…and this is a 
I'll be departing the Secular Student Alliance conference shortly, to spend most of my day traveling back home. I have to say a few things about it, though:
This was a good meeting! What the student attendees get is some excellent training in how to organize and maintain an active student group, and it's worth it to go. If you want to fire up a gang of campus freethinkers, you should think about coming next time.
It was exceptionally well-organized: talks were paced well, everything was kept moving at a good clip, and plenty of time was left between talks for schmoozing. And the talks all started on time!
I stayed in the dorms with the students, and it was an interesting experience. There was a time in my youth when I could stay up until 4am talking, too.
The SSA is a great organization, but they're hurting for money (like many non-profits right now). Maybe you aren't a student, so you aren't planning to go to their meetings—but that just means you can maybe afford to donate a few bucks to the cause.
For your entertainment, I'll leave you with an example of one talk, by Hemant Mehta, who discussed something of importance to godless college students: dating. He has some tips here.
I told him he's doing it all wrong. The best way is to pick the prettiest girl in your neighborhood when you're in third grade, follow her around for 10 years or so, and then ask her to marry you after a few dates. It worked for me!
Comments
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
August 9, 2009 10:15 AM
That was a funny talk. I need to get myself one of those Phil Plait telescopes.
Posted by: Zeno | August 9, 2009 10:23 AM
The Creation "Museum" visit was noticed over at Free Republic this morning. One Freeper avers that it's just more proof that atheists believe in god. Huh?
Posted by: Hank | August 9, 2009 10:25 AM
I'm a huge fan of Hemant's. His book "I Sold My Soul on Ebay" is excellent. I was one of the privileged 300+ to get to meet PZ and Hemant at the Creation Museum on Friday. Check out my pics here: http://www.ruffingtonpost.com/2009/08/pz-myers-and-hemant-mehta-at-creation.html
Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2009 10:25 AM
Funny talk...but god, Hemant is a dork.
Posted by: Oscar Leroy | August 9, 2009 10:32 AM
"Dating"? What's that?
Posted by: MyaR | August 9, 2009 10:38 AM
You can also hang out on blogs and bemoan the lack of nice rational men in your life, and someone might just point you to a place likely to have lots hanging around (Science Connection) where you connect with your now-husband. So, PZ, you're at least partially responsible for one godless marriage! And I think it was firemancarl who pointed me to sciconnect, but I'm on the iPhone so searching while typing a comment is arduous. I always guess that means the Pharyngula hordes are directly responsible for at least one marriage.
Posted by: Sili
|
August 9, 2009 10:39 AM
I see. So I shoulda followed more.Ah well.
Posted by: daveau | August 9, 2009 10:42 AM
I'm guessing: Hemant is single?
The spousal unit and I have one of those accommodationist "mixed" marriages. I'm atheist, and she's firmly agnostic. So agnostic that she also doubts the non-existence of god. Seriously people: children and finances are going to be your big worries in a partnership. If you agree on everything, what is there to challenge you for the next 50 years?
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:51 AM
Thanks for the advice, PZ. All I need to do now is find a time machine that will take me back to 1979.Posted by: JD | August 9, 2009 10:52 AM
You'll always be a penthouse playa PZ...at least in the world of cuttlefish.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 9, 2009 11:01 AM
I guess this is as good a place as any to pimp my PlentyOfFish profile.
Hemant didn't mention PlentyOfFish; it's one of the few dating sites I've seen that actually includes "non-religious" as an explicit option. Oh, and it's free.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | August 9, 2009 11:19 AM
The spousal unit and I have one of those accommodationist "mixed" marriages. I'm atheist, and she's firmly agnostic.
Same here w/ Mr. ODS and myself. He's still a little wishy-washy about religion (he still identifies as Jewish, even though he hasn't been to temple in over 15 years), but he's agreed that raising our children outside of religion is the best way to go. Now, if he would just agree with me on the circumcision thing....
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 9, 2009 11:22 AM
Prof. Myers: So this is how you met and fell in love with your-wife-who-shall-not-be-named! Awesome!
Posted by: Lynna | August 9, 2009 11:30 AM
A few personal experiences related to dating a theist:
My daughter barely escapes being killed on 9/11 in NYC. Boyfriend calls to comment on the terrorists, "At least they were willing to die for something they believed in." I said, "Wait a minute. What about all those innocent people. They didn't choose to die." His reply was, "You gotta understand, no one is innocent. We are all born in sin."
Jesus Christ. All along I had been thinking he was half-assed kidding with the guilt trips about sex and the tradition-before-reason stuff. Then there was that time he called me "evil" and I laughed.
It didn't work out.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 9, 2009 11:36 AM
@daveau:
Hemant is so tragically unhip it's his running joke.Posted by: llewelly | August 9, 2009 11:45 AM
But 95% that just results in people saying you're creepy.Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 9, 2009 11:49 AM
"Hemant is so tragically unhip it's his running joke."
So he is just like me then? There are more of us than you realise. With our eyeball-searingly bad dress sense and horribly inappropriate sense of humour. Another brother is added to the fold, another person in the world as horrendously inept with women as myself.
It almost gives me hope . . .
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 9, 2009 12:06 PM
I thought the first part was unkind.
Posted by: Sili
|
August 9, 2009 12:10 PM
Is this supposed to mean that Athiest women have no trouble finding dates?
Posted by: yonatron | August 9, 2009 12:10 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. Turned me off from listening to the rest.Posted by: SciencePundit
|
August 9, 2009 12:16 PM
It's one of his running jokes. He also eats babies.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 9, 2009 12:25 PM
Yep. Just started listening to it, and stopped after the "midget" stuff. For someone supposedly open-minded and "enlightened", he sure didn't mind slinging around a term considered a slur by the people it describes. And laughing at someone because of a physical handicap that they have no control over whatsoever.
Maybe the guy is alone (if he is alone, as I say, I didn't finish watching) because he is a prick.
Posted by: Heidi | August 9, 2009 12:25 PM
... I thought he was funny.
Also, he was right that it's good to look like a Mythbuster. lol.
Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2009 12:31 PM
I thought the first part was unkind.
I did too, which pains me because I usually love what he writes.
Posted by: featherefrog | August 9, 2009 12:32 PM
Feh. I turned it off after the second midget joke. The Speaker should probably re-view the CSI-LV episode A Small Murder(?) INRE Little People, and perhaps get some sensitivity.
With an attitude like this, I'm not surprised he has a hard time dating. How you treat people around you is a good indication of who you yourself are.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 9, 2009 12:43 PM
Featherefrog: or even a recent Simpsons episode, which showed more class and maturity than this clown.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/66335/the-simpsons-eeny-teeny-maya-mo
Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2009 12:47 PM
An article in Salon about Little People, societal reaction to them, and the hatred of the word midget.
From the article:
"What would really help stop the laughing and pointing at the "midget" on the street? Advocates within LPA agree: the understanding that people with dwarfism are actual humans, not mythical creatures or comic relief."
Posted by: ctroein.myopenid.com
|
August 9, 2009 12:51 PM
Mmm... I agree. For what it's worth, it sounded like Jerry Springer was the biggest problem. Or maybe it was just what he took to confirm his stereotype. He doesn't seem to recognize that his unwillingness to even go on a single date with someone with a deformity/handicap/whatever might not be shared with the rest of the world. Substitute with "black" and imagine the reaction from the audience. And, as Sili pointed out, he doesn't even seem to realize that not everyone looking for a date is a man in search of a woman. Fortunately, he also sounds like the sort of person whose cluelessness can actually be cured - I have little doubt he'd be ashamed of a few of the things he said if he'd heard just what he was saying. Which is not to say it was all bad - there's good advice in points 8-9, especially the bits that made it clear how silly some of the other points were.As far as dating advice goes, I have this to offer: find someone at a party or whatnot, dance, kiss, get married and/or have kids. It works a lot better than this: eventually find someone after heavy filtering with respect to length/weight/hair colour/whatnot, obsess over this person and discuss with your friends how to ask him/her out, awkwardly propose to go on a date (or better yet don't make it clear whether it's a date or not), act all strange when you're told that he/she is already seeing someone so that you'll never have a chance if that relationship ends, iterate with increasing exasperation.
Posted by: recovering catholic | August 9, 2009 1:01 PM
PZ says: The best way is to pick the prettiest girl in your neighborhood when you're in third grade, follow her around for 10 years or so, and then ask her to marry you after a few dates. It worked for me!
Awww--how sweet! You did get married awfully young, though! And somehow I picture a chubby 9-year-old PZ much shorter than now, but still with his beardy beard...
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 9, 2009 1:19 PM
@28
I don't think you meant to equivocate a physical deformity with skin color. Not exactly a very nice thing to do.
I also found the use of the term "midget" unenlightened, but I agree that it seemed that the Jerry Springer appearance was the big deal. The fact that he didn't realize she was a little person until he got to her house--despite being sent a picture--also seems to have played in his reaction. I must confess, I'd be pretty startled and put-off by something like that too (not a LP, but having someone look different from what they'd first presented).
I've yet to have to resort to a dating service, but then I'm actually a pretty sweet dish, if I do say so myself. Still, I don't have much luck even finding another godless materialist, let alone one I could date seriously. So it goes.
Posted by: Karen | August 9, 2009 1:26 PM
RE Lynna, #14...
I think there needs to be an online community for non-theist people like your daughter (and myself) who are/were in relationships with religious people... though my boyfriend isn't as crazed as that dude was (thankfully gone now), it's a hard road to walk some days.
However, the Hemant lecture was great... the last 3 days I've been wishing I could have attended SSA!
Posted by: AdamK | August 9, 2009 1:27 PM
So the "trophy" was for Most Persistent?
Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 1:34 PM
Since when is 'atheist' a synonym for 'pathetic loser'??
Have some pride, people! Atheism has never been the exclusive property of socially-awkward nerds - it's also tied to the sexiest icons of lust and fuckability that society has to offer.
There's a whole world of atheist artists and musicians out there who are beyond your hottest dreams.
The image of atheism implied in these videos reinforces a bullshit stereotype: "Atheists have to be smart; smart people can't be sexy".
Give me a break! You don't have to dress like this fellow and make whiny presentations about your inadequacies to qualify as an atheist. The problem isn't that he's being rejected for being an atheist; the problem is that he's using his atheism as an excuse for social insularity.
Hemant! Just for fun: dress yourself up like a total bad ass and go to an art opening where you don't know anybody and strike up some interesting conversations with strangers. Getting out of your comfort zone and learning to enjoy it is fucking sexy. And atheists tend to be surprisingly good at that.
You're already a rebel so start behaving like one! Let your bad self out!
Posted by: Lynna | August 9, 2009 2:08 PM
Karen @31: I agree. But the only forum I've found so far that addresses having a relationship with a theist, and also addresses dealing with getting out of such relationships, is ex-mormon.org. And I'm not an ex-mormon, nor am I dating a mormon, so that forum only kinda, sorta, sometimes applies.
One thing I've learned for certain is that love doesn't conquer all.
There's a science-oriented singles connection at
http://www.sciconnect.com/
Posted by: Gordon | August 9, 2009 2:12 PM
Single sex schools pretty much rule out the "follow the prettiest girl" plan....
Posted by: Lou FCD | August 9, 2009 2:21 PM
Gordon,
You were only allowed to have sex once at your school? That puts you one up on me. I went to Fundy High.
Posted by: Lou FCD | August 9, 2009 2:25 PM
Then I spent a semester at Nosexfor U. (The sign at the gate said Bob Jones, but I usually call it BJ U for short. The place sucked.)
Fortunately, I lost my ...um ... religion... shortly thereafter.
Posted by: mc | August 9, 2009 2:51 PM
i think the best point he made was that just because you and someone are both atheists, doesnt mean you'll get along or share similar views.
i, for example, unlike most folks on this site, have no problem with folks like the animal liberation front.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 9, 2009 3:01 PM
Velcro Suitor wins heart of Trophy Wife!
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 9, 2009 3:06 PM
What? I though that ID was going to produce its own evidence and not just rely on Christian ideology!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 3:08 PM
Might be something to that. The Redhead and I met in Jr. High, dated through High School and college, and finally got married.Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Please disregard my comment, #40. I meant to post that about Dembski's rigorous course requirements.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 3:19 PM
I met my wife after her bicycle collided with my brother's bike, making him fall off and breaking his nose. He called home to get someone to pick him up from the hospital. I went to the emergency room with my mother to collect my brother. There was a lovely lady who apologized to my brother, apologized to my mother, apologized to me, and said: "Is there anything I can do for you?"
I replied: "Would you go out with me on Friday night?"
My brother thought it was cold.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 3:26 PM
My best friend in college, a bright, strong, lovely science student, was 3 feet 11 3/4 inches tall. She would have been in tears from that talk.
Know what? She ended up marrying a fundie and joining a whacked-out Christian group because they *accepted* her more than any other group she'd ever met.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 9, 2009 3:32 PM
...Yeah.
:-} Congratulations!
Has the potential to become a dangerous madman. Lacks, in fact, only an opportunity.
Scary.
...Mmmmmmaybe you should look at it this way: at least you know you're "horrendously inept with women". I don't even know if I am. I've never had an opportunity to find out. :-)
Might work with him – but not with everyone. Thin wimps like me, for example, would just look comical.
I've never understood why anyone uses an RSS feeder. I just don't get it.
Posted by: multipath | August 9, 2009 3:33 PM
You could start to claim his date with the little person was bad because of the Springer episode, but he was cracking jokes from the beginning. "Couldn't drive away because that would be really really mean" before he even talked to her, and "helped her climb the passenger seat like it was Everest". Not in good taste in my opinion.
But whatever, I'm not the thought police, it just turned me off of the rest of the video.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 9, 2009 3:37 PM
...In front of your mother?
Scary.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Sure, why not?
Posted by: rockdogg | August 9, 2009 3:46 PM
Wow, now I know what (likely) happened when I did the eHarmony questionnaire a few years ago. See about 8:30 of the first video. I thought at the time that it might pose a problem, since they asked how important religion is to you, and what religion you are, so that it wasn't clear what to do if a lack of religion is important to you, as it is to most of us.
What they tell you is actually more than just 'no matches for you'; here, I dug it up:
Unable to Match
eHarmony is based upon a complex matching system developed through extensive research with married couples. One of the requirements for successful matching is that participants to fall within certain defined profiles. If we find that we will not be able to match a user using these profiles, we feel it is only fair to inform them early in the process.
We are so convinced of the importance of creating compatible matches to help people establish happy, lasting relationships that we sometimes choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match.
Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching model could not accurately predict with whom you would be best matched. This occurs for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply will not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand, and we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.
You can still receive your free Personality Profile by clicking here.
Posted by: Critic | August 9, 2009 3:48 PM
Pharyngula: Home of faith-based fucktards.
That is all.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 3:50 PM
You're on the wrong thread, Critic. The Troll thread is thataway. -->
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 9, 2009 3:53 PM
Well, I did it by saying "you're hot" and going out on a couple of dates. It's one of the few times I have ever displayed machismo.
Posted by: jemand | August 9, 2009 4:03 PM
LKL,
That's so sad! I was very put off by the beginning of this talk. I'm not going to wave it away by saying usually Hemant writes good stuff... he does... but every once in a while a horrendously insensitive comment slips, and I'm not sure if it is actually understood to be as such, even when he is called out by it. It was very cruel of him to make fun of her physical disability-- if he had stuck to her being featured on Jerry Springer's stage he could have made his point about internet dating without being cruel. He really didn't even need to MENTION her height
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 9, 2009 4:04 PM
Critic #50 said:
That is all.
Critic: Home of faith-based stupid.
That is all.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 4:09 PM
I have to agree with the politically correct on the little person story, very insensitive, I was insulted and my sense of humor is downright brutal, as many will testify.
I'd say the best place to pick-up a hot mate is at a townhall health care riot, nothing is a turn on as getting all bloodied up and adrenaline drenched together, bring sutures and gauze, invite your hopeful over for stitches, a few oxycontin might loosen things up a bit.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
speaking of borderline humor, I just read this over at Wonkette and had to share
Go Get 'em SONIA!!!!
I like to Judge in America!
Irritate Drudge in America!
Make socialist law in America!
For left-wing bourgeois in America!
I like to Judge in America!
Irritate Drudge in America!
Make socialist law in America!
For left-wing bourgeois in America!”
Posted by: Sili
|
August 9, 2009 4:10 PM
Just get yourself a Gryffindor tie. Problem solved.I like having an aggregator - but I read the posts of the site for the most part. I've just switched to Google, though, since Opera ended up mixing my mail with the blogs once too often (and sorting the posts wrong, too, on occasion). Never found out why, but when the month of June suddenly disappeared I went into ragemode.
Only problem I've ever really had with O, though.
Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2009 4:21 PM
Yeah the first thing I thought when he started with the midget story was that he was gonna get destroyed on here for it. But come on, it's not like he REALLY made any short jokes or anything. I mean, would YOU date a midget? I think it's a funny story and is similar to what happens a lot of time with online dating where people misrepresent themselves. I.e. fat people using pictures of themselves from 10 years ago when they were skinny. Bottom line, there needs to be an actual physical attraction for a relationship to work, and midgets aren't doing it for me. I'd be similarly horrified.
Perhaps he shouldn't have used that particular term, but we can chalk that up to cluelessness more than anything. He does unfortunately seem completely clueless when it comes to dating.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 4:24 PM
Fwiw, being short is not a 'disability.' The university we went to had a climbing gym, and my short friend could climb like a spider; she was one of the most naturally physically fit people I've ever known. Her only problem is that the cars, buildings, etc. are built for people taller than her, just like left-handed people suffer because everything is built for right-handers (but more so).
Can atheists be as radically accepting as Christian groups can? Logically it seems like we should be even more so - no theological hangups about homosexuality, etc. On the other hand, we also don't have some commandment to 'love thy neighbor...'. I know Hemant probably did not mean to be insensitive. I read his blog fairly regularly, and he seems like a nice enough guy; I'm sure that this issue isn't representative - at least of atheists in general.
However, the fact remains that my friend (whom I now tiptoe around in any conversation that even tangentially brushes on spiritual matters, and who generously (mostly) refrains from proselytizing at me) found a level of acceptance in a Christian group that she found *nowhere* else.
I think that the issue of atheist dating, as well as the issue of acceptance, touches on the fact that we atheists don't have much of a communal or social structure. I've heard that some non-theists keep going to church after deconverting just because they like the social aspects of it; I'm beginning to think that we really, really need something equivalent.
Posted by: Holydust | August 9, 2009 4:55 PM
mc:
"The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars."
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
So you don't have a problem with that?
Posted by: MIKE | August 9, 2009 5:05 PM
To me, it looks like "midgetgate" is caused by him not finding little people physically attractive. You can be the most understanding person in the world and still not find burn victims attractive for example; it's just the sad reality.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 9, 2009 5:09 PM
Um, yes, yes he did (or at least repeated one his friend made).
Whether he found her attractive or not isn't the issue. His comments were callous. He seems like a cool guy in general, but those remarks were unkind.
And had nothing to do with atheism. He should have started with the story about the Indian dating site, which was both funny and relevant.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Of course he doesn't have to find Little People attractive. And honestly, I would think that the person in question would have had it on her profile in order to avoid just such a situation. But come on. He used it for a joke, several times. First there was the pause for laughter after saying she was a "midget", then the joke about her climbing into the car, then his friend asking if she "went up on him". That's a far cry from just finding that someone isn't what their profile made them seem to be.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 9, 2009 5:17 PM
Chris
"I mean, would YOU date a midget?"
Honestly, no-- I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't mock one in front of a large group, apparently fully aware that it was being filmed and would end up on Youtube. And I wouldn't use what I know (and he would have to know-- he isn't stupid) to be offensive slurs to that group of people, even if I think their offense by it is thin skinned (I'm not sure what his ethnic background is, but it seems to be somewhat closer to the Equator than than Northern Europe-- would he like a video clip of his date telling a crowd about the time she had to date a "towel head"?) And I certainly wouldn't give enough details to track down exactly who it is (yes, I looked on Youtube. Yes, the clip is still there.)
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 5:19 PM
LKL @ 58
You're not viewing the whole picture IMHO. Christians are more outgoing and interactive with random human acquaintances because they are SELLING something.
The ultimate Christian act is to capture another sheep and lead it into the flock, they live to do that, it's their business model.
Your friend received all the benefits of the package she bought, mutual reinforcement of a common world view, a lot of friends and activities, with the usual level of bonding and backbiting inside any human group, with expected monetary weekly donations understood.
These people are easy to join, but they are far more judgmental than most social groups and eager to cast out sheep of any size for minor infractions. As long as your friend toes their line, does not question the worldview too deeply, no matter how ridiculous it is, and basically shuts up, stops thinking and doesn't rock the Ark, she'll be fine.
But understand the real cost she pays for that 'acceptance'.
Whenever I encounter those of short stature or their counterparts, wheelchair folks who are also down there, I always make eye contact. That's gotta be a huge problem for these folks because everybody looks over them, if you observe behavior around wheelchair people, you'll see that they are often simply overlooked, in the literal sense.
Posted by: JulietEcho | August 9, 2009 5:30 PM
Yeah, poor Hemant - he suffers from a combination of totally awesome and occasionally totally clueless.
My husband is the same way - he'll say something inappropriate and not mean it maliciously or rudely at all - but it IS rule and SOUNDS malicious, and he needs to be bonked over the head for it soundly. Once Hemant puts all his new dating advice to good use and finds a significant other who'll set him straight on such occasions, the inappropriateness probably won't pop up on his blog so often :-)
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 5:45 PM
WTF Chris @ 57 ? That's not the point, the point is that the guy is out there recounting the story and making midget jokes. To carry your analogy forward. "I showed up and she was a burn victim, which was weird, and she kept shedding skin all over my car, and I couldn't tell if she was smiling because her lips were burnt off."
Do you have a concept of not funny? This type of attempted humor shows a breathtaking Oscar winning lack of imagination.
Not to worry though, Sarah Palin is carrying a Cross for birth defects, so it won't be long before everything is fixed and we can hoot up around midget blow job punch lines.
OHHHH fuck, this just in,
she quit again I guess it's all over for midgets.
Posted by: Draken | August 9, 2009 6:01 PM
There was a time in my youth when I could stay up until 4am talking
There was a time in my youth when I could stay up until 4am drinking.
Coming to think of it...
Posted by: windy | August 9, 2009 6:03 PM
They can be comically bad ass!
Posted by: andrew | August 9, 2009 6:04 PM
I couldn't get very far through that, I found it quite objectionable.
"helped her climb the passenger seat like it was Everest"
..Is this what the secular movement is all about? It's like we're trying to confirm the fears of atheist-hating Christian.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 6:09 PM
@ Scooter:
Absolutely the benefits that she receives are similar to the benefits received by joining any other cult. I didn't mean to suggest that we atheists should be starting similar cults - just that we should first embrace the lack of religious judgementalism that comes with atheism (at least as far as reasonable intelligence allows) and second try to be a little more social. The latter, I guess, is part of what Hemant was talking about: come out of the closet, go to meet ups.
Posted by: Andrew | August 9, 2009 6:14 PM
I'm just picturing this video being picked up by Ken Ham's blog so he can showcase a room of atheists cackling over "midget" jokes...
Posted by: tim turner | August 9, 2009 6:17 PM
I have to admit that his joke at the expense of the little person was too offensive and I didn't bother to watch the rest.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 6:47 PM
-----------> Just for fun: dress yourself up like a total bad ass
------->Might work with him – but not with everyone. Thin wimps like me, for example, would just look comical.
--->They can be comically bad ass! [link to Sid Vicious here]
I also just want to add that in general, I was not impressed with the atheist herd. They seemed to be people who were atheists because they needed a group to fit into. Most of them, not all, but most looked like mis-fits. - Pastor Tom Estes
Different is comical? Man, get a clue. This whole fucking thread shows how insecure a lot of you guys are about having the courage and integrity to distinguish yourselves from the ethos we're all - supposedly - rejecting.
Fuck off: you're embarrassing. And, yes, PZ's put his foot well past the tonsils with this one and I don't like seeing it. But I'm proud that there are plenty of people here who are willing to call him on it.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 7:15 PM
@ Ben, #73
"They seemed to be people who were atheists because they needed a group to fit into. Most of them, not all, but most looked like mis-fits. - Pastor Tom Estes"
What, as opposed to conformist sheep who blend in anywhere, without a ripple? Some xian groups might be radically accepting, but most are pretty beige.
You're choosing the wrong method if you're trying to insult us.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 7:18 PM
Amen brother.Posted by: Lynna | August 9, 2009 7:36 PM
Scooter @64: I was just about to make the same point. "Acceptance" from Christians grouped into a church setting is not real acceptance. You want acceptance there, you buy it with obedience and money. It's fake acceptance, like the Wendy Wright smile.
Posted by: The Proofit | August 9, 2009 7:38 PM
"As I noted above, only one person was ushered away (when he clearly disregarded the order not to videotape a private conversation)."
In what way can a "conversation" like that be declared private? I'm sure the student was quite happy for it to be filmed, and it takes 2 sides to agree before privacy is granted.
Jerks
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 7:38 PM
@ 74 + 75
Um... ok: beige. Wow. Sorry for raising that point. And you think that beige is... like... ideal?
I'm not trying to insult you guys, just to identify where your definition of the more 'idealistic' side of atheism actually diverges from mine.
Could you let me know if:
1) You did read my point and recognize that I was making the point that the correlation between Pastor T's post and the contempt for "outsiders" being expressed in this thread is a negative thing.
If so, @74 "What, as opposed to conformist sheep who blend in anywhere, without a ripple?", WFT - you seem to have got it backwards.
2) Atheism is a scientifically-driven movement: we must agree on that. But do you also consider it a culturally driven movement? If so, how does "beige" fit in? If it's not a culturally-driven movement for you, where are its limits and do you recognize the possibility that you might be adopting an insular and defensive position?
Posted by: Lynna | August 9, 2009 7:44 PM
My daughter just got back from the Glade festival in England. She took lots of pics, and from what I can tell, the place was chockablock with what Tom Estes would call "misfits" -- and they looked great in more ways the one. Translation: interesting. Not blah.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cloud_city/sets/72157621852387493/
There are two pictures of my daughter in there, one at the Manchester train station, and one at the festival (skinny strawberry blonde, with an amazing amount of junk draped on her body -- standard green wellies).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 7:47 PM
Ben Mueller-Heaslip #78
Oh jeez, not another fucking goddist with his own fucking definition of atheism. Listen up, fuckwit, atheism is lack of belief in god, no more, no less. Do you understand? Can this concept enter into your goddist-ruined brain? Should I use smaller words or get your mommy to explain the hard words like "lack" and "belief"?
Fatherfucker, what is it with these fucking stupid goddists that they don't understand a concept that can be explained in one short sentence. Obviously belief in god has warped their minds so they have to make up their own fucking definitions of a simple idea.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 7:55 PM
Oh (after looking at pictures), you mean people with some intelligence that shows? My kind of people too.Posted by: windy | August 9, 2009 8:04 PM
Ben Mueller-Slippedandfellonhishead:
And I'm trying to figure out how a joke about fashion tips for thin geeks warrants this response? I was pointing out that one can look both comical AND still indisputably bad ass. So fucking fuck off, you humorless git.
--
Back to David: if Sid is not your thing you could go for the thin, stylish and scary look.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 8:14 PM
'Tis Himself:
"Oh jeez, not another fucking goddist with his own fucking definition of atheism. Listen up, fuckwit, atheism is lack of belief in god, no more, no less. Do you understand? Can this concept enter into your goddist-ruined brain? Should I use smaller words or get your mommy to explain the hard words like "lack" and "belief"?
Fatherfucker, what is it with these fucking stupid goddists that they don't understand a concept that can be explained in one short sentence. Obviously belief in god has warped their minds so they have to make up their own fucking definitions of a simple idea.
What exactly is your problem? Goddist? What the fuck do you think you're talking about? No, I'm not a "Goddist". I'm an atheist from an atheist family, have never been anything but an atheist, and it's not even a question.
Now to answer your completely inarticulate points:
Do I consider atheism to have a cultural and moral value? Yes, I do. Because it contradicts the values established and promoted by religions.
Do I think that it's worth asking questions about whether atheism is being presented in a way that's counter-productive? E.g. the bullshit videos on this post? Yes I do. What exactly is your problem with that, you arrogant fuck?
Do I Do I find it abrasive and stupid when a stupid piece of shit like yourself bash people for asking honest questions? Yes, I do.
Because that's exactly what religious zealots do. Get the point?
Get a grip.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 8:20 PM
@ Ben, #78
"...And you think that beige is... like... ideal?"
...Nnnnno. I'm saying that xian congregations are often beige, and that most of us would rather be classed with the misfits than the beige xian sheep.
"I was making the point that the correlation between Pastor T's post and the contempt for "outsiders" being expressed in this thread is a negative thing."
Firstly, I don't see a lot of contempt being expressed for outsiders here - on the contrary, the vast majority of posters wish that Hemant had been more, not less, inclusive. Secondly, your post seemed to be mocking atheists for being 'misfits who couldn't get into any other group,' as though being different were a bad thing and as though we had been exiled rather than choosing to leave the congregations that we were born into (for those of us with theistic families).
"If so, @74 "What, as opposed to conformist sheep who blend in anywhere, without a ripple?", WFT - you seem to have got it backwards."
I would say the same to you. Perhaps we should re-read each other's posts to make sure we are responding to what was actually written. Are you claiming that we're not different *enough*?
"Atheism is a scientifically-driven movement: we must agree on that."
For some of us, it is - scientific training and a tendency to examine evidence tends to preclude belief in gods. However, there are many intelligent people who leave their faiths without being trained or even well-versed in science.
"...do you also consider it a culturally driven movement? If so, how does 'beige' fit in?"
It's not exactly a 'movement' at all. Atheism is a statement of lack of belief in gods, nothing more. 'Beige' refers to xianity, not atheism. The idea of 'coming out of the closet' might be considered a movement within atheism, but I don't think that atheism itself is one.
"...do you recognize the possibility that you might be adopting an insular and defensive position?"
Please explain how this thread illustrates 'insular and defensive.' It seems to me like most people here are trying to be more inclusive.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 8:21 PM
"And I'm trying to figure out how a joke about fashion tips for thin geeks warrants this response? I was pointing out that one can look both comical AND still indisputably bad ass. So fucking fuck off, you humorless git."
Oh, c'mon man. If you'd said "comical and indisputably bad ass", I'd have been with you. But just "comical" - cut me some slack. You've got to see you how someone can read that at the wrong way.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 9, 2009 8:33 PM
Hmmm. . . like Spike Spiegel, maybe?
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 8:37 PM
@ 84 LKL:
Good response. And I think you're right: we should both reread each other's posts and figure out exactly what the other's talking about.
The only difference I see is that you go with the short (and absolutely true) definition of atheism, i.e. believing in no god; while I'm suggesting that there is a non-absolute, but important set of values attached to atheism by virtue of its contrast to theistic values. These things aren't, obviously, mutually exclusive.
As to whether or not it's a movement, again that depends on whether you're going for an absolute definition or a practical interpretation of what's this is. I'd suggest that concrete goals + collective action toward those goals = movement.
No, of course I wasn't mocking atheists - I was only criticizing the correlation between theistic views of outsiders and the mixed response to these videos. Yes, people here ARE DEFINITELY more tolerant and sympathetic of others than most religious people. Even so: was this a classy post? Subjective, yes.
"Are you claiming that we're not different *enough*?"
Well: yes, I do suppose I like seeing atheists stand out in comparison by the way they treat others. But that's not what you meant: you mean, are we not Weird Enough! Again, yes. But that's just a question of personal taste.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 8:46 PM
@Ben #87:
So (correct me if I'm wrong) your criticism was to the OP more than of the responses here, and the Estes quote was an example of an exclusionist attitude that you wish we *don't* adhere to, rather than a quote that you agree with.
I see your point wrt. types of atheism; I generally classify what you call 'cultural' atheism as 'new atheism' or 'out atheism,' rather than using the general term.
Posted by: Shaun | August 9, 2009 9:07 PM
About the midget thing, I think he was mostly put off by the fact that her profile on the dating website had included no mention of a rather big part of her life (pun entirely intended). I mean, the opportunity has never come up for me, but I don't see the fact that someone is very small being a big factor (that one was genuinely accidental). If I was in his position, however, I'd at least be on the back foot.
And be honest, is there anyone here who wouldn't include this in their repertoire of funny stories if it had happened to you?
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 9:10 PM
@LKL #88
Bingo!
Posted by: windy | August 9, 2009 9:10 PM
I'm sorry for unloading on you Ben, it seems to have been a misunderstanding all around, and your original suggestion was pretty funny so I should not have accused you of being humorless.
You might have interpreted that whole exchange a bit wrong, it was David who said he'd just look comical, and I was saying that it does not need to stop him from looking like a bad ass.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 9:15 PM
No worries Windy, and I'm sorry I misunderstood you so badly. Thankfully thick skin and a sense of humour always wins in the long run.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 9:17 PM
Ben Mueller-Heaslip wrote:
Actually, I don't; atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. That science may aid a person in reaching the conclusion that there aren't any gods to believe in is great, but it's not always the case.
I say this 'cause I've always been an atheist, at least in the sense that I've never believed in any of the gods I've been exposed to.
And that has zero to do with science. My mother took me to church and put me in associated social groups for a few years but at no point did I accept the idea that the god everyone else seemed to believe in existed. This was a long time before I encountered any argument which used science to support it.
Funnily enough, it was only years later that I realised that everyone wasn't like me - that there were people who really do believe in gods.
I'm still more than a little perplexed by it. But the science side of it is only the means by which I've been shown what did actually happen, in terms of life and the universe and so forth - not the reason for why I don't believe any of the god hypotheses.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:20 PM
Ben Mueller-Heaslip #83
I apologize, Ben, I could have sworn you were a goddist because you were using a typical goddist argument, i.e., changing the definition of a simple, straightforward word. I'm sorry that you don't know what atheism means, but that's not my fault, is it?
Now, to answer your statements:
In other words, I was right, you don't know what atheism is. It is, in very simple words, a lack of belief in gods and/or other assorted deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Did you see anything there about contradicting values or any of that other shit? No you didn't, because only your own, personal, idiosyncratic definition of atheism includes extraneous stuff like "values established and promoted by religions."
My problem is you're an ignorant asshole trying to foist your pet definition of atheism on the rest of us. Just because you're stupid doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Do I Do I [sic] find it abrasive and stupid when a stupid piece of shit like yourself bash people for asking honest questions? Yes, I do.
Do I give a rat's ass if your feelings are hurt? No, I don't.
Changing the definition of atheism is something else that religious zealots, as well as ignorant assholes, do. Which flavor are you?
Fuck off.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 9:22 PM
LKL @ 70.
I'm with you all the way, I try to engage as many people as I can, but remember that your friend has been victimized twice, once by fate, and again by Christian hucksters selling nothing for something.
It's not a good idea for reasonable people to hard sell rationalism and atheism on the level that Jesus salesmen do on the streets. To do so is to stoop to obnoxiousness, and ideas should never be reduced to commodities.
I feel for your friend but we can't compete with the brainwashing hard sell techniques of Scientology, Islam, Moonies or Christians, it's downright unethical.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 9:27 PM
@ Tis Himself #94
Were you actually pissing yourself while eating a twinkie as your wrote that? Psych-o.
Can anyone else tell me whether this guy's like this all the time? Or do you guys just try to avoid talking about him?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:28 PM
That's the last time I use preview. It completely changed the blockquotes in #94. Here they are again:
In other words, I was right, you don't know what atheism is. It is, in very simple words, a lack of belief in gods and/or other assorted deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Did you see anything there about contradicting values or any of that other shit? No you didn't, because only your own, personal, idiosyncratic definition of atheism includes extraneous stuff like "values established and promoted by religions."
My problem is you're an ignorant asshole trying to foist your pet definition of atheism on the rest of us.
Do I give a rat's ass if your feelings are hurt? No, I don't.
Changing the definition of atheism is something else that religious zealots, as well as ignorant assholes, do. Which flavor are you?
Fuck off.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:33 PM
Most of the time I'm a quiet, intelligent, personable man who writes on such topics as history, political science and, especially, economics. It's only when I run across ignorant assholes like you that I get intemperate. That's because stupidity about atheism, even by an atheist, is something that I dislike. If you don't like my writing, you are kindly invited to fuck off.
Posted by: oaksterdam | August 9, 2009 9:34 PM
Ben, I think that's a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 9:41 PM
@Wowbangger #93
You're totally right, and I don't think I've been very clear. I'm not trying to stretch the definition of atheism to include things beyond its literal definition.
By scientifically-driven, I meant only that respect for evidentiary proof is a binding principle and that's why the pseudoscientific critiques PZ publishes here strike a chord with atheists.
By culturally-driven, I meant to say that many (but as others have pointed out, not all) atheists reject many of the cultural norms and values promoted by religions.
I, personally, see both of those ideals (and they are ideals 'Tis Himself... just ideals... not a reason to foam at the mouth) as saying something positive that I, personally (not every atheist has to be just like me, 'Tis Himself) associate with my atheist convictions.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 9:45 PM
Ben-
we do have to be careful when we generalize the ideals that we associate with our adherence to a world belief, to the world belief in general; we don't want to become like the theists who go around claiming that one cannot have morals if one is not a theist.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 9:45 PM
What pseudoscientific critics? PZ is a scientist. The only pseudoscience presented here is by creobots, IDiots, AGW deniers, godbots, and liberturds, etc.Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2009 9:46 PM
Guess I must not have been listening during his more offensive midget jokes though, so I retract my previous statement. The "going up on you" was particularly over the top and I missed it. That's definitely not something that should have made it on 2 of the most popular Atheist blogs - I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes ammo for the anti-atheists.
Aside from that, it sounded like one of those job interview tips sessions that we had with my computer science classes, held because too many hopeless nerds were making our school look bad with how they had no understanding of the basics of job interviewing. I feel like he looked up "dating tips" on wikihow or something and made a presentation. Yeah Hemant, you really seem like you're the type of person i want dating advice from.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:49 PM
Ben #100
At least now you're admitting that your definition of atheism includes stuff that you've decided that atheists are supposed to accept or reject. I suspect that most atheists would agree, more or less, with your "ideals." My point is that your ideals are not applicable to all atheists because atheism doesn't require such ideals.
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 9:50 PM
Seriously 'Tis Himself - what's your problem with me? What, exactly have I done to provoke you? What have I said that's so profoundly stupid as to make you "break character" from your,
"Most of the time I'm a quiet, intelligent, personable man who writes on such topics as history, political science and, especially, economics."
Standard.
Oh wait: economics? political science? Ok - I get it. Libertarian, right?
Ok... I'm backing away slowly now.... real... slow...
Posted by: Ben | August 9, 2009 9:53 PM
@102 Redhead
I wrote 'Critiques', not 'Critics'. It's a big difference. I don't think we disagree, but it we're going to can we at least try to speak the same language?
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 9:56 PM
@ Nerd of Redhead, #102:
that was critiques, not critics. PZ posts take-downs (critiques) of pseudoscience, and the fact that he does so resonates with a lot of atheists.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:57 PM
Because, as I said before, I dislike people, even supposed atheists, making new definitions of atheism. I've told you what atheism is, and there's no requirement there for your "ideals" nor your whining about PZ Myer's "pseudoscientific" something or other. Just because you claim to be an atheist is no reason for you to use a typical goddist ploy.
Guess again, Benny. As any of the other regulars can tell you, I'm about as anti-libertarian as you can get. I write about economics because I'm an economist. That's what I've done for a living for many years.
Posted by: Ben | August 9, 2009 9:58 PM
#104. Tis Himself.
Man:
1) let's just try to get along, or
2) At least read what I said! It's right fucking there: these are "ideals that I associate with atheism; I don't think every atheist has to share them."
3) I will ignore you. You aren't going to intimidate me from participating in this blog.
Why not make an kindly gesture towards option 1. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 10:04 PM
Ben @ 96 - Tis Himself is one of the more delightful commenters here.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 10:10 PM
Ben FaceLip
What is wrong with people like you and PZ Myers?
Honest to Dog you actually BELIEVED in Noahs Ark, the Tower of Babel, and talking goddam snakes until you went to biology class??
What is wrong with you people, and why didn't I make a million bucks on yall before I was ten years old, and settled back into a comfortable retirement?
You don't need to comprehend an acid base extraction, or calculus to understand that ther God Yahwah bullshit was a bunch of junk made up by your parents to make you behave or else burn in hell or be struck by lightning.
This level of stupidity explains where republicans come from.
Posted by: Ben | August 9, 2009 10:12 PM
@ Patricia: I'm fucking unbelievably delighted!
@ LHL: Thanks for the advice #101. I've been guilty of being less clear than I ought. But I think we understand each other now.
@ 'Tis Himself: We'll learn to get along, or not.
Thanks for the interesting evening!
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 10:15 PM
Patricia, what do you think about offering Ben Wah no Balls an option 4?
I have a long list but I'll give you first shot. Beauty before menace I alweays say
Posted by: le_sacre
|
August 9, 2009 10:15 PM
I'm embarrassed for anyone who didn't find the "midget story" offensive.
For me, what really defines the story is how he described his initial reaction to seeing her: wanting to just drive away. Yikes. Even if it weren't in response to her being a member of a minority group persecuted for their physical appearance, that comment instantly tells us he's a worthless jerk.
But the fact that he's so blatantly insensitive to discriminating against people for who they are shows that he's also a stupid, obliviously bigoted worthless jerk.
I have to wonder, what would his response have been if, halfway through the story, he happened to glance into the audience and see a little person?
Posted by: Craig | August 9, 2009 10:16 PM
I also found Hemant's opening salvo of midget jokes offensive and highly insensitive. I listened no further than that and I suspect I would have left the classroom in disgust immediately had I been present. He really needs to have someone buy him a clue.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 10:22 PM
I'm very easy to get along with. Don't say stupid things and I'll be nice to you all day long. I have few prejudices, two of them are a strong dislike of libertarians and another is an unwillingness to suffer fools gladly.
This does not mean that you have to agree with me on everything. SC OM (you'll discover what OM means sooner or later) and I have had several disagreements about anarchism. These discussions have been reasonably calm because both she and I respect each other. Plus occasionally I'll post something that's wrong and more knowledgeable people will correct me. I'll be the second to admit I don't know everything (my wife will be the first) and sometimes I'll write erroneous things. By all means correct me if I do so.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 10:24 PM
Scooter - That option might be for the best. The spanking couch, extra grog and swill, or a free hurl are all off the table.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 10:26 PM
Blush.
Posted by: windy | August 9, 2009 10:31 PM
In the thin geek category, I think I'd prefer something a bit more edgy. Elric of Melniboné? Speaking of which, are there no illustrations of Elric where he actually looks decadent and sickly, instead of a standard fantasy muscle macho?
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 9, 2009 10:38 PM
'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 3:19 PM #43
Tis, it sounds like good things happen when you ride with your bro...(hey bro up for a bike ride this weekend).
You must have got a lot of milage with that one over the years.
PS Ben,...Tis is!
enough said on my part.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 10:49 PM
Sphere Coupler - What kind of bike do you ride? Mine is a 1957/1993 Harley. (yeah, it's one of those.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 10:50 PM
If you keep saying things like that he will expect a Molly nomination. *looks at Molly lists* *puts away lists and walks away whistling*Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 10:50 PM
As a total sexist pig male, the story reveals the teller as a man not bothered much by his own libido, with little imagination or sense of sexual adventure.
I was forty when I married my wonderful wife, but before that I was a lecherous devil may care biker, drug fiend sperm fountain.
Most idiot males are ass men or boob dweebs or whatever, I preyed on them and fucked their girlfriends just to prove I could, I just honest -to-Dog was the horniest, craziest thing on two legs and I LOVED women. Women were so much saner than than all my biker male friends.
My infatuation with women and sex opened me up to every expression of the feminine physical cornucopia.
I would try anything once, black girls white girls, asian girls big girls skinny girls, I had a 6'2" girlfriend for a few months, was in love with a 4'10" girl, monster knocker lovers, cupcake perkies, redheads, blondes, pakistanis, mean girls, nice girls, threatening women, hippy chicks, junkies, speed freaks, corporate San Fran rich corporate women, losers, winners, activists and fascists.
I spent most of my life infatuated by the feminine mystique, and never used anyone or lied or abused trust.
I never had the opportunity to get it on with a little person, and that's the difference between this Hermant pig and the scooter pig.
Why would any adventurous sexual male pass on the opportunity to make it with a willing little person?
Truth be told, listen to the story, it's a three minute set-up for a cheap ass punch line, the whole thing is fiction, the guy is a loser and hopefully he will find love trading sex for grades in academia is the woman is aggressive enough to overcome his vaginaphobia.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 11:01 PM
Scooter, you horny toad, confession is in the Bikers For Christ tent. :p
Posted by: Woronov | August 9, 2009 11:09 PM
@114, The midget story was offensive and the "going up" joke is really played, but the part you're referring to does not make him stupid, oblivious, bigoted, worthless or a jerk. Those people (I refuse to use the condescending term 'little people') are sexually unappealing to most people so it's natural for a person who's looking for a sexual partner to want to spare themselves the uncomfortable futility of dating the sexually non-desirable. And guess what...he didn't leave. He stayed anyway because he'd have felt guilty about hurting her. His comments during the recorded speech, particularly the one that makes the girl he's mocking identifiable by anybody with an internet connection are what you should have a problem with, not his human reaction. Also, the girl LIED. Her physical condition is very relevant and she deliberately omitted it to deceive him. She behaved immorally, he didn't...until he gave the speech.
Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2009 11:19 PM
Hemant's posted an explanation about it on his website.
I refuse to use the condescending term 'little people'
It's a term that a large group of them have chosen, so although some do think it's condescending, it's the term that has the most support from within the group at the moment. Although I agree that the term "people" would be preferred even over that.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 9, 2009 11:19 PM
I can't believe what limp dicked fraidy cats infest an otherwise randy Pharygula interchange once you scale a woman down.
I feel it's necessary to apologize for testosterone which seems to be losing its influence. With guys like these, who needs global warming?
Posted by: Woronov | August 9, 2009 11:21 PM
Whoa scooter @123, you sound like a despicable asshole. Do you have any regret over ruining relationships, using women, and spreading stds? Ah but you LOVE women...
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 9, 2009 11:27 PM
Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 10:49 PM
I know, I know, ya got a 58 panhead and I want one.
Today I road a converted Bike to Trike. Took a little getting used to but a hell of a lot easier to keep upright when in stop and go traffic.
I'm *sniff* *sniff* bikeless at the moment.
Posted by: LKL | August 9, 2009 11:31 PM
@scooter #123:
Given that you still describe women's differences almost entirely based on physical appearance, and that you (by your own admission) had sex with women not because you were interested in them but because you were playing dominance games with their male partners, but still claim that you 'never used anyone,' I fail to see that age and marriage have changed you all that much.
@Woronov: She didn't tell Hemant that she was tall. She might even have posted her real height in the 'height' collumn of the dating site, and Hemant didn't bother to read it in detail before the date - he didn't say. People often don't reveal the things that they consider their greatest weaknesses before they even get to the first date with someone who is basically a total stranger.
Posted by: Dan W | August 10, 2009 12:00 AM
I liked Hemant's presentation, though I do think the "midget" story might have been better left out. I think the point he was trying to get across is that, oftentimes in online dating services, you will get people who lie about who they are, and it was more about Hemant being surprised that the woman was a "midget" than any intolerance toward such people. I didn't take that story as being intolerant, and I liked most of the rest of the videos.
It did seem to be geared more towards geeky, somewhat socially inept/inexperienced people. I didn't mind that too much, mainly because I might fit into that type of person. I honestly don't think Hemant meant anything disrespectful towards "midgets" with that story, it was just a funny tale to break the ice, and people shouldn't get worked up about it.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 10, 2009 12:05 AM
Wormhole @ 128
I prefer male pig to despicable asshole, we're talking penis not asshole.
Do you really believe that women who sleep with crazy bikers can't help themselves? I'm not brad pitt, Men are fucking pigs, their insistence on dominance over their 'women'(property) is an expression of their own inner fears and failures as men, which is total bullshit, so they project that onto their lovers, because in this patriarchy it's ALWAYS the woman's fault, isn't it?
I never took advantage of women, face it, you goddam middle class pinkBoy stilted suits don't want bad boys like me around your women , sisters or daughters because you 're goddam right we're a threat to your bullshit patriarchal ownership model.
You dumbass euro trash whiteBoy, why do you think the great civilizations of the Americas traced their lineage down the matriarchal line?
Because that's the only true bloodline, guys like you and I are just question marks
What a bunch of crap, I had the clap once in 1972, STDs are spread by loser jerks who can't get laid and screw hookers. Sex freaks (ex sex freaks I've family for 15 years) do not spread diseases, we spread questionable geneology which sets off all you nerds and bedwetters.
Posted by: LKL | August 10, 2009 12:12 AM
If you're being careless enough to spread your genes, then you're also careless enough to spread STDs.
Posted by: Dan W | August 10, 2009 12:17 AM
One more thing to add: Hemant has put up a comment on his blog explaining that story that so many people have found offensive.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/09/a-response-to-the-atheism-and-dating-video/
I'll leave it to decide what you think of his response.
Posted by: Dan W | August 10, 2009 12:18 AM
Gah, typos! That last line should have read "I'll leave it to you all to decide what you think of his response."
*sigh*
Posted by: Wormhole | August 10, 2009 12:20 AM
132, Bwah! I don't know what percentage of that is trolling and what's sincere, but statistically your dick at least WAS very dirty, I'm willing to offer that as compromise.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 10, 2009 12:22 AM
LK, gotta gto but
If you want the entire rundown on my feelings and regards for all of my adventures that would take volumes of writings, not all that interesting because boys like girls and girls like boys.
Most people are racist pieces of shit or religious freaks so there is not enough cross-fucking between the different human flavors, and I'm convinced that racial inbreeding is the source of the increase in breathtaking stupidity right here in the land of the stupid pinkboy dipshits and their idiot sisters.
.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 12:28 AM
True, but there are a lot of socially-awkward nerds who also happen to be atheists... or so I would assume ;)Posted by: ewb | August 10, 2009 12:52 AM
just want to thank him for pointing out that girls that show up to atheist groups can get asked out a lot. it can be awkward when you'd like to maintain an uncomplicated friendship with the members of the group, that being said, she may want to be asked out by others of a similar perspective. what i would add to hemant's advice is to try very hard to asses beforehand whether or not she will be receptive to your romantic advance. i know this is hard, and at the very least (this is the most important thing) ask confidently, but politely, and be understanding if she declines. make it clear that you are making a romantic invitation, so that she does not later feel tricked or deceived into a date.
(on a similar note) in the realm of internet dating, if you are not upfront with someone about your physical appearance (this could simply be posting an uncharacteristically attractive photo of yourself) you set yourself up for harsh rejection by first setting them up to be awkwardly caught off guard. no good date begins by feeling like you have been lied too.
Posted by: scooter
|
August 10, 2009 3:48 AM
Hear Hear.
As the resident male pig troll, I find lurking amongst our very strained lightly organized forces for mating purposes somewhat weird and counter-productive.
Posted by: Simon Scott | August 10, 2009 6:21 AM
This guy lost me in the first 60 seconds - total FAIL.
What a tard.
Posted by: Flea | August 10, 2009 6:58 AM
PZ sponsoring anecdotal evidence... mmmmmm...
Posted by: Carlie | August 10, 2009 7:27 AM
Simon Scott, it might not be a good idea to chastise someone for making fun of a height-deficient person by calling him a slur for a mentally deficient person.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 10, 2009 8:23 AM
I think Hemant is simply lousy at telling jokes. It came across as awkward more than bigotry (although I can imagine that people could be upset at some of the terms used - in particular, 'midget'). The idea of finding out your date was a previous guest on the Springer show should be enough to have anyone run in the opposite direction no matter what their physical appearance.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 8:44 AM
The opening anecdote was rather unpleasant, even if true.
How terms come to be considered offensive is interesting.
From the Salon article Carlie linked to @27:
Etymologically, at least, it's easy to explain the word's offense: It's derived from "midge," a type of tiny fly that may bite or spread disease. But part of the word "midget's" P.R. problem is that the term (like "retarded") was once used comfortably, particularly to distinguish people who were small but proportionate (usually as the result of a growth hormone deficiency) from those who were small but disproportionate (usually due to one of various bone disorders, such as achondroplasia). It was also once the term of choice for dwarfs in the entertainment world. In fact, LPA itself was founded in 1957 by actor Billy Barty and about 20 colleagues as "Midgets of America." The name was changed three years later. Even, or especially, as more diverse (and "respectable") professions have opened up to people with dwarfism, its vestigial freak-show connotation has remained, and has come to rankle.
I don't know whether "midget" is considered offensive by those to whom it is applied in Britain. The equivalent of the LPA is called the "Restricted Growth Association", and uses the term "person of restricted growth"; it seems difficult to find a term which is accurate, succinct, and not cringe-inducing (as an achondroplasic close relative of mine certainly finds "little people").
Posted by: Dawn | August 10, 2009 9:18 AM
@Patricia: wish you were closer to me, I'd ask if you want to go out for a motorcycle ride one fine Saturday (if you would ride with someone who has a 2004 Suzuki SV650). Your bike sounds really cool.
Posted by: Walton | August 10, 2009 9:31 AM
Scooter, you sound like a complete bastard. Arrogant "alpha males" like you are some of the most unpleasant detritus of the human race.
Clearly you have no empathy with the men whose relationships you've ruined; after all, they're only "nerds". Their feelings and lives don't matter to you. Of course, nothing matters to bullies like you except your own immediate gratification.
The fact that there is no god, and no "divine" moral law, does not give you licence to act like a total asshole towards other human beings. This life and this world are all we have; and people like you do your bit to make this life and this world more miserable for those, like me, who are unlucky enough to have been born socially-awkward and emotionally insecure.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Walton, try not to take things like that too personally. For one, it seems kind of misogynistic that you're taking away all responsibility that a woman has in choosing her sexual partners. And two, if you get worked up about things like this you'll never overcome your fear of inadequacy. Try not to worry about what others are doing, because that will only make things worse for yourself.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 10, 2009 10:34 AM
Re the erm... vertically different... bit at the beginning, yeah, a bit of very nasty, there, really. I decided to give 'im the benefit of the doubt anyway, kept listening. Mostly 'cos I was thinking: 'Okay... if that had actually happened to me, I would have been sorely tempted to find a way to use the material... I mean, if your date has been a Springer guest, there just has to be something you can do with that... I mean, come on, now...'
But then again, I'm pretty sure I would have wound up spiking the whole thing, too, for having failed to come up with a version that wasn't too off-putting. Remember: the cutting room floor is your friend...
And in that vein, anyway, Hemant, seriously, if that was a borrowed joke, unborrow it. Otherwise, hey, call me, babe*... I hear a rewrite with a bit more bittersweet, emphasize what was actually likeable about her, apologize properly in the course of telling it for having been weirded out, etc... acknowledge we do all have our no go zones in dating, rightly or wrongly. It could work. This stuff isn't hard, or nothin'. Just a bit delicate.
(Also, seriously, you should be able to do something more with having been in the Springer audience, too... I mean... wait, what? I'd go with something like... 'Okay... maybe I have... in the studio audience, anyway... maybe... tho' this is no means an admission or nothin'... anyway...')
And all that said, I actually quite liked the rest of it. Squirm through the bad opening bit, and it absolutely did have its moments, to be fair.
(*/Not a come on. I don't swing that way/am already married. Also, I'm... umm... probably not your type... See, I'm very, very short...**)
(**/No, not really.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 10:42 AM
um
wow
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 10:53 AM
Dawn - My bike is pretty cool if you like old school Harley's. We have beautiful scenery here in Oregon and some really windy roads in the Mt. Hood National forest. Don't let people tease you about your bike, any bike is better than none. ;)
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 10:58 AM
Kel, OM,
I think Walton's got a point. Scooter often comes out with some good stuff, but he does sometimes come over as a selfish, boastful, misogynist jerk, as for example:
Most idiot males are ass men or boob dweebs or whatever, I preyed on them and fucked their girlfriends just to prove I could [my emphasis]
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 11:02 AM
Sphere Coupler - I've never ridden a trike. My dad has a side car for his shovelhead, but he says it's awkward.
Rumor out here is that the price of bikes is going to tank, you'll probably be able to find a nice one at a sweet price.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 11:10 AM
I'm not disagreeing with Walton's sentiments, mainly that he's taking it personally.I'm reminded of the sage words of some hippy Indian prince.
"Be where you are, otherwise you will miss your life." - Buddha
Posted by: jillbryant | August 10, 2009 11:54 AM
Gotta throw in my objection to the beginning with a lot of the others. I think his dating problem has to do with him being kind of an @ss. I'm surprised this was put up here as an example of one of the good talks.......
Posted by: OrbitalMike | August 10, 2009 11:56 AM
Just a few images from the SSA conference in Columbus
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evodevo_mike/sets/72157621987546920/
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 10, 2009 1:04 PM
While I'm familiar with the concept, that guy is significantly taller, and thus more intimidating, than me. And besides... "comically"... he's rather overdoing it. Urgl.
Movement? What movement?
I give up. You're better at horror than me. GAAAAH!
...This kind of thing always happens when I try to make a joke. Grmblf.
Scientific, or proof?
So, assuming he's "adventurous", he has vaginaphobia. Right?
Now, what the fuck makes you think he's adventurous?
Logic: ur doin it rong.
Don't wax mythical about "only true bloodline"s. There seems to be a general trend that agricultural civilizations tend to be matri-, but pastoral ones patrilineal. With no or almost no animals to herd, "the great civilizations of the Americas" were all agricultural...
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
Comment 133 says it best. I should add that having a disease isn't necessary to transmit its pathogens.
Then why isn't there more stupidity over here, where people who look different were simply not available until recently? And what makes you think a significant amount of "racial inbreeding" is occurring in the country that considers Obama "black" instead of "half-black" or "mixed" or something?
Posted by: MikeyM | August 10, 2009 1:14 PM
Don't gentlemen always help their passengers into the car?
Posted by: Ben | August 10, 2009 1:56 PM
@David Marjanović #157
------By scientifically-driven, I meant only that respect for evidentiary proof is a binding principle
Scientific, or proof?
Yes, 'proof-driven' is what I mean, but it sounds so lame.
Movement? What movement?
Shared goals, values, and ideals, organized collective activity toward those goals, hubs of information exchange relative to these things (i.e. this blog)... it's subjective, but is it so unlikely a term?
But please don't take me to be implying that there's a concrete ideology here that parallels conventional political or religious movements. That's not my intention and I don't think I've suggested anything other than what I just described.
Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 2:09 PM
@156: thanks for posting the pics. There are some great shots of PZ on page 3.
Posted by: Woronov | August 10, 2009 3:13 PM
@148 "Try not to worry about what others are doing, because that will only make things worse for yourself."
He made one fucking post on the matter, I don't think that diguising fake concern as sage advice can be successfully accomplished when it's clear that Grandma's wisdom isn't warranted.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 6:23 PM
Have you seen Walton's previous posts on similar matters? That boy can really spill it at times.Posted by: Akiko | August 11, 2009 12:07 AM
I know how long it takes for a crystal to grow under certains pressures and temperatures. It has been proven over and over in laboratories. Therefore, I can conclusively say I know how long it took for a cave to form that is filled with crystals. There is no belief here but hard facts. I sure wish people who have no clue would stop telling me how to do my job. I dont go to their jobs and knock the dicks out of their mouths.
Posted by: TiG | August 11, 2009 12:16 PM
This whole thread has degenerated. I'm just reading the comments all the way through because I guess I'm thorough. But ick.
Posted by: TiG | August 11, 2009 12:19 PM
So what *does* the OM mean?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 12:26 PM
OM: Order of the Molly. Awarded each month (when PZ remembers), on the vote of the readership. Molly is a reference to Molly Ivins.