounds pretty and decorative and pleasant. But then along came a Grand Mufti to say it was sinful.

 Grand Mufti Abdulaziz al-Shaikh sent a letter to the governor of Jazan demanding that “the sculptures be removed because they are a great sin and are prohibited under sharia (Islamic law),” said another news webitse, sabq.org.

Statues of people and animals are prohibited under Islam as they represent a form of idolatry. However, the religion does allow artworks depicting plants and landscapes.

That’s nice of it. It’s so kind and generous of it to allow some things. But if you want more than plants and landscapes – well that’s too god damn bad.

The sculptures were smashed by the municipality.

photo by Larry Jacobsen

Update: the photo isn’t of the sculptures in question, I should add. This one is in a town in Montana, and it is (I assume) intact and there for everyone’s innocent enjoyment. I just wanted a creative commons picture of a sculpture, so I browsed. There’s a lot of kitsch but also a lot of nice stuff like this one.

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

In the UK, a report by MPs says FGM is being ignored.

They warn that 20,000 girls in the UK are at risk of being subjected to the highly painful procedure, and 66,000 women are living with its after-effects, and yet not a single prosecution has been brought since it was outlawed.

The failure to act seriously undermines Britain’s claim to be a world leader in tackling violence against women in developing nations, the Commons international development select committee said.

Yes it does. Making it illegal but never prosecuting makes the law look like a mere gesture – quite an insulting gesture under the circumstances.

Female genital mutilation has been illegal in the UK since 1985 and punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

But there has not been a single prosecution, even after the law was tightened in 2003 to criminalise the procedure taking place on British citizens overseas.

The committee said: “The UK’s international leadership is weakened by its failure to address violence against women and girls within its own borders, particularly female genital mutilation from which 20,000 girls within the UK are at risk.

”Robust action should be taken to counter political correctness and address culturally sensitive practices such as female genital mutilation within the UK.“

I don’t think “political correctness” is the right phrase there. More like “stupidly one-sided hypersensitivity to ‘culture’” I think.

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

Speaking of “blasphemy,” Jane Donnelly and Michael Nugent have been working on the Atheist Ireland submission to the Constitutional Convention on blasphemy, with David Nash from Oxford Brookes University.

We will be meeting the secretary of the Convention tomorrow for feedback on how best to formalise the submission, and we will then finish the final report.

The Irish blasphemy law has two components – Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution, which makes blasphemy an offence that is punishable in accordance with law, and Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009, which defines the offence and makes it punishable.

We are recommending (a) removing the offence of blasphemy from Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution, which would enable the Oireachtas to remove the offence from the Defamation Act, and (b) including a clause in the Constitution prohibiting blasphemy laws, which would oblige the Oireachtas to remove the offence from the Defamation Act, and would also protect the Irish people from future blasphemy laws.

It’s interesting how circumspect their reasons are.

1. Blasphemy laws generally are bad for the following reasons:

1.1 They endanger freedom of speech and deny equality

1.2 They have been condemned by reputable bodies

1.3 They are used to infringe on human rights around the world

I think there’s an even more basic reason (and perhaps so do they, perhaps there are tactical reasons to cite the items they did and not others). It’s that blasphemy is about a subject and about putative agents that are supernatural, and thus not open to inquiry or falsification or confirmation or testing or anything that would make them capable of being universalized. Shorter version: they are imaginary and arbitrary, and there is more than one. People disagree about them. They sometimes agree in order to pick fights with secularists and atheists, but apart from that, they support their own team and reject all the others. All this together makes imposition of laws about “blasphemy” a really terrible thing for a state to do.

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

An Egyptian writer and human rights activist, Karem Saber, has been sentenced to five years in prison for writing a book of stories titled Where is God?

The complaint against Saber and his book Ayn Allah (Where Is God?) was initially filed in 2011, months after the fall of former president Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Saber’s was reportedly the first blasphemy case of its kind after Egypt’s revolution.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information condemned the charges against Saber when they were made, citing “deep concern of the return of religious and political Hesba cases.”

Hesba cases (also written as hisbah) stem from Islamic Sharia law, allowing “all Muslims the right to file lawsuits in cases where an exalted right of God has been violated, even if this does not directly harm them,” as ahramonline reports.

Welcome to hell.

Welcome to a hell where all followers of the nationally coerced religion have the right to file lawsuits in cases where “an exalted right of God has been violated” – even though as far as anyone really knows there is no such “God,” and there is no reason to think anyone knows what its “exalted rights” might be or how they might be violated, and there is no reason to think anyone knows that such “rights” should be respected by human beings.

Welcome to hell, where real human beings are persecuted for the sake of an imagined brute-deity and its imagined “rights” and its imagined hypersensitivity and vindictiveness.

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

Rebecca has a blistering post on cowardice in the atheist/skeptic “movement.” She starts with an Australian military guy, Chief of Army Lieutenant General David Morrison, addressing a major harassment problem with the kind of emphasis and restrained but real ferocity that we can only dream of coming from the “generals” of the movement.

Rebecca transcribed much of it.

I have stated categorically many times that the army has to be an inclusive organization where every soldier, man and woman is able to reach their full potential and is encouraged to do so. Those who think that it is okay to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleagues have no place in this army.

Our service has been engaged in continuous operation since 1999 and in its longest war ever in Afghanistan. On all operations, female soldiers and officers have proven themselves worthy of the best traditions of the Australian army. They are vital to us maintaining our capability now and into the future. If that does not suit you, then get out.

The bolding is there in his voice. He says it with contempt as well as emphasis.

We don’t get that kind of support. As Rebecca points out.

It is my firm belief that we are, as a “movement,” cowardly, and that is why we ultimately will fail. There are too many of us, and especially too many people in positions of power, who are unwilling or unable to take any real action that might help stop the incessant harassment of women in our ranks, or to take any other real moral stand. I’ve seen people who think of themselves as allies actively covering up sexual harassment at an event and then going on to invite the harasser back to speak. I’ve seen “skeptics” write blog posts defending Brian Dunning as a hero instead of an embarrassment. I’ve seen organization employees privately rage about the nonsense their boss is spewing but then refuse to even try to hold him accountable. If we’re going to get anywhere, we have to demand better. We need leaders who are more like Lt. Gen. Morrison. Hell, I’ll take leaders who are just a little less like this and this and this.

That would be good.

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

Amanda Marcotte points out that sexual harassment is a grassroots political movement. That’s right, it is.

A guy harassed a woman, she told him to stop, he didn’t stop, she told his mother what he was doing. Oh noes! Violation of the rules!

This interaction doesn’t demonstrate that the man sending the unsolicited cock shot is profoundly stupid or socially inept, but the opposite: He’s extremely well-versed in the unspoken “rules” of social interaction. He’s particularly aware of the profound pressure that women are under to play along and pretend that harassment is “flirting” for fear of being accused of hypersensitivity. Indeed, he demonstrates this awareness by promptly reminding her of her “obligation” to play along to “prove” she’s not hypersensitive. He also knows that women are supposed to be ashamed of being harassed and to try not to draw attention to it, and when she rejects that “rule” by sharing his tests with his mother, he is genuinely freaked out because she’s not playing by the script that his probably countless other targets have. He doesn’t ask her to stop for his mother’s sake. He says, “That’s not right.” He knows that the unspoken rules state that women are to turn inward with shame when sexually harassed, and when someone said to hell with those rules, he—a guy who sends unsolicited cock shots!—becomes All About The Rules.

That’s because the rules are for his benefit, not hers. Obviously.

What’s interesting to me is that sexual harassers subconsciously (or hell, consciously, I don’t know) understand themselves as a grassroots political movement to put bitches in their place. I know this, because they show the kind of unity and determination for their ideological goals that liberal organizers wish we could get for ours. Tracy Clark-Flory wrote about this story at Salon, and she notes the reaction the woman who fought back got:

She has, however, received responses of a different sort. Yes, there are lots of women pumping their fists in the air and cheering her on, but her blog has also reportedly been inundated with messages like the following, “If you had/get some good dick (which you obviously haven’t/don’t) you wouldn’t be such a grammar nazi and prude.” He really showed her! Once again, Internet jerks respond to a woman calling out jerks by being even bigger jerks.

That is what the Internet is for.

That’s because they are a political movement, and when one of their own—a sexual harasser—gets shut down, they rush forward to his defense. A political movement can be defined as a group of people, organized formally or not, who have a belief, some goals to establish that belief in the world, and a set of tactics they use to achieve those goals. For instance, feminists believe in women’s equality and the dismantling of gender roles. They want to establish that belief by fighting for reproductive rights, an end to sexual and domestic violence, and a more equitable share of the workload in both the public and private sphere. They use tactics like lobbying, lawsuits, awareness campaigns, and running for office.

If I were to chart out what pro-harassment as a political movement looks like, therefore, it’s this:

• Belief: Bitches ain’t shit.
• Goals: To feel free to put any random woman in her place both for the immediate pleasure of doing so and for the long-term gain of women feeling stuck in second class status.
• Tactics: Inundate any woman who pushes back against harassment with even more harassment, hoping to make the  price of speaking out so high that women give up.

Thus, like clockwork, every time a woman or even a man speaks up against sexual harassment, the bat signal goes up and they get absolutely flooded with harassment. What makes it so frightening as a political tactic is that for the pro-harassment forces, harassment is fun and an end in and of itself. So they have endless bounds of energy for it, which is why they’re so damn confident that they can harass women into silence. Clearly, the only thing that can be done is for anti-harassment people to hang in there and  remind themselves that while our opponents may have tons of energy, we have the numbers. The positive response this woman got is heartening. If we keep it up, we can get a handle on this thing.

That’s something I find myself explaining a lot. People ask me why they do it; I explain that it’s fun for them. It is. It’s fun and it costs them absolutely nothing, because they do it pseudonymously. So why would they stop?

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

Another thought suggested by Mistakes Were Made is the absurdity of the We are Skeptics™ and we are therefore permanently reason&logic trope. The conceit of it, the smugness of it, the damn fool silliness of it. No they’re not. No one is. Humans aren’t, and the people who cite that trope certainly aren’t such conspicuous examples of better-than-average logicalness that we should think they are Moar Reason than the rest of us. If they really were good skeptics they would know better than to boast of their own highly polished reason&logic.

I’m never convinced by people who boast of their own superior reason&logic. Never. It always sounds like protesting too much – like something people who really are superior at it don’t need to say. It’s like people who brag about feeling “comfortable in their own skin.” Argh; really? You thought you needed to tell me that?

There’s a difference between thinking that rationality is a good thing, and that people should try to be rational some of the time, and thinking one is oneself Rational. A big difference. If you tell me how rational you are I laugh an inward laugh, because I can see you’re not.

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