…and this is a 
I got a letter from John F — you know, John Flansburgh, of They Might Be Giants — and he says, "We've got this new album coming out that you might like, want me to send you a copy?", and so I nonchalantly type back, "Sure, here's my address," which was really hard to do when you understand that I was dancing jigglety-pigglety in my chair, pumping my fists in the air, and shouting "WOO-HOO!" at the same time. It would have been impossible except for my blogging superpowers. (Oh, yeah…I'm a TMBG fanboi.)
I got the album Here Comes Science the other day, and it is fabulous. It's kids' music, so it's catchy and a teeny-tiny bit didactic, but don't let that put you off — I've loaded it onto my iPod and am enjoying it all the time. It's also contains a CD and a DVD: each song also has an animated cartoon to go with it. They're great and enthusiastic songs — my favorites so far are "I am a paleontologist" and "Science is real".
You should buy it. It'll be available next week, or you can always stop by my house and I'll put the DVD up on the big screen and we can all rock out in my living room — I'll push all the furniture to the side so we can all dance. Or if you're cheap and don't like me, you can subscribe to the TMBG podcast on iTunes: they're going to release a song a week.
Can't wait? You can get a look at "Science is Real" right now.
I should warn you, though, it's controversial. Yeah, right. Look at the comments on Amazon. The song "Science is Real" contains these lyrics:
I like the stories
About angels, unicorns and elves
Now I like the stories
As much as anybody else
But when I'm seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science
The facts are with science
This has prompted a few comments.
I love TMBG more than anybody, but was it really necessary to take a pot-shot at religion?
This guy must be one of those thin-skinned elf worshippers.
As a Christian I'm offended by comparing unicorns, elves with angels. Unicorns and Elves are fiction, and angels are biblical. End of story.
(Shhh. Don't tell him about Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9,10, Psalms 22:21 and 29:6 and 92:10 or Isaiah 34:7. Unicorns are biblical, too.)
This is why the accommodationist strategy is doomed to failure. There is no gentle demurral from religion that will not offend someone — even fun songs about science are expected to pretend that angels are real.
Comments
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 3, 2009 9:22 AM
I heard about this today while listening to last week's Nature podcast. Looking to get it now, TMBG are pretty awesome.
Posted by: Zeno | September 3, 2009 9:22 AM
It's really mean of you to pick on angels, PZ. As my grandmother used to tell me, each of us has a guardian angel whose job it is to protect us from harm. These poor angels are evidently overworked, underpaid, and constantly failing at their jobs. Mocking them as nonexistent is really adding insult to injury.
Posted by: llewelly | September 3, 2009 9:24 AM
Uh, thanks for the news, but don't you have a book to write?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2009 9:24 AM
Humm, I was just ragging on a friend of mine who is taking his kids to see them at the NC Museum of Art.
I'm going to have to apologize now.
Posted by: PaleGreenPantsWithNobodyInsideThem | September 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Wait a minute. I gotta wait an entire week to buy something that I never heard of before? damn you to hell PZ. Now, I'm impatient and I don't like being impatient.
Posted by: LtStorm | September 3, 2009 9:32 AM
But does the album include Why Does the Sun Shine?/The Sun is a Mass of Incandescent Gas?
Posted by: Gryllus | September 3, 2009 9:32 AM
Writing "end of story" must now be a shibboleth of the terminally angry, purblind fundamentalist. I particularly like it when they write "end of." Often with a string of machine-gunned exclamation marks (with the obligatory, and telling, single digit in it) !!!!!!1!!!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 3, 2009 9:33 AM
SHAME on you, Rev! I love TMBG. 'Istanbul (not Constantinople)' is one of my favorite all time songs, although it's annoying to my poor wife, who has to hear me break out into a verse of it every time Istanbul is so much as mentioned in the news or anywhere else.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 9:33 AM
I have been anxiously awaiting it ever since I saw the song title "I am a paleontologist". If you become a fan on facebook, you get all their updates, too!
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | September 3, 2009 9:34 AM
By that standard, all strategies are doomed to failure, which would indicate your standard is foolish or mere rhetorical flourish and that standard carries with it the implicit lie that some 'accomodationist' out there has claimed their strategy would indeed succeed with everyone.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 3, 2009 9:35 AM
PZ, you ought to know better;
It's clear that you're batshit insane!
If it weren't for angels taking a piss,
Then how on earth could it rain?
Posted by: J. Allen | September 3, 2009 9:37 AM
Now we just need a heavy metal band to do a similar theme
Posted by: BenW
|
September 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Thanks so much for letting me know. My younglings are homeschooled and it so very hard to find catchy stuff to really get them in science. Well other than the Creationist claptrap that other homeschool parents try to push on you.
Posted by: Coryat | September 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Actually Cuttlefish, as any fule nos, it rains when Baby Jesus cries due to our sins. End of story.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
September 3, 2009 9:41 AM
It's soooo easy to offend jesus lovers.
I'm not really into TMBG but I think I'll buy it just to encourage them for the good move.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 3, 2009 9:46 AM
No, this does not invalidate a strategy that admits right from the start that some people must be offended by our position, and regards that as an actual strength.
We aren't the ones weeping over any sign of antagonism from the public, you know. We're the ones running out to the crying babies and getting in their faces.
Posted by: Ben | September 3, 2009 9:46 AM
PZ, I agree with your points in the post. However, I looked up the Bible verses you cited, and it was clear to me that the author intended those verses as similes/metaphors. It's one thing when the Bible explicitly states the ridiculous, like Creation, the Flood, and talking animals. Passages like you cited, however, the central premise of what was being said is the gloriousness of God, and then providing similes/metaphors to give the reader a mental picture of that. Let's not commit the same error Creationists do by quote mining the Bible.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 3, 2009 9:49 AM
Ben, #17
Oooh, you almost had me there. I was going to put on my special flaming pants and everything.
Posted by: Jessika | September 3, 2009 9:50 AM
There was another Amazon comment thread about this album, with complaints about TMBG including evolution. It just makes me love TMBG more, and extra glad that I've had my copy on pre-order already.
My Baby Grrl loves their 123 & ABC videos, and I hope to have this one be a regular, also. If only they'd come back to Oklahoma soon!
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 3, 2009 9:52 AM
"Now we just need a heavy metal band to do a similar theme"
What, Rush ain't good enough for you?
Posted by: Nightsky | September 3, 2009 9:53 AM
Holy cow, you got email from TMBG?!? I am so envious. I've been a fan for years.
My niece and nephew love the previous two albums, but THIS one's just for auntie. :)
Posted by: Tim Lehnerer | September 3, 2009 9:54 AM
Hot diggity. Pre-ordered.
Posted by: Sara | September 3, 2009 9:55 AM
Aw, that's so cute. Getting it for younger brother :)
The comments, though, I thought they were a parodyyyyyy. WHYYYYYYYYYY.
@Ben
Haha, "writer intended", good one. Only, NOBODY REALLY CARES what the writer intended. Not even the so-called literalists.
Especially not the literalists:
http://camelswithhammers.com/2009/08/30/leviticus-biblical-literalism-and-why-its-all-drivel-propagated-by-delusional-bigots-who-need-something-anything-to-validate-their-beliefs/
Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 9:55 AM
Prove that it's not to be taken literally.Posted by: Katkinkate | September 3, 2009 9:56 AM
Posted by: Coryat @ 14 "Actually Cuttlefish, as any fule nos, it rains when Baby Jesus cries due to our sins. End of story."
So when worshippers get it right we get drought! Now I know who to blame!
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | September 3, 2009 9:57 AM
"As my grandmother used to tell me, each of us has a guardian angel whose job it is to protect us from harm. "
I've been molested, abused, hit by a pickup truck, skull-fractured, pelvis-shattered, bowel-obstructed, Meniere's-contracted, PTSD-inflicted and plenty of other things.
My angel sucks ass.
Lazy fucker's been neglecting his job, off playing Catholic Priest with a cherub or some shit.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 3, 2009 9:57 AM
Aaagghagghghggggghhghghhghhhhhhh....
(really, I have nothing more than that to add)
Posted by: Vince | September 3, 2009 9:58 AM
I almost wish I wasn't a RETIRED science teacher just so I could use this in class. At least I can buy it and give it to a working teacher with enough balls to use it in class.
Posted by: Josh | September 3, 2009 9:59 AM
Rush is terrific, but I'd argue that they are not heavy, they are not hard, and they are certainly not metal.
Posted by: Jojo | September 3, 2009 9:59 AM
I have been waiting for this to come out ever since I heard about it. My wee beastie is so into TMBG Here Come the 123s and ABCs that I can't wait to introduce him to their Science one. He already wants to be a paleontologist, so this should be perfect for him.
It better be good because I have a feeling I be watching the DVD at least twice a day for a few months.
Posted by: Heliopolitan | September 3, 2009 10:03 AM
Wow - are these guys still on the go? They had a UK hit a zillion years ago, and by coincidence I was humming it the other day while loading the dishwasher, wondering "Where Are They Now?". Looking forward to hearing the album.
On the Accommodationism thingy, as a Christian Atheist (somewhat in the Dawkinsian "Cultural Christian" form), I'm torn. I am quite clear to my religious pals that I do not believe and that while I respect *them*, I don't respect their *belief*. Religion is not necessarily useless; if we like bits of it, aesthetically, we can use it like a mnemonic for things that we work out rationally anyway.
When I was a medical student, we learnt the branches of the facial nerve from a (slightly non-PC) mnemonic: "Two Zulus b*ggered my cat" (temporal, zygomatic, mandibular, buccal, cervical). Now, I can appreciate the comedy of that image, as well as the assurance that I will for all time remember the branches of the facial nerve, without subscribing to the *belief* that my cat (n=1) has had anything other than congenial platonic encounters with n Zulus, where n>=0. That's what religion should be like - comedic cultural moral mnemonics, amenable to rational adjustments, but not hardwired rules.
I don't regard that as an accommodationist view - indeed, it's probably uncompromisingly friendly. Of course, my believer friends regard it as the utmost despicable heresy, which kinda bears out what PZ has been saying all along. Still, I've found a lot of Christians who think that way, but daren't say it. Maybe it's a "third way" that avoids the perils of accommodationism. [Of course some of my atheist friends regard it as "heresy" too... can't win :-)]
Posted by: Robyn | September 3, 2009 10:05 AM
That was adorable. I want to show it to my students if I could.
(Oh, Walt Disney Records. Wait for everybody to pounce all over that. 9_9)
Posted by: Lee Rittner | September 3, 2009 10:06 AM
"We're the ones running out to the crying babies and getting in their faces."
Yeah, that's sort of why you guys come off to be just as annoyingly strident as the average Jehovah's Witness.
Posted by: Heliopolitan | September 3, 2009 10:06 AM
[got the order of the nerves wrong up there -sorry- pesky old brain!]
Posted by: Snc735 | September 3, 2009 10:09 AM
I will have to check out this new album. Sounds like a good one.
Maynard James Keenan is my personal fav when it comes to music that goes against religious beliefs. Songs like Sour Grapes (Puscifer), Sober (Tool), Disgustipated (Tool), Judith (A Perfect Circle). Nine Inch Nails is good as well. Love Heresy from the Downward Spiral album.
Dredg's new album "The Pariah, The Parrot, The Delusion" is also excellent.
Posted by: rrt | September 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Hot damn! I knew you had taste, PZ! How much cooler is that you are apparently known to The Johns? Woah...suddenly I'm seeing a Pharyngula sing with Cuttlefish lyrics...(swoon)
Posted by: Joseph | September 3, 2009 10:11 AM
@Ben #17: I looked up those Bible references too, and the translation I found uses "wild ox". Do others actually say unicorn?
Posted by: BABH | September 3, 2009 10:12 AM
Accommodationist to Ben: I read the Genesis story, and it was obvious to me that the writer intended it as a metaphor for the glory of Sky Fairy. The story is clearly consistent with modern science.
Sensible Human Being to Ben: No, the authors of the Bible probably did believe in unicorns. Certainly the medieval church did (see Bestiaries), and certainly many biblical literalists today believe that they once existed.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 10:15 AM
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 3, 2009 10:15 AM
I took my son last summer. He was 4 at the time. He loved it. They play songs that aren't on their "kids" albums too. It was really fun. Better than Dan Zanes because it doesn't try to pander to preschoolers. My son likes the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and the Clash, so TMBG is more to his liking anyway.
Posted by: Katherine | September 3, 2009 10:16 AM
For those who are still of the belief that Unicorns are mythical please refer to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
Ken Ham:
To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.
Posted by: Citizen Z | September 3, 2009 10:17 AM
If you look at the passages in context, in the majority of cases the references are one of a series of metaphors with references to real animals. Job 39 in particular, references over half a dozen different, real, animals.
And it's hardly unfair when you also consider creationists themselves say unicorns are biblical and real.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | September 3, 2009 10:17 AM
"Yeah, that's sort of why you guys come off to be just as annoyingly strident as the average Jehovah's Witness."
Aw crap, now we have to stop knocking on strangers doors in the mornings and handing them non-fiction literature.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 3, 2009 10:18 AM
@Lee:
Stop trying to force crap in schools, pass laws that are based on your religion, and stop getting funded by us, and you'll see a decrease in that. You're already in our face, we're just starting to return the favor.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 10:21 AM
The King James version does. This is why biblical literalism is a non-starter: the first question you have to answer is "which version?"
Posted by: James Sweet | September 3, 2009 10:22 AM
Ben -- I agree with you that SOME of the passages cited by PZ are clearly using unicorns as part of an analogy or metaphor (although even then, the metaphor is phrased as if it is drawing a comparison to a real animal, but we'll give the ancient bloodthirsty goatherders the benefit of the doubt on that one).
However, the Isaiah reference is pretty literal... It pretty explicitly says that when the Lord gets His Holy Panties all up in a bunch, he will come down from the heavens filled with wrath and that, among other things, the unicorns will come down from the mountains. Pretty explicit.
Posted by: theymightbecrappy | September 3, 2009 10:23 AM
Is it all right if I hate Jesus AND that lousy excuse for a song?
The video was nicely done, though.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 10:23 AM
PZ:
Oh, much better: A Christian who implicitly equates mainstream religion with elf-worship, without even realizing s/he's doing it!
"It's dead, Jim"... it's just a matter of waiting for realization to set in. (OK, maybe not so much... but allow me my nanomoment of naive glee, won't you?)
BTW, the proper response to these know-nothings who kvetch1 about TMBG's radical endorsement of basic elementary school science is, of course...
"You're not the boss of me, now;
You're not the boss of me!!"
1 I originally typed bitch in place of kvetch, but decided to change it. Out of curiosity, do any of our resident Raisers of Consciousness About Gendered Language® (which I mean adoringly, I assure you, and with no snark or derision whatsoever) have an opinion about the use of bitch as a verb?
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 3, 2009 10:26 AM
As a Cate Blanchett ('n Liv Tyler) worshipper, I'm offended...
(/Heresy!...)
Posted by: Laura | September 3, 2009 10:27 AM
My kooky, not-quite-believable-but-totally true TMBG story: When I was a freshman in college, I got a call on a Friday night in my dorm room. The person on the other end said, "Hey, Laura, it's John! Did you get the tickets I left you?"
"What tickets?" I said.
"The tickets for the show tonight. I had the box office leave them for you."
"What tickets? What show? Who is this?" I said.
There was a brief silence. "It's John. John Flansburgh. You know, John."
"I don't know anybody named John. Definitely not a John Flansburgh. I think you have the wrong number."
"But I called the University switchboard and asked for Laura Williams. Are you Laura Williams."
"Yes, but there are like 15 Laura Williamses on campus. You've got the wrong one."
"Oh," he said. "Sorry." And he hung up.
A couple months later I was home for Christmas. One of my nephews got a CD for Christmas from some group called "They Might Be Giants." I had never heard of these guys, but I liked the sound. (I think the album was "Lincoln.") I started looking at the liner notes and there encountered a name I'd heard before: John Flansburgh.
I have been a fan ever since. And have also been kicking myself for not taking the stupid tickets!
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 3, 2009 10:27 AM
My angel keeps telling me to drink. I think he has a problem...
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 10:28 AM
As an atheist, I'm offended that you think being offended as a Christian should mean something to me. So there we are.
Posted by: BABH | September 3, 2009 10:28 AM
Joseph @37: Try the King James Version, the standard in the Protestant English-speaking world for 400 years. The Vulgate Bible, used by the Catholic Church from 400CE to 1700CE and beyond, has "unicorn" in Psalms 21:13, Psalms 28:6, Psalms 91:11 and Isaiah 34:7.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | September 3, 2009 10:33 AM
tsg, seeing that quote all by itself is kind of hilarious.
It doesn't need a context, it's in context all by itself.
"As a Christian I'm offended."
Perfect sig line, bumper sticker or t-shirt. All by itself. Hell, I'd wear the shirt. Everywhere I went, "As a Christian, I'm offended."
(Insomnia... I just find it very funny.)
Posted by: JustinB | September 3, 2009 10:35 AM
Ah, this is great! I've had myself worked up into a bit of a lather since finding out about this (and preordering within minutes). Of they're good, I might even let my kids borrow it :)
Amazon was supposed to ship these out tuesday, but have delayed by a week (boo!). It's available for download on iTunes right now, but has DRM (hiss!)
LtStorm, #6 - They do one better. They follow "Why does the sun shine" with "Why does the sun REALLY shine? (The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma)" ... The original is a cover, so you can't blame them for the inaccuracies.
Posted by: raven | September 3, 2009 10:35 AM
Mine keeps drinking all the Pinot Blanc and ordering more on my credit card. That is a problem!!!
Posted by: Postman
|
September 3, 2009 10:36 AM
No worries. God's a fanboi too.
http://deusexeverriculum.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/dear-they-might-be-giants/
Posted by: Silva | September 3, 2009 10:36 AM
I have to get that! My husband is also a TMBG fan, and my kiddo is going to be groomed as a budding scientist. (We're hoping his first word will be 'Drosophila'.)
Posted by: MartyM | September 3, 2009 10:39 AM
Yeah, one has to wonder why the words unicorn and dragon were removed from older translations of the bible. Isn't that messing with "God's Word"? Substituting words that may be less controversial or more acceptable are done in hopes the general christian doesn't even know this change has taken place. (not going to mention all the other messing with the word here). It's just made to mean what we want it to mean. Like Ehrman says, how can we know what the true meaning is if we don't have the original manuscripts? But this is a whole other topic, so I digress.
Posted by: Endor | September 3, 2009 10:39 AM
"Out of curiosity, do any of our resident Raisers of Consciousness About Gendered Language® (which I mean adoringly, I assure you, and with no snark or derision whatsoever) have an opinion about the use of bitch as a verb?"
can't speak for "us" all, but it's still stemming from the notion that the speaker lacks proper justification for their complaint and is therefore bitching like those silly bitches do. You know, "girls" "bitch", men have reasonable grievances.
That said, I use it as a verb myself, so I'm in no position to say someone else can't or shouldn't. perhaps that's an expression of my internalized sexism issues . . . hmmm . . .
Posted by: arensb | September 3, 2009 10:41 AM
If you pause the video at 0:09, the title screen seems to be a nod to the "Singing Science" albums by Tom Glazer and Marais & Miranda. Which makes sense, since TMBG's "Why Does the Sun Shine?" is a cover of one of those songs.
Posted by: stogoe | September 3, 2009 10:41 AM
Yes, it's not a term you should probably use here because it means "you're being a woman". "Why is John whining like a woman?" It's all about making 'woman' into a perjorative term. It's the same as calling something you don't like "gay". Gay is supposedly a 'bad' thing to be, so if you call someone's shoes "gay" you think they're as bad as gays are.
I don't know how you don't get this.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 3, 2009 10:45 AM
No, it's not. As an atheist fundamentalist, you must adhere to the doctrine of The Miracle of The Awesome of They Might Be Giants. Otherwise, we are going to excommunicate you from the Pharyngulite Church.
(Sometimes I think anti-atheists really believe we are like that...)
Posted by: raven | September 3, 2009 10:45 AM
Yes, of course. We tirelessly walk the neighborhoods knocking on doors to tell people if they are hemorrhaging blood like a stuck pig to just die. Identical to JayDubs.
Lee Rittner, I've called the FBI and Homeland Security for you. You are apparently being forced to read this blog by someone who is pointing a gun at your head. Rescue will be imminent, I'm sure.
Memo to Troll Central. Better trolls please, the Parrot(tm) brand knockoffs from China really aren't up to the job!
Posted by: Lynna | September 3, 2009 10:50 AM
See, Ken Ham should have never dissed PZ for riding the dino at the Creation Museum. PZ *really* is 12 years old in some (adorable) ways.
Loved the prism/rainbow scene in the video. I think they should have snuck a copy of "Unweaving the Rainbow" into the scene.
Posted by: False Prophet
|
September 3, 2009 10:50 AM
@Snc735, #35
Huge Tool/APC fan here as well, not just for the lyrical content, but the music as well: Tool basslines are great fun to play.
Muse is another favourite: check out "City of Delusion", "Megalomania", and "Knights of Cydonia". Although, I'm not entirely sure whether to take "Thoughts of a Dying Atheist" ironically, or as an honest statement of doubt.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | September 3, 2009 10:50 AM
You get email: FROM THE FLANS!
I am buying this album for all my friends with kids! XD
Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 10:52 AM
Is there video of your jigglety-pigglety dance? I'm sure many would pay hard cold cash to see it.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 3, 2009 10:53 AM
My mom still insists that I had a guardian angel when I was in an attempted car-jacking...
I asked her why I ended up with a bullet through my leg.
Posted by: blitzente
|
September 3, 2009 10:55 AM
#55: You sure it has DRM? Lots of iTunes stuff doesn't any more. The most recent TMBG newsletter said that Here Comes Science is entirely DRM-free, too.
It amuses (but doesn't particularly surprise) me that the Johns and PZ seem to be fans of each other. What's that saying about pretty cool people of a feather?
Oh, and if anybody is interested in previewing more of the songs before buying, right now it's audio streaming here and should be up for a few more days. The other track that has the religionists all up in arms is "My Brother the Ape", which is also darn catchy. It would be interesting to hear a biologist's opinion on the subject matter... cough, cough.
Posted by: Rieux | September 3, 2009 10:56 AM
Rittner @ 33 wrote:
And tsg @ 37 responded:
Is it SOP nowadays to leave off the "...and stupid" part of that line?(I s'pose the entire line is "We appreciate your concern; it is noted ... and stupid.")
Posted by: Aetre | September 3, 2009 10:56 AM
Yet another reason I love TMBG. ...Although now I'm going to have Istanbul stuck in my head all day.
Posted by: James Taylor | September 3, 2009 10:57 AM
Sweet, I was singing at least half of the songs on Flood to myself yesterday while cutting the grass. Sure its a twenty year old album, but every song on it is a favorite of mine. I look forward to release.
'Doin' the things a particle can.'
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 10:57 AM
I bet a dollar she said "it could have killed you, but didn't" or some such.
I'm reminded of a Rockford Files scene: "You're lucky. If that bullet had been an inch to the right, you'd have lost that eye." "If it had been an inch to the left, it would have missed me completely."
Posted by: arensb | September 3, 2009 11:00 AM
J. Allen @ #12:
Would you settle for TMBG posing as a heavy metal band singing about string theory?
(And let's not forget "Mammal". I think the words "Monotreme", "Allotheria", perhaps even "Echidna" might be hapax legomena.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 3, 2009 11:01 AM
My favorite TMBG songs are, in order, Ana Ng, Particle Man, and Experimental Film (but mostly for the video).
http://www.homestarrunner.com/expfilm.html
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 11:02 AM
It's a matter of personal preference.
Posted by: lauram | September 3, 2009 11:02 AM
One click. Pre-ordered. Thanks for the heads-up PZ. Might have to get more for the winter holidays.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 3, 2009 11:06 AM
I'll try to be a little more 'No harm; no foul' about the discrimination against the LGBT community, the Pope's condemnation of condoms in Africa, and the continual attempts to run the government via Biblical fiat. Good thing that's only a tiny component of the religious and that everybody else is so pleasantly moderate--well, not good for the gays, the Africans and those of us under a government, obviously. There I go again; man, why can't I focus on the good parts of religion, like the part where the moderates sit on their New Age asses and recite the Lord's Prayer while doing yoga and don't do a lick of harm to the gays and Africans--or a lick of good, for that matter--oops, I'm really sorry, I really am. I guess I just need to be less shrill and annoying about human rights; I'm sure they'll work themselves out if I just sit back and shut up like the moderates would have us all do.
Anyways, thanks for the tip!
Posted by: rob | September 3, 2009 11:09 AM
Mike from Ottowa @ #10: you weren't paying attention during the whole Unscientific America event, were you?
Posted by: Somite | September 3, 2009 11:13 AM
It's available with video at iTunes http://bit.ly/nBu8O
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 11:15 AM
@ stogoe: Thanks for the update, and to Bill Dauphin for asking the question. I'll have to add it to my list of words to avoid the hell out of.
A lot of people don't get this because we haven't been forced to think about it. It's pretty simple, actually.
Posted by: Quidam | September 3, 2009 11:18 AM
The Bible doesn't say fairies don't exist.
After all Genesis does not mention God creating angels*. If the Bible does not say that angels were created then how can we say that any being not mentioned in the biblical creation stories cannot exist?
The Bible does talk of mischievous spirits - God even uses them to deceive us.
1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God
Fairies are every bit as real as djinn, unicorns and dragons
*Angels, genie and djinn are all derivations of the same word.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | September 3, 2009 11:18 AM
arensb @#75:
Why would "monotreme", "Allotheria", and "echidna" be hapages legomena (or whatever the plural form is...)? They may only occur once each in the works of TMBG, but they are by no means unknown in zoology and vertebrate paleontology (9770, 316, and 10300 hits, respectively, in scholar.google.com).
The first and last are commonly used in mammalogy. "Allotheria" is less commonly used than "Multituberculata" (for a major group of extinct mammals), but has its proponents in taxonomy.
I do suspect that it is the only song to mention the multituberculates in any name, though... (Monotremes get more press via the platypus, of course).
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 11:20 AM
The very last argument I'm going to consider in this discussion is what someone else says I mean when I use a word.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 3, 2009 11:22 AM
Yeah, but I just responded, "But, God could have just made it so the car-jackers wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place..."
To which she responded, "God can't do that because of free will."
"He did it to the Pharoah..."
"What?"
"God hardened his heart three times so he WOULDN'T let Moses go..."
She'll realize one day not to argue with an atheist that knows the Bible better than she does because all she does it make herself cry.
Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com
|
September 3, 2009 11:24 AM
SQUEEEEEE!!!
Will order a copy for me and one to loan out to friends.
Posted by: Troll Central | September 3, 2009 11:25 AM
@64
THE RAPTURE! IT WILL SAVE THEM ALL!
Hasten the Rapture! Save our trolls!
Dear reader,
Thank you for your concern (hur hur). However, we are afraid we cannot provide you with any better trolls of the creationist variety at the moment. We have to stuff all those straw men into their heads, which sadly leaves little place cranium, not to mention an actual brain.
Yours sincerely,
Troll Central Crew (insert passive-aggressive smileys)
Posted by: Muero | September 3, 2009 11:26 AM
The iTunes version of the album, with audio and video, is available today, and is completely DRM-free, unlike what #55 originally guessed. I'm downloading mine now!
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 3, 2009 11:28 AM
Captain Mike, some of us have thought about it and don't agree with the conclusions or with the influence on society and cognition that languages is alleged by some to have.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 3, 2009 11:32 AM
"1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God"
I think he meant you shouldn't drink whisky, gin or vodka, but Bénédictine. It is made by monks, you know.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 3, 2009 11:32 AM
I grew up in inner-city Boston, where cussing is pretty much part of the common vernacular... my mom rolls some tense of the word "fuck" off her tongue between every 3rd word... and she's a sweet lady with a great sense of humor... I've lived in western New York state long enough now that I've long since lost the accent and the compulsive use of foul language... but I swear, if I get riled up or animated in a discussion (or just talking to my mom), not only does the accent come flying back out, but so do the f-bombs. I try to keep it down to a minimum around my 8 year old, though. She knows enough colorful language already.
Anyhow, point being, I often don't think about the words I'm using when I'm spouting off hastily. This often results in my using words as curses that have misogynistic undertones, albeit totally unintentionally. This doesn't excuse me from recognizing why it's a bad idea however, and trying to adjust my behavior accordingly.
"Bitching" is one of those words I've sort of conditioned myself against using (not that it doesn't happen... i just try to make an effort not to)... I now more often than not will use the term "fucking pissing and moaning"... or as my mom would say "fahkin' pissin' an moanin' ". I really miss Boston. ;>
Posted by: strangebrew | September 3, 2009 11:37 AM
"God can't do that because of free will."
The best 'effing' cop out the xian morons ever dreamt up!
Mind you they had to...
Posted by: JustinB | September 3, 2009 11:39 AM
#70, #80: *open mouth, insert foot*
More than just goofing up and spreading bad info, I've besmirched TMBG's good name... I should have known they wouldn't go out like that :)
Time to break out the ol' scourge and give myself a few dozen lashes....
Now I have to decide whether to cancel my amazon order and get it from itunes, or just buy both...
Posted by: Platypus | September 3, 2009 11:39 AM
The unicorn history is actually pretty interesting, if Wikipedia can be trusted on it.
The mythological creature dates well back to the Indus valley civilisation, but it is open to discussion whether the biblical "re'em" should be translated as "unicorn" - the descriptions apparently better match the (now-extinct) auroch, which was a kind of wild kettle. Big, too. Which is why "wild ox" makes a more sensible translation.
KJV translated it as unicorn, apparently following the Septuagint and the Vulgate. It had already become a popular cultural icon, and it had been associated with Christian virtues since the Dark Ages. Not to mention that a unicorn is much more magically impressive than an ox, and the KJV Bible loves a showy display.
And it's not a very big step back to earth to consider, at some point, that it is actually rhino. You got to hand it to the guys who made that translation that at least they attempted to mirror the texts they had against reality.
Posted by: locklin | September 3, 2009 11:41 AM
They support science education, but also support suing single mothers millions of dollars for sharing a few songs. Yet another output of the cultural rights smashing RIAA/Disney. Looks interesting, but I won't be buying it.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 3, 2009 11:48 AM
Silva @ 58
Many years ago, while working on Graphics project for a somewhat anal art director in the music industry, I named my hard drive "Drosophila Melanogaster"... It was simply "HD" until the guy insisted it *ABSOLUTELY* had to have a unique name... At least he never asked me for any input as to naming other things after that!
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 11:48 AM
Sorry truthspeaker, I didn't make myself entirely clear. I'm not sure what effect language has either on our society or the way in which we use the brains God didn't give us. I'm interested in the answer, of course, but I sure as heck don't know what it is.
However, I do maintain a list of words that I try to avoid. Regardless of the word's definition, origin, or intent, the fact of the matter is that they very often offend people I have no interest in offending. Using them often completely derails a conversation.
I don't mind offending people for the right reasons. People find my lifestyle or views on sex offensive? Fine. People find my lack of belief in gods offensive? Also fine. People think I'm racist or misogynistic? Not cool.
Posted by: Bobby-Joe Tabor | September 3, 2009 11:54 AM
Of course unicorns and satyrs exist. It is says so in The TRUE™ Bible, KJV1612 so don't let those false Christians and their make believe bible the NHV fool you Darwinists. Arguing the word unicorn is a metaphor is absurd when you are arguing a day is a day. Christians who claim unicorns don't exist don't have any faith in The Word of God®. Unicorns are as real as the fires of hell and the love of Jesus.
And since we established unicorns exist any of you science types care to discuss the linage of the unicorn as the theory of evolution predicts? (What's that "gap in the fossil record" did you say? )
PRAISE OUR WELL HUNG SAVIOR!
Posted by: Epinephrine | September 3, 2009 11:55 AM
Wow, if I didn't already love them for C is for Conifers* this would have done it. Alright, more TMBG! Definitely buying it for the kids.
@locklin, above: Whatever, make your stance on DRM if you want, but they're a cool group, and they write fun kids' songs.
* Most with cones for seeds, most with needles for leaves
C is for conifers, my kind of trees
Larch, junipers and fir, spruce, cedars and pines
C is for conifers, more then five hundred kinds
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 11:59 AM
At least in my case, it isn't just about DRM, but copyright in general. It's broken.
Posted by: Samantha | September 3, 2009 12:00 PM
Bill Dauphin @48:
I'm neither a resident or overly much a "Raiser of Consciousness About Gendered Language" but I am an English Rhetoric major and something of a feminist.
The original term of bitch came from female dogs (as most know) and bitches (as anyone with an unaltered adult female dog can tell you) are often short-tempered, loud, obnoxious, mean-spirited and otherwise not enjoyable to be around when they are in heat. This, of course, was then applied to women to imply that they are the same around menstruation, and then it spread to just generally indicate that said woman was acting like she was "PMSing" (which is a far more offensive term, to my mind).
When you say that someone is "bitching", it is actually more accurately derived from the constant whining and/or howling of a bitch in heat, but most people will take it as you saying that they are acting like a woman, most often a particularly annoying one (like stogoe @62). They aren't entirely incorrect; that is the current social understanding as very few people nowadays are treated to the ear-rending serenading of a female dog in heat. Having volunteered with a rescue that occasionally has recent intakes go into heat before we can get them in for spaying, I have a bit more intimate of an association with the historical impetus for the term. It's not a horrible term to use if that is the intended comparison, but few people will get it and as it is relatively easy to replace with "whining", "complaining", or as you said "kvetching", it's probably better to avoid it if you're at all uncertain about your audience.
Posted by: jj | September 3, 2009 12:00 PM
I love TMBG... But triangle man is such an ass, always picking on particle man, and person man. Why pick a fight with someone who lives in a garbage can?
Posted by: Ex_tian | September 3, 2009 12:02 PM
The other side get their tune too! At AtBC, Dembski: The Musical
Posted by: Wren | September 3, 2009 12:03 PM
Thanks a lot. You just cost me a lot of money as I now need to buy a number of CDs and DVDs for my children.
I was once a huge TMBG fan, but I somehow lost touch when the kids' music started. Now I have a 2 year old and a 3 1/2 year old. TMBG beats most of the other kids' stuff hands down, and the kids seemed to like it on You Tube too.
OK, so you cost me money, but you may have saved my sanity too. I'll call it even.
Posted by: BenW
|
September 3, 2009 12:05 PM
Not that Ben needs the defense of another Ben but keep in mind as well as the word being translated is not unicorn but one horned animal. The Hebrew word re’em most accurately is translated as wild ox but a strong animal with one horn can just as easily be identified as a rhinoceros.
The Bible is still silly without us getting too worked up over a particular point.
Posted by: MikeM | September 3, 2009 12:07 PM
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 3, 2009 9:35 AM
PZ, you ought to know better;
It's clear that you're batshit insane!
If it weren't for angels taking a piss,
Then how on earth could it rain?
----
To which I can only respond, "Holy Golden Showers, Batman!".
I sincerely apologize.
Posted by: stogoe | September 3, 2009 12:12 PM
I still use it sometimes when I'm not thinking. But I can't deny that it means "You're a woman, and being a woman is despicable" and so I try my best to think about my word choice.Posted by: Steve M | September 3, 2009 12:12 PM
Amazon is showing it as an exclusive for $13.99, but my
trusty Invisible Hand ( http://www.getinvisiblehand.com/ )
shows that Best Buy has it for $9.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?&type=product&id=2011648
So what exactly does "exclusive" mean then??
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 12:12 PM
Stogoe:
I don't know why you think I don't: I said I changed it, didn't I?
You're mistaking intellectual curiosity for bigotry: I'm genuinely interested, as a student of and enthusiast for language, and as a professional wordsmith, in the social contexts and implications of words and usages. It really does seem to me that using the word as a verb is (at least) one step further removed, grammatically, from the literal gendered meaning1 than the much more personal and direct usage as a noun applied to a specific individual. It's entirely clear to me that there's a difference between...
"Stop whining, you bitch!"
...and...
"Stop bitching!"
...but the (to me, interesting) intellectual question is how much difference the difference makes: Does the second utterance fall within the umbra of offensiveness that surrounds the first? The penumbra? Or is it offensive in a totally distinct way? Or not offensive at all?
And the broader general question this suggests is whether there's any degree of semantic and/or syntactic separation that could finally decouple a usage from its offensive roots? We've seen an example of the opposite phenomenon: Niggardly has become a cultural/linguistic landmine for public speakers (esp. political candidates) despite having no semantic or etymological connection to the infamous N-word... no connection at all, really, except for a trivial phonetic resemblance.
As a somewhat related anecdote, I used the words gyp and gypped for about half my adult life, before I finally realized that they were a reference to offensive stereotypes about Gypsies. It wasn't that I'd been expressing unconscious racism and then had my consciousness raised; rather, I had simply never known any Gypsies, nor anyone who'd ever expressed any prejudice about them. I barely knew Gypsies existed, except in romantic stories, and I certainly had no awareness of them as a persecuted minority (the perfunctory teaching I got about the Holocaust in grade school focused entirely on the plight of the Jews). I utterly lacked the knowledge and social context to understand gyp as anything other than a neutral equivalent of rip off. Further, I doubt many (if any) of the people I heard use the word were thinking any invidious thoughts about Gypsies, either.
Note that I could not have made the same mistake with kike, despite the fact that the WASPy town I grew up in had barely more Jews than it did Gypsies, because, as a noun, it's never used except as an explicit reference to a person, making it impossible to imagine an impersonal meaning for it.
So these are the pathways my curiosity takes me down, and I know there are others here with similar interests in the social impact of language choices. I'm sorry my question bothered you, but rest assured I wasn't looking for permission to be offensive.
1 And keep in mind that the application of bitch to human females is already metaphorical, and thus at least one step removed from the truly literal meaning.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 12:13 PM
In general, I agree, but in this particular case I think it's useful to point out to people who claim "it's in the bible, therefore it's true" (eg. the angel comment in the OP) that it really depends on which translation you're using what the bible really says. People like to say "The Bible" as if there's only one and not umpteen different versions.
Posted by: arensb | September 3, 2009 12:17 PM
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. @#84:
Right. Actually, I was thinking of the corpus of all song lyrics (or maybe just songs on albums published by major labels).
We have enough songs about love and money and buildings and food. Let's have more songs about echidnas and muons and computable numbers.
Posted by: stogoe | September 3, 2009 12:17 PM
tsg, why would you call someone a 'bitch' if being one weren't abhorrent?
Posted by: Lynna | September 3, 2009 12:20 PM
Oh, crap! I recently used "gypsum" as geological pun in doggerel on the Revenge of the Son of the Bride of.... thread. How did I get this far without knowing that it was slur against Gypsies? Well, Gypsies, I'm sorry.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 12:21 PM
I'm afraid I don't see how "you're whining like a female dog in heat" necessarily means "being a [human female] is despicable".
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 3, 2009 12:23 PM
Stogoe is right in that the implication more likely to be felt is that someone is acting like a woman. I agree that avoiding sexist, racist, and other language is generally a good and useful thing--since I've been reading this blog I've consciously stopped or reduced my use of terms like "cunt", "retard", and "drunk, potato-eatin' Mick"--but we better start generating new offensive words because I'm quickly running out.
A note on prescriptive language: be careful what you wish for. A gay friend of mine once gently suggested that her grad school mate might consider not using the word 'gay' as a pejorative. It seems this particular grad student wasn't the most calibrated pipette in the lab, and she entirely missed the point. About a week later something set her off and she exclaimed, "Oh, that's so gay!" Seeing my friend and realising her error, she quickly corrected herself: "Oh my God, I'm so sorry. I meant to say, 'That's so homosexual!'"
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 12:27 PM
I didn't say it wasn't abhorrent. But I also don't mean "whiny woman" when I say it.
Posted by: MikeM | September 3, 2009 12:27 PM
You know, reading that description of "Unicorns" at AiG... My thought was, wow, I always envisioned a unicorn as a white, shimmering, large goat-like creature, with a single horn. But their description sounds like a... Dinosaur.
I wonder if the nitwits would say unicorns are dinosaurs, and there's all the proof you need right there.
Of course, I would like to see a unicorn fossil, but I'm sure those have all been conveniently lost by science. It's just one big conspiracy.
Does anyone else remember that stupid song from the 1960s about how the unicorns missed their chance to get on the Ark?
http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/The_Unicorn_Song.shtml
Gotta find that song. Extremely irritating. I bet that was behind my dad throwing the car radio out of the car while we were driving on I-80.
(I'm kidding about that last part.)
This is why I like to come here. Unicorn talk.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 12:29 PM
I see that in the time it took me to produce my longwinded reply to stogoe, several folks have chimed in with interesting and thoughtful comments on the Tao of Bitch. Cool; that's what I was hoping for when I posed the question.
Posted by: Postman
|
September 3, 2009 12:33 PM
Laura @ # 50,
That is so great! My day job keeps me in daily touch with PR companies and agencies and managers, so I thought it'd be a cinch to get tix to any TMBG shows in the city. But getting anything out of their PR, Girlie Action, is like wrestling a bear... while wearing salmon underpants.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 12:34 PM
I didn't say it wasn't abhorrent. But I also don't mean "whiny woman" when I say it.
Ok, let's cut this one super short this time. tsg, you didn't mean "whiny woman". We now know that you didn't, based on your explanation. But a majority of people would think exactly that when they hear it, as it is probably the major definition anyone on the street would say if they were asked what it means. So in order to not come across as meaning that, it may be preferable to come up with an alternate term that does not engender (heh) such confusion.
AND NOW WE CAN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND IT WON'T TAKE UP ANY MORE COMMENTS, RIGHT?
Posted by: Andysin | September 3, 2009 12:37 PM
On the topic of music taking potshots at religion people should check out the song 'Wall of Arms' by the Maccabees. Here's a taste of the lyrics for that song:
Through these eyes
There's no god above me
No devil below me
No purgatory, no pearly gates
The worms are what await me
It’s only me that can forgive me and
I have faith, oh...I have faith
I have faith, oh...I have faith
In those who put up with me
I think it accurately reflects how some atheists feel about life and death. And it's a catchy song too.
Posted by: Lee Rittner | September 3, 2009 12:38 PM
"Stop trying to force crap in schools, pass laws that are based on your religion, and stop getting funded by us, and you'll see a decrease in that. You're already in our face, we're just starting to return the favor."
I'm not a believer - but you keep swinging, slugger!
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 12:39 PM
@Carlie #121
First of all, the discussion started over using "bitch" as a verb, so discussing the ins and outs of using it as a noun is a bit of a derail. Suffice it to say I don't disagree, in general, with your comment but it isn't really the point.
Second, no one's forcing you to participate in the discussion, so keep your caps to yourself.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 12:41 PM
That's better, though. It gets the bigotry right out into an open, sunlit field where there's nowhere to run and hide.
Posted by: PixelFish | September 3, 2009 12:41 PM
I expect that the guy who thinks angels are real should be hightailing it for Sharon Shinn's science fiction books and chewing her out because she has genetically modified humans with wings in her stories that people refer to as "angels".
He probably also thinks Harry Potter is the devil's handbook because the Bible mentions "witches".
RE: TMBG - The best concerts I've been to include the two times I've seen TMBG live. Also I have had a crush on The Other John (Linnell) for, um, forever, but will admit that the collective of the Two Johns and their various minions is made of awesome. Looking forward to this album.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 12:43 PM
The very last argument I'm going to consider in this discussion is the Humpty Dumpty gambit.
If you don't want to sound like a misogynist, don't say things that make you sound like a misogynist.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | September 3, 2009 12:45 PM
I think I'll have to check them out at the NC Museum of Art. Thanks, Big Dumb Chimp for the info about that.
Posted by: KathyK | September 3, 2009 12:48 PM
@Steve M #109
It's exclusive to Amazon in the sense that it's available only through Amazon (and iTunes) until September 22.
It was $9.99 on Amazon for a while, too.
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Reminds me of the American version of David Brint in The Office saying, in his defense, "well I wouldn't call a real retarded person a retard!"
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 12:55 PM
@strange gods before me #127
If you're going to direct comments towards me you might have the courtesy of actually addressing my argument, to wit, that use of the word "bitch" is necessarily misogynistic, not whether it can be taken that way.
Posted by: gr8hands | September 3, 2009 1:00 PM
"I had a bitchin' time" has always meant a good time. So, "bitchin'" is not always a negative thing.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 1:00 PM
I haven't done any polling (scientific or non), but I have a feeling that if you asked people to define "bitching", the majority of responses would be "complaining", rather than anything to do with women. However...
Bingo. People aren't telepaths, and they do not know your intent. They will, for good or for ill, put your words through the filter in their head. What comes out is what the listener perceives.
If a woman calls me a dick, I won't perceive her as being an androgynist(?), and she probably isn't. However, some people will perceive it that way, and you've got to prepared to deal with the consequences.
On a related matter...The Tao of Bitch. Priceless.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 1:05 PM
tsg:
But language is both transactional and emotional: How a usage can be taken, in a social and emotional context, is not a cleanly seperable question from what that usage "necessarily" means. That's part of the reason stogoe's original, linearly logical, answer to my question was so unsatisfactory. It's easy to say that using bitch as a verb implicitly imputes bad behavior to women, but it's not so clear that such a clean, direct interpretation truly reflects the reality of the usage "in the wild."
Language exists in a social context. How other people might take what you say isn't the only consideration, of course, but it's not inconsiderable, either.
Posted by: Dave X | September 3, 2009 1:09 PM
As a transmogified IPU I'm offended by comparing angels, elves, with unicorns. Angels and Elves are fiction, and unicorns are real. End of story.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 1:20 PM
Which is my point entirely. I don't deny that "bitch" has some misogynistic overtones and is even meant by some as a pejorative term for women. My objection is the assertion that it is the only possible ("I don't know how you don't get this") interpretation. Calling someone misogynistic for the use of a particular word whether or not hatred was intended is unreasonable.
Whether someone can misconstrue what was meant and whether or not it's reasonable is a different argument.
Posted by: gnome | September 3, 2009 1:23 PM
I mentioned this very album release in one of your posts from last week. I was ignored!
But, yes it is great...My six year old and we are big fans.
(I am also a big fan of this blog) Perfect timing as many posts on here and on Jerry Coyne's blog are about science literacy and this is right up that alley. My boy had lots of questions while watching this for the first time, "what are elements?", "Is there really a bloodmobile?"(very funny, i told him no it's just a cartoon showing what blood does), "Is there a Roy G Biv?", etc...
Another 'controversial' tune is 'My Brother the Ape'...
In the intro they make no apologies about all of life being related....
Huzzah to the Giants, It might Be Good for Science!
Posted by: Jim | September 3, 2009 1:28 PM
Just a note, from someone who's studied Hebrew and a few other languages - the word mendaciously translated as "unicorn" by some Christians is best rendered as "re'em," a folklorish beast with a whole host of Jewish legends around it. It wasn't until the Hebrew text was translated into Greek that the confusion even started. The translators of the King James version tended to prefer the Greek text over the traditional Jewish texts and so kept the translation of "unicorn."
It's most probable, shearing the word from the myths that grew up around it, that the word refers to a wild ox because similar words - most often "rimu" - exist in other Semitic languages and always refer to wild oxen.
That's the sensible point of view, though. Does the creationist who says that unicorns are myth quote Scripture in his review at all? That'd be the most telling thing, as if the quotes in the King James, his statement's self-contradictory.
Posted by: daveau | September 3, 2009 1:28 PM
Misopenist. (ducks...)
Posted by: Roger Ownby | September 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Cover of "Apollo 18" --- Mega Whale vs. Giant Squid!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Some great astronomy videos for kids by the Big Bang Band:
Round & Round (about galaxies)
Dew Point Blues (every observer's woes)
Shooting Star(are really meteors)
And not for kids but a wonderful video about the woes of professional astronomy with a woman astronomer - my favorite!
Hotel Mauna Kea
I collect stuff like this so if you have any links, I would appreciate them.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 1:32 PM
Thanks daveau. I was looking at the wrong root word. Latin isn't my strong suit.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 1:34 PM
Or etymology. Or looking in a dictionary.
Posted by: daveau
|
September 3, 2009 1:36 PM
Just totally makin' that word up, Captain Mike. Works well, though.
Posted by: arensb | September 3, 2009 1:39 PM
Captain Mike @#133:
I believe the word you're looking for is "misandrist".
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 1:45 PM
I know, daveau. I just couldn't remember what the real word was, and thanks to arensb for reminding me.
Posted by: arensb | September 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Captain Mike @#146:
No, thank you for allowing me to use the word "misandrist". I'd already contrived a way to use "hapax legomenon", above, so this is turning out to be a most excellent thread for a word-likee-person like me. Cromulent, even.
Posted by: daveau
|
September 3, 2009 1:57 PM
arensb@147
I can't believe there's not a word for that. Anyone?
Posted by: Lilith | September 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Celtic_Evolution @#8
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who does that. I even annoy myself sometimes!
The best TMBG gig I've been to was the time they blew a hole in the ceiling of the ANU bar with a cannon. It wasn't intentional, but the ceiling was very low and the trajectory was just off enough to miss firing tickertape over the crowd and to manage to blast it through the cork tiles. Oops.
They are definitely one of the most fun live bands, even when you a seen them a number of times.
Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 3, 2009 1:58 PM
arensb @ #75
Thanks for teaching me a new word!
Thomas @ #84
I think the plural would be hapaxes. After all, the plural of Hyrax is Hyraxes!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 2:03 PM
Apparently you missed my point. Allow me to rephrase it:
If you don't want to sound like a misogynist, don't say things that make you sound like a misogynist.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 2:03 PM
logophile
Posted by: Th | September 3, 2009 2:04 PM
arensb @ #112:
Okay, got it. Yes, I most definitely agree! More science songs, please!
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 2:04 PM
word-likee-person
a logophile
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 2:05 PM
I understood it. It just had zero to do with what I was talking about.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 3, 2009 2:08 PM
logophile? ;>
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 3, 2009 2:10 PM
dammit... it's so rare that I get to actually USE the 6 years of Latin I was forced to take.... well, at least I got in with "logophile" third... not the latest I've come up with an answer on one of these threads.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 2:15 PM
Whether or not a speaker intends to express contempt for women has zero to do with how the speaker will be interpreted.
It's useless to insist that people should take a speaker's explanation at face value. If that were true, then we should all have to nod and agree that if someone says "you are a bitch and that is not sexist," it's not sexist.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 3, 2009 2:15 PM
You don't know the half of it... I've been humming the damn song to myself all flippin day now and it's starting to bug the shit out of me. Hell, I'm doing it right now as I'm typing this.
Posted by: Pip(pin) | September 3, 2009 2:18 PM
Hmm. Science is real, but apple seeds will not produce apple trees, usually. Clearly thousands of kids will be disappointed and turn to elf-worship instead.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 2:19 PM
An increased vocabulary is one way in which I like to embiggen myself.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 2:20 PM
Not what I'm talking about. Try again.
Posted by: hynter
|
September 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Saw it here today, blogged about it, pre-ordered it from Amazon. I'm a big TMBG fan, I can't wait to hear the whole thing!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 2:29 PM
Plainly:
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 2:36 PM
#164
Context counts.
Posted by: Samantha | September 3, 2009 2:41 PM
Brownian:
Oh I know, and I do agree that even if the etymology of the word isn't initially sexist/racist, if it is used in such a way, it does begin to mean that. That's why I said that "most people will take it as you meaning they are acting like a woman". I'm just far more informed about the history of a word than the current cultural feelings. I've already picked my grad school focus: Cultural transference and transitions of memetic language. Pretty much what I did with the word bitch, but in a much larger scale and with more complex histories! I really can't say much about the current cultural impacts of the word beyond noting that I'm not overly offended by it but many people are.
Honestly, I think words like slut are far more harmful culturally because they not only imply a difference in gender attitudes but a different approach to actions by certain genders (in that case, that it is inappropriate for females to be sexually promiscuous but not for males). Bitch isn't what I'd consider polite conversation but it does occasionally get applied to men and while it has come to sometimes imply that women only whine about things and men are the only ones who have useful complaints and considerations, it isn't widely understood that way (at least up here in Canada) and there is still some understanding of the origin of the word.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 2:44 PM
Nobody else has to give a shit.
You are either insisting that people should take your word for it that you don't mean it in a sexist way, or you are merely acknowledging that you will be interpreted to be sexist. In the latter case, fine, but what's your point of bringing it up? Just so the gods will know your true intentions?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 2:48 PM
"He's acting like a bitch" draws on misogynistic meanings and uses them to debase men by comparison with women. It's not suddenly non-sexist just because it's targeted at a man.
Posted by: Gav | September 3, 2009 2:58 PM
Bill Dauphin, OM
@100 I don't think gyp has anything to do with Gypsies (and neither does the OED, which is generally right when it agrees with me.) Might be another of those "niggard" things.
Posted by: Joseph | September 3, 2009 3:03 PM
@tsg #45 and BABH #53: That's AWESOME! Can't wait to trot that one out sometime. I think the one I was looking at was the New International Version or something. Not nearly as fun as the King James.
Posted by: Samantha | September 3, 2009 3:05 PM
strange gods@168:
Seeing as the discussion was really about "bitch" as a verb, you'd be more correct in assessing "Stop bitching" as directed to a man, in which case there is still some reference to gender but it is far more referential to the original term. In addition, "Quit being a bitch" is often said in similar terms; difficult, whining and occasionally unnecessarily aggressive, most of which was taken from the bitch in heat origin. Your example is, of course, more sexist than those two examples because most of the time it's replacing "wuss" or some word like that and is therefore a step further from the origin.
This is all, of course, ignoring that I NEVER said that the word bitch was not-sexist, just less gender-expectation charged than words like slut. Trust me, I am aware that bitch CAN be used to denigrate women as an insult declaring a man to be like a woman. However, unlike slut, it doesn't always refer to a female-specific characteristic so much as a animal-specific characteristic and unless we're going to start arguing for canine equality too, I don't think that trying to correct something I never said is really engaging in a worthwhile discussion.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:07 PM
Gav, Random House and the American Heritage Dictionary disagree with you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gyp
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 3:07 PM
In fact, I am, your meritless accusations of the Humpty Dumpty Gambit aside: "complain" is a common usage of the word "bitch" when used as a verb. Insisting that I am exhibiting hatred towards women when I say it says more about your biases than it does about mine, and the fact that you don't think it matters what the speaker's intentions are suggests you'd care more about complaining about the hatred, even if you have to invent it to do so, than actually stopping it.
It serves no purpose to find hatred where none is intended, and only causes people to take you less seriously when you do have a legitimate gripe.
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 3:12 PM
GAv, what date does the OED give for first printed appearance? After you commented, I did a quick search, as I was surprised that the only etymology I've ever heard for "gyp" (that it derived from "gypsy" which, incidentally derives from the mistaken belief that the Romani came from Egypt) wasn't given in the OED.
The only other two suggestions I came across were less that convincing, in that they both had it as of British English extaction. The word is usually given as American slang of the late 19th century, so it's hard to see how regional English usage of the 18th would have suddenly popped up in the US then. Also, the spelling strongly argues for a connection to "gypsy".
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:17 PM
Notice it's a female dog that's used as the insult. Male dogs whine annoyingly too when they can't copulate with a female in estrus. It was never necessary that a comparison to dogs had to be gendered, but it was anyway. The term is unmistakeably a comparison of female women to other female animals.
I'm not implying that you said it's never sexist. You said "while it has come to sometimes imply that women only whine about things and men are the only ones who have useful complaints and considerations, it isn't widely understood that way" and you're simply fooling yourself.
Posted by: redreason | September 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!! My kids and I LOVE TMBG, especially their kids songs. This rocks that I was able to find out so soon. Nature knows how long it would have taken us to find out about this album. Much appreciated!
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 3:25 PM
You're always going to find hatred if you look hard enough, whether it's there or not.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:35 PM
Well then you're wrong. No one has any obligation to take your word for it. It should not even be an expectation of common courtesy; such a policy would only give cover to outright misogynists. Again, we'd all have to agree that if someone says "you are a bitch and that is not sexist," then it's not sexist.
It's ridiculous. Plainly, there is no obligation to assume good intentions, especially considering that:
many women who overhear you will think there's one more person in the world who has contempt for them, and you know this, but you don't have to care about this, and
overt misogynists will think you're on their side, and you know this, but you don't have to care about this.
Bitching like a woman. Yes. We get it.
In fact, I did not. I said if you don't want to sound like a misogynist, then don't talk like one.
It says a great deal more about your willful blindness and love of bullshittery.
I didn't say this. Certainly it's wrong: indeed, if the speaker is an idiot instead of an asshole, then there's a possibility for education.
What I said is that no one owes the speaker any obligation for assuming the best.
In general, you can't stop people from hating once they've made it a habit. You can only point it out, and make a mockery of them, so that others are embarrassed to follow in their footsteps.
It serves no purpose to invent fake scenarios where "bitch" isn't sexist.
Posted by: Samantha | September 3, 2009 3:36 PM
strange gods:
First, note that I also specified "at least not here in Canada" as I don't know about the US, Australia, Britain or any other predominately English speaking language. Up here, the majority of it's use is referential to a female dog. Yes, there is occasional use in a systematically sexist way. Every time I've heard it, someone (normally a guy) has jumped down the throat of whoever said it.
Yes, a male dog will whine IF he scents the female dog in heat. A female will whine and howl throughout the entire two to three weeks, whether there's a male around or not. At the rescue, when a female goes in heat, she goes into the driving shed. She can whine her heart out there while the rest will be (relatively) quiet in the main kennel. The reason it's "bitching" is because the bitch will almost always be like that when she is in heat and there is nothing you can do to stop it. A dog is not like that except when presented with the scent of a bitch in heat and is easy to remove from the stimulus and calm down. Any person who works with a substantial number of intact dogs knows that there is no situation in which a dog can be put that is like a bitch in heat because she simply will NOT stop until her cycle is through. You may claim that "it was never necessary that a comparison to dogs had to be gendered" but it was, at least on the side of the dogs. It wasn't necessary that the term be first applied to women, but understanding the lack of knowledge prevalent at the time (and still somewhat prevalent in our time), it is at least comprehensible why an attempt would be made to liken menstruation to heat, however wrong it is.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:38 PM
You're making an extraordinary claim that the comparison to female dogs, rather than dogs in general, was not a choice influenced by sexism. Do you have any extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim?
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 3:43 PM
No, I'm not. Because I am the only person on the planet who has any authority on what I mean when I say something, and if anybody else thinks I'm being sexist, they are wrong. End of story. You can argue till you're blue in the face what everybody else thinks I mean, but that isn't the fucking point.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 3:45 PM
I'm doing no such thing. It is your claim that the word "bitch" is necessarily sexist due to this etymology.
Posted by: WarrenS | September 3, 2009 3:48 PM
Heh. I grew up in Lincoln, across the street from the Flansburghs. Our dog and their dog were siblings. The two Johns went to school with me all the way from kindergarten through high school. I was editor of the HS paper in 1975-76, and the two of them edited it together the following year. I was present when they started making music; I vividly remember playing Linnell some Coltrane recordings in 1975...and getting into big arguments about the validity of John Cage with Flansburgh. They're very smart guys, those two.
Linnell could have had a career as a cartoonist; he is (or was, back in the day) an incredibly gifted graphic artist. Somewhere I have the cartoons he drew for the school paper, including "William F. Buckley and Donald Duck Blast Off For Jupiter!"
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:50 PM
This is naive. Of the top ten Canadian web sites using the word "bitch", seven are referring to women and zero are referring to dogs.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 3:57 PM
Yes, tsg, you are very sadly wrong. Let me repeat this louder so you can understand it.
No one owes you any obligation to take you at your word.
No one. Ever. For any reason. No one owes you this obligation. Welcome to the real world.
Regardless of what you might mean, which no one has to care about, we know these facts:
many women who overhear you will think there's one more person in the world who has contempt for them, and you know this, but you don't have to care about this, and
overt misogynists will think you're on their side, and you know this, but you don't have to care about this.
So. Knowing that you know these things, I remind you: if you don't want to sound like a misogynist, don't say things that make you sound like a misogynist.
It's very simple advice. And it's free! This is your lucky day.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 3:58 PM
No. Just complaining. At least as far I've noticed in popular usage.
Posted by: Samantha | September 3, 2009 4:03 PM
This is naive. Of the top ten Canadian web sites using the word "bitch", seven are referring to women and zero are referring to dogs.
All of which are films, albums, books or repeated sayings but one, which used bitch to mean complain and then to refer to a vicious and difficult female customer. Excellent proof that we use "bitch" as a purely sexist remark; show that we don't ignore the things other countries produce that do so and find one that uses it in the two contexts most closely related to the origin!
I don't doubt that some Canadians use it horrifically sexist ways, but most of our usage of it is very close to essentially likening someone to a female dog in heat.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 4:10 PM
Argh, I have no time now, but- the big problem that always happens in these conversations is that the person who originally said it gets upset because they perceive that they're being called sexist, and then can't even process what's being said about linguistics because they're busy trying to defend themselves. Step back, breathe, relax. No one is calling a person who likes to use the word bitch a misogynist. Not called, not implied. It's simply being pointed out that the word itself has sexist connotations. It is not a statement about the person using it. Nothing bad is being said about the person using the word. It's just a notification that the word itself, in common terminology and usage, is sexist, so refraining from using it is a good way to lessen any contribution to sexism in society.
Posted by: TJ | September 3, 2009 4:11 PM
Logophile? Now you're just being sesquipedalian.
Posted by: Gav | September 3, 2009 4:17 PM
CJO @174 the shorter OED gives "2. U.S slang a thief 1889" and offers as etymology (rather implausibly, maybe) [perh. short for gippo scullion (XVII) , transf. use of gippo tunic - (0)Fr jupeau dim of jup(p)e]
MacMillan's doesn't list gyp: Chambers gives "a college servant at Cambridge* [perh. gypsy or perh. obs gippo a short jacket, a varlet"] which is the OED's #1.
Zounds, a varlet!
*in Oxford they were called scouts, don't you know. Very necessary if you'd become used to having someone fag for you at school.
Basically though it's what people hear that counts. "Why did you hit him?" "He just called me a banker"
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Going through several more authentically Canadian sites, there isn't a reference to a dog until the 33rd website. And that is an American company's .ca domain.
This poor excuse, put forward by both you and tsg, apparently needs to be addressed, weak though it is.
Unless the speaker has met dogs who voice their complaints in plain English, or the person being referred to as "a bitch" or "bitching" is literally not using words but is moaning like a dog, the word plainly is not being used in comparison to a dog.
Instead, the most proximate comparison is actually to the last person who the speaker thought was "bitching" or "a bitch." The description of a person is a comparison to other people who are supposedly "bitches," not a talking dog.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Let's look at some of these shall we?
#1: a review of an American movie titled "Bitch Slap"
#2: a quote from an American con artist - "Don't pitch to the bitch" because women tend to be harder to con then men.
#3: an article about a Russian documentary entitled "Bitch Academy"
#4: Amazon.ca link to "Skinny Bitch", a book written by two American women.
#5: a blogger complaining about a post on another forum using "bitch" in reference to a woman, no indication whether the poster was Canadian.
#6: "Love the Way We Bitch" - obviously used to mean "complain"
#7: Another article about the Russian Documentary "Bitch Academy" in #3
#8: "Pressure is a bitch" an article about how pressure affects major league sports. No women mentioned.
#9: "Sexy Bitch" - an album by French (eg. from France, not French Canadian) DJ David Guetta
#10: "Stitched and bitched and laughed and played" - knitting and complaining and conversing - by men and women, incidentally - written by a man who calls himself an "art fag".
So, zero for ten it would seem. The fact that you didn't check them in the slightest speaks volumes about your intentions.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 4:24 PM
THAT ISN'T MY ARGUMENT
Jesus Christ, learn to fucking read.
What they think I mean has precisely nothing to do with what I mean. Read that again and let it sink in.
Asshole.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 4:31 PM
I clicked through to every single one of them. They are all Canadian sites. There is a reason they show up at the top of a search for Canadian sites. It is profoundly disingenuous to pretend that we do not live in a global culture now, and these usages in Canada have nothing to do with Canada.
I quote:
So you very clearly did say that people should take your word for it.
If you don't want to sound like a misogynist, don't say things that make you sound like a misogynist.
Simple advice. Still free.
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 4:31 PM
Yes, the "gippo" etymology was one of the other two I saw. Why not "gip" then (I guess standard English pronunciation would give that a hard "g" thogh presumably "gippo" has a soft "g") and why does a regional bit of 18th c. British English pop up in late 19th c. American usage? It seems too obscure to have caught on, as you say, implausible.
I suspect a climate in which prior usage had been "jew" used as a verb, but that was becoming less acceptable in certain circles, so a less well-represented (in the US) ethnic minority stereotyped as being thieving and dishonest had to be cast in the role.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 4:34 PM
Wrong:
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 4:40 PM
@strange gods before me
Even you can't seriously be suggesting that Canadian sites quoting movie, book and album titles produced in other countries counts as Canadian usage.
I'm done. I have no desire to argue with someone who is going to be so obviously disingenuous. It's like arguing with the dining room table.
Posted by: Endor | September 3, 2009 4:47 PM
#192 - What does the origin of the material have to do with anything? And #8 - you can't possibly be serious.
"The very last argument I'm going to consider in this discussion is what someone else says I mean when I use a word."
Privilege is fun, I'm sure, but it has very little to do with reality. As many people tend not to have mind reading powers, your words are all others have to go on. if you use sexist words, regardless of what *you* think you're conveying, you will be judged as either a) a sexist or b) socially tone deaf.
That's simply what will happen.
Additionally, I'm sure I don't have to explain what "reclamation" means, correct? Our using the word to take the sting out of it is not at all the same as it being used against us.
For further reading:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-101-sexism-is-matter-of.html
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-feminists-look-for-stuff.html
money quote:
"If you find yourself inclined to react to the identification of something as expressed sexism with "I don't see it," consider that your "blindness" has been carefully cultivated by the very system that is dependent on your (and everyone else's) not seeing it."
++
"Just complaining. At least as far I've noticed in popular usage. "
No, not "just" complaining. If it were just complaining, there would no need to describe using a gendered insult.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 4:48 PM
tsg:
I think you're missing the point in a way this particular point seems to always get missed when this discussion comes up: It's not about whether "someone" (you or anyone else) is misogynistic; it's about how a particular usage operates in the shared meaning space of our common language.
When I asked my original question about the use of bitch as a verb, I wasn't looking for comments about whether or not I'm a sexist; I know the answer to that. Rather, I was asking about the word, and about how it functions in a social context.
People who insist on taking this discussion as some sort of latent personal attack really miss out on a rich opportunity to think about how we use language.
I also think your use of misconstrue suggests a model of language that I don't entirely subscribe to. You seem to be saying that people produce utterances, and it's entirely up to the recipients of those utterances to get it right. I, OTOH, think language "happens" in the meaning space between the language producer and the recipient. That's what I meant by "transactional": The language producer and the language consumer collaborate in creating meaning (and language producers implicitly show that they know this, in that they subtly adjust their vocabulary, syntax, tone, nonverbal cues, etc., to suit their "audience"). Of course, the responsibility isn't equal: Most of the burden of creating meaning rests on the producer. But if there's a failure of understanding, or a mismatch of tone, it's never quite as simple as blaming the recipient for "misconstruing."
[Typical screeches (from all corners) about artsy-fartsy touchy-feely postmodernist BS in 3... 2... 1....]
Posted by: H.C. | September 3, 2009 4:51 PM
Those guys ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-KcF3Rkv8
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 4:53 PM
It is not by accident that they are popular enough in Canada to make the top ten.
Even by your strict measure of Canadians' own words, it was still one in ten referring to women, zero in ten referring to dogs. If the dog references are so popular, where are they?
So obviously disingenuous as to claim that they never said people should take them at their word regarding their meaning, when they very clearly did and can be quoted saying so? That disingenuous? Or even more? Would you say that's as disingenuous as a wobbly coffee table?
Posted by: Endor | September 3, 2009 4:54 PM
"People who insist on taking this discussion as some sort of latent personal attack really miss out on a rich opportunity to think about how we use language."
It never fails to amaze me how some can literally be talking to those that would have the most intimate, first-hand knowledge and experience with such an issue and reject that out of hand. Women who deal with this everyday are wrongwrongwrong, because . . . . I don't know. There's never been a logical explanation.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 4:55 PM
Hmmm... I don't quite know whether to apologize for highjacking the thread or applaud the quality of the discussion. Take this brief post as me doing a little of both.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 4:56 PM
Bill, I'm not going to get into a grammar argument with you. Suffice it to say that when I said "misconstrue" I only meant "thought other than what was intended" with no implication of who was to blame for the misunderstanding.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 5:04 PM
Yet Carlie acknowledged this as early as #121, and you remain insistent that that's not good enough; people who may or may not be misconstruing you should take your word for it rather than using their own judgment.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 5:06 PM
#205:
Not interested.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 3, 2009 5:12 PM
tsg:
Well, OK. I don't actually perceive any part of my argument as being about grammar, per se... but it's good to know we're not going to argue about that.
Your position came across (to me, anyway) as something like "I know I don't say these things with any sexist intent, and if others misunderstand, I can't be blamed for that." If you say that's not what you meant, I take you at your word (and BTW, mirroring back your position in paraphrase, as a way to verify that my understanding is similar to your intent, is part of that transactional thing I was talking about); if that is something like what you meant, then I respectfully disagree, because that isn't in accord with my understanding of how language actually works.
Posted by: LMR
|
September 3, 2009 5:12 PM
@Steve M #109
The link to Buy.com doesn't say anything about the DVD ... so the "exclusive" part to the Amazon link may be that it is the CD/DVD combo and not just the audio disk.
That would be consistent with the pricing on iTunes (14.99 for the album and video content/ 9.99 for just the album)
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 5:25 PM
It is not what I meant. I am specifically taking issue with the idea that the word "bitch" is, in itself, an inherently sexist term regardless of the intent of the speaker. Several different people have asserted the word "means" something pejorative to women and is, therefore, sexist whether denigration of women was intended or not. I disagree. "Bitch" as a verb has a common usage of "complain or gripe" with no intended comparison to women. Whether the word was originally meant as a comparison to women is beside the point: it need not necessarily mean that now. "You should not use this word because it is perceived as sexist" is an entirely different statement from "you should not use this word because it is sexist." The latter does not take intent into account, and I find no use in attributing hatred where there is none. And people will perceive "that is a sexist statement" as an accusation of sexism on the speaker. Intent should matter.
Posted by: SEF | September 3, 2009 5:30 PM
It also includes (in the animation with the Amazon preview version) a rather nice frog (with spawn to tadpole to froglet metamorphosis). I like frogs. I'm less persuaded by the singing though.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 5:33 PM
That's what I thought. Just so the gods will know your true intentions.
Again, acknowledged at #121, wasn't good enough for you.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 5:34 PM
Let me ask another question: is "ballsy" a sexist term? I have heard the word use to describe both men and women as overly aggressive, reckless or presumptuous. Can't that be construed as meaning "behaving like a man?"
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 5:46 PM
Let me ask another question: is "ballsy" a sexist term?
Yep. It implies that being assertive/aggressive/nervy is a feature of having a set of said balls, rather than being a character trait independent of sex.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 6:05 PM
Next question: which sex is it denigrating?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 3, 2009 6:10 PM
The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 6:19 PM
Next question: which sex is it denigrating?
Neither directly; however, it does imply that if being assertive is having balls, then not having balls means not able to be assertive.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 6:25 PM
tsg, there are lots of phrases that use male terms for good things (balls, cocky, etc.), and lots of phrases that use female terms for bad things (hysterical, bitch, etc.), and a few that use male terms for bad things (dick). Can you give any examples of good things described in terms of female anatomy/character traits?
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 6:30 PM
Again with the etymologies, and I'll confess I've always found this hard to believe, but the origin of "balls" in the sense of "chutzpah" (odd parallelism there between "kvetch"/"bitch" and "chuztpah"/"balls" --Yiddish term as un-gendered near-synonym, but I digress) is said to be the brass balls traditionally displayed above the door of pawnbroker's shops, not the male genitalia.
This, if true, makes for an interesting comparison with "bitch." The etymology is obscured in usage in a way that of "bitch" is not, as certainly North Americans think instantly of genitalia, not pawn shops, when the word is used in this way, synonymous with "guts," another body part, which parallelism may contribute to this shade of meaning. Anyway, etymology is not definition, and I'm not claiming that "balls" used in this way is gender neutral. It's merely interesting, to a logophile, to think about where these terms come from and how they get used and understood.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 6:38 PM
CJO, that's interesting - I have heard the phrase "brass balls" to describe people with a particularly large amount of "ballsiness". If that origin is true (and not an after-story), it would be interesting to see that people have latched onto a modified version of the term that accidentally brings it back closer to the original. (I believe Stephen Colbert also has a brass balls award on his show, no?)
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 6:39 PM
Can you give any examples of good things described in terms of female anatomy/character traits?
Only one that comes to mind is "tits" as in, after an exhilarating or generally wild, crazy or fun experience, "Dude, that was tits!" Not in particularly wide use, and mostly heard among a demographic that wouldn't necessarily be known for gender sensitivity (i.e. frat boys)
Posted by: Melissa | September 3, 2009 6:44 PM
I went to a camp for many years (a Christian camp, ironically) and every morning we would have "energizers" -- fun little songs with dances that go along with them. My favorite one was always "Istanbul (not Constantinople)" =D
I haven't listened to this band since I stopped going to that place, so I guess I'll have to now.
I still know the dance, so if I come to your party PZ can we play some of their older stuff and I'll teach everyone?
Posted by: Hank | September 3, 2009 6:51 PM
Posted at Amazon:
"Sigh.
Let me guess - first commenter is American? Not to bag your entire country guys (why, some of my best friends are Americans!) but seriously, there's something awfully wrong going on over there if people are taking offense and starting threads on Amazon when an album about science mentions evolution. It's not a competing religion or some hand-me-down dogma, it's the best explanation for who we are given the data we have! Are you hand-wringing placard-carriers going to protest gravitational theory too? Plate tectonics? Cosmology? Germ theory? Picket the LHC? Face facts: we're all products of evolution, you have ancestors in common with everything from monkeys to mushrooms and if you're so frightened of science which conflicts with your worldview, you better show some damn backbone and forego any medical treatments devised in the last, say, 150 years. Forget calling an ambulance: just drop and give me 20 psalms!
Honestly, some people are so freaking thin-skinned about their faith it makes me wonder how strong their faith actually is to begin with.
I have a question: if your particular version of god really is the only god and the most totally awesome god ever, why so insecure?"
Message ends.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 6:53 PM
First, "balls" and "cocky" are not necessarily compliments. In my experience, "ballsy" is mostly used derogatorily, and "cocky" almost exclusively so.
Second, I think if you're going to put "hysterical" in the list of pejorative-to-women words, you're reaching. I'd wager the vast majority of people who use the word aren't even aware of its female anatomy associations and it is no more sexist than "dude" is an insult because, according to a college roommate of mine, it meant "anal hair of an elephant". Even if it did mean that at one time, it certainly doesn't any more.
Third, I don't see how the number of complimentary words with female associations relates to whether or not usage of the word "bitch" is necessarily sexist. And wouldn't they also be sexist since they would be expressing the superiority of one sex to another?
Posted by: CJO | September 3, 2009 6:56 PM
That's the story, yeah, that in an era when a frank reference to genitalia would have been barred from polite conversation, a term of grudging admiration for a person's perceived audacity, especially in business and money matters was "He's got brass balls," that is, "he's conducting his business like a pawnbroker." It would be interesting to know when the term became more generalized to "courage" or a 'dirtier' version of "guts," because the original meaning of "got brass balls" was pretty specifically about money matters.
On a further note, there's "ballsy" which this afternoon I've learned is attributed to Norman Mailer, 1959, which I think gives a good indication of the latest date the transition had been made from "brass balls" to a clear reference to genetalia. Pretty sure pawn shops weren't on Mailer's mind.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 8:47 PM
D'oh. Very poor choice of words on my part. I was trying to indicate that for a lot of people a lot of the time, it is merely a synonym for complaining. I know I've used it myself that way. I asked a few people for concise definitions of it since then, and I am definitely reconsidering that assumption.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 8:56 PM
In my experience, "ballsy" is mostly used derogatorily,
Really? I've only ever heard it used as a positive trait; e.g. "he's got balls", the aforementioned "brass balls award" on The Colbert Report, "grow a pair" for someone who needs to "man up", etc.
Second, I think if you're going to put "hysterical" in the list of pejorative-to-women words, you're reaching.
That may be a matter of opinion; there are a lot of people who do put it in that catgory, especially since it's used primarily at women. "She's hysterical" gives over 6 mil Google results, as compared to less than 2 mil for "he's hysterical".
Third, I don't see how the number of complimentary words with female associations relates to whether or not usage of the word "bitch" is necessarily sexist. And wouldn't they also be sexist since they would be expressing the superiority of one sex to another?
No, but you brought up ballsy, so I assumed we were broadening the discussion to phrases based on other body parts and characteristics. And since I think of ballsy as a positive term, I was trying to point out that having male anatomy is often used to indicate a good thing, but that there really are no comparable terms to indicate anything about being female is positive. I guess if you've only seen ballsy used in a negative sense, it would look more like a non sequitur.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 9:36 PM
For the sake of argument, let's invent a word "breasty" that means "nuturing", for example. Really, it can be any word you like as long as it is based on some readily recognizable as female and means something complimentary. Would that not also be a sexist term?
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2009 9:41 PM
Bah. Frickin' spelling...
Posted by: arensb
|
September 3, 2009 9:48 PM
Amenhotepstein @#150:
Every reference I've seen says that the plural of "hapax legomenon" is "hapax legomena". The phrase evidently means "once said" in Greek. Presumably "once" doesn't get pluralized, while "said" does.
If you dig around, you can find similar discussions about "octopus", which I'm told means "eight-foot". You wouldn't pluralize that as either "eights-foot" or "eight-feet" (any more than "bigfoot" becomes "bigfeet"). Hence "octopodes", which apparently gives Greek teachers the vapors, but which is an excellent Elitist Bastard™ word.
Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 9:52 PM
Really, it can be any word you like as long as it is based on some readily recognizable as female and means something complimentary. Would that not also be a sexist term?
Oh, of course it would. I was just trying to make the broader point that words which are associated with women are pretty universally negative.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 3, 2009 9:54 PM
Incidentally, the plural of mongoose is polygoose.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2009 10:22 PM
Dammit 'Tis H, stop trying to derail this perfectly nice thread about TMBG's latest album with irrelevancies!
Posted by: Anri | September 3, 2009 10:44 PM
Hmmm...
Can everyone please just post a list of the words that nobody else is ever supposed to use, and then we all agree never, ever, ever, to use them ever again?
Warning: may backfire.
For example, I'm picking 'atheist', as I believe it is derogatory to those that do not believe in god, as it assumes the positive in 'theist'. It doesn't matter to me if you meant it as derogatory, or if anyone else thinks this - I'm going to assume you're a bigot if you use it.
Either that, or can we maybe agree not to derail thread after thread on this one topic? Let's set up a single thread for this discussion (maybe it can be the female dog owned by the Thread That Would Not Die? - kidding.) and refer all discussion there.
Please?
Posted by: Dave | September 3, 2009 10:49 PM
What if unicorns are actually an example of those transitional forms noone can ever seem to find?
Posted by: Evolution SWAT | September 3, 2009 11:25 PM
"Unicorns are biblical, too."
Well, at least in the KJV...
Posted by: Felix | September 4, 2009 12:23 AM
Reminds of a YouTube video I watched these days.
A woman on Brit telly said she was going to present absolute proof of Gods existence, especially to another guest on the show. The man had had a daughter who was murdered and raped - he grieves and is also a rationalist (angel denier, can you believe it?). Apparently that isn't sufficient to deal with his loss, no he must also believe that an angel watched over his daughter while she was being brutalized, so that he might feel better about it all. Or something like that.
Anyway, here's the statement she made to prove God (referencing the 7/7 London bombings):
"There were angels in the underground that day."
Yes, that's it. Not everyone was killed, ergo God exists and sends angels. Checkmate.
Posted by: Carlie | September 4, 2009 12:58 AM
Either that, or can we maybe agree not to derail thread after thread on this one topic?
Wouldn't that be nice.
Posted by: Autumn | September 4, 2009 1:10 AM
Dude, unicorns are such cocky-bitch-dicks that I get my panties in a wad realizing how they gypped me out of...um...balls...ballsy, ballsy, gay-retard balls.
Posted by: Carlie | September 4, 2009 2:32 AM
Felix - that reminds me of the tropey glurge story that I heard more than once whilst a Xian, designed to keep young girls like I was on the straight and narrow. It's been around enough that it's even made it to Snopes. Summary: Girl is in the wrong part of town and frightened, prays for God's protection. Nothing untoward happens. Next day, she reads that another girl was raped and/or murdered in the same street she had been in, at approximately the same time. The rapist/murderer(s) say in the story she sees in the paper that they had seen her, but hadn't attacked because she had two huge guys with her (OMG THEY WERE ANGELS!). The moral is supposed to be that prayer makes angels protect you, but it always seemed more to me that the moral was that the other stupid atheist probable slut who didn't pray got what she deserved.
Posted by: DebinOz | September 4, 2009 6:43 AM
I wonder when this new CD will be released in Australia. My son sings and plays the piano in a wild rendition of 'Dr Worm'. It is the most requested song when he plays for an audience.
Posted by: dangeraardvark | September 4, 2009 10:20 AM
Just when I think we're getting along, someone starts bitching about the word bitch. Oh well, someone hyper-sensitive enough to take offense to any word, regardless of context, probably isn't worth talking to anyway.
Posted by: Carlie | September 4, 2009 10:23 AM
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 4, 2009 10:31 AM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what stupid assholes think of people like Bill Dauphin: if you even think about whether or not it's a good idea to use a certain word, then you've let the terrorists win.
Posted by: Walton | September 4, 2009 10:57 AM
If Scienceblogs made war films...
The Pharyngula hordes were mustered, their cohorts all gleaming in silver and gold, ready to do battle with the evil armies of Generalissimo Ben Stein.
Unfortunately, the Pharyngula hordes never reached the battle, because their senior commanders were too busy arguing about whether it was sexist to shout "Suck on that, bitches!" when in the process of shooting the enemy. After three weeks' worth of argument, during which half the troops deserted due to sheer boredom, they eventually agreed to return to base and commence an intensive course of Equality and Diversity training.
The campaign, historians agreed, was a draw. Despite the fact that Myers' forces didn't actually do any fighting, the enemy failed to gain any ground, because under the leadership of Generalissimo Stein, they had rejected conventional secular ideas about weapons training. In the words of Stein, the idea of actually learning how to point and fire a rifle was an insidious plot by "liberal intellectual secular elite gay Democrats and public-school teachers" to undermine the troops' morale. Instead, Stein decided to adopt a "faith-based" method of weapons handling, which included a lot of prayer, but was silent on the important question of which way round to hold the M16. As a result, when first contacted by the enemy, a thousand of his best troops shot themselves in the head.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 4, 2009 11:01 AM
Ah yes. We can never talk about sexism, because there are always more important things to talk about.
Thanks, Walton! That was probably someone's Bingo.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 4, 2009 11:22 AM
Sheesh, tsg, stop being so fucking teste.
***
Me, too! I also don't think I had ever seen it written, and would probably have spelled it with an "i." It wasn't till I used it in Budapest and someone mentioned the connection that I finally got it. And prior to that I had even read Michael Stewart's tremendous ethnography, The Time of the Gypsies (which I highly recommend)!
Posted by: Carlie | September 4, 2009 11:54 AM
Ooo, the I am a Paleontologist music video is also now up!
Also me for the gyp reference. Once I found out where it came from, I couldn't believe I had been using it for so long. Only took a few months to wean it out of my vocabulary, but even now I still almost say it every now and again. But really, no skin off my nose to think of a different term, and not accidentally slandering an entire group of people is a good thing.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | September 4, 2009 6:47 PM
Is there a song about PHYSIOMOTHERFUCKINOLOGY!!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 4, 2009 6:53 PM
And again, your term offends me deeply!
PHYSIMOTHERFUCKINOLOGY!
PHYSIMOTHERFUCKINOLOGY!
Posted by: Carlie | September 4, 2009 6:54 PM
Well, there's one called The Bloodmobile, which might kind of be sort of, and one on photosynthesis, which of course is the only physiology that really counts :p , but otherwise, no. But you guys make a lot more money than paleontologists, so it's all good.
Posted by: Three Ninjas | September 4, 2009 7:38 PM
PZ,
That's great and all, but it's not like they PUT YOU ON THE COVER!
Posted by: Trystorp | September 5, 2009 3:31 AM
Just bought it on iTunes - no DRM - and truly excellent!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 5, 2009 12:42 PM
Autumn @238) wins the internet!
Also, I hope everyone will forgive me for helping the terrorists win. I'm going to be off hiking the Appalachian Trail — no, really — for a couple days, so the Free World™ will get a brief respite from my depredations.
Y'all have a great Labor Day, y'hear?
Posted by: Sili
|
September 5, 2009 1:52 PM
Re gyp: Tycho, too, was unaware of the connotation.
Of course, when I was a kid we felt no shame at talking about "spazzes".
Posted by: Swindail | September 5, 2009 3:38 PM
Lol, I looked up all those bible passages mentioning unicorns. The version of bible that I own has the word "unicorn" replaced with "wild bull" in all those passages.
Posted by: Facehammer | September 5, 2009 6:29 PM
Imagine what the poor, sensitive christians would say if they ever heard MC Hawking's 'A Brief History of Rhyme', which sports lines such as "Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck the creationists."
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 8:57 AM
"Science is Real" has very stupid lyrics implying that only knowledge gained from science is of any value and that anything that can not be scientifically investigated is unreal.
This message is damaging to children's intellectual, emotional and artistic development. Many adults too, lack the critical skills to see the stupid thinking that this song promotes.
If you are able to analyse this song critically, and disagree with me, then I look forward to seeing your reasoning presented here.
Posted by: John Morales | September 6, 2009 9:09 AM
Simon, what is your source for the lyrics?
Because the salient portion of the quote provided in the post is:
"But when I'm seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science".
This is nothing like your characterisation that
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 9:42 AM
"I like the stories About angels, unicorns and elves Now I like the stories As much as anybody else But when I'm seeking knowledge Either simple or abstract The facts are with science The facts are with science"
I like stories.
BUT
Knowledge is in science.
Not Stories.
And as " Science is Real" and stories are in opposition to Science and have no facts or knowledge,
then "Stories are not real". And neither is anything else not accessible to Science.
Posted by: Anri | September 6, 2009 10:56 AM
S.Simon sez (heh):
Please give us three examples of things that cannot, even in theory, be investigated by science but which are demonstrably real.
It would be helpful to describe the reasons that these things cannot be investigated thusly, just to save a step. (In other words, support and explain your examples).
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 11:26 AM
Subjective experience
Freedom
Joy
Note that these are not things that "could not, in theory, be investigated by science". These are things that are not accessible through science as it is, but that are accessible through stories.
This is my position and I do not appreciate any attempt to introduce the distraction of "what science may become".
Posted by: Walton | September 6, 2009 11:36 AM
These things are, in fact, accessible through science; they describe human emotional states and mental concepts, and are, therefore, investigable through psychology, neurology and related fields of study.
Enjoying stories, as an aesthetic experience, is fine. Most human beings enjoy art, music, novels or poetry in some form or another. But it's important not to use these subjective feelings to make claims about objective reality in the absence of empirical evidence.
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 11:41 AM
The issue I have raised is that the lyrics as they are in this song are stupid. I am not going to debate whether lyrics like "the facts are with science as it might become, the facts are with science as it might become" are stupid and damaging to children.
This song is being addressed to children now - with science as it is now.
At present I'll decline your offer to discuss "what might science become?"
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 11:46 AM
Subjective experience is accessible through science? This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen for a long time.
So tell, me how do collections of atoms have subjective experiences?
Posted by: Anri | September 6, 2009 1:25 PM
S.Simon sez:
Yes, as it causes measured changes in brain chemistry and electrical activity. This is one of the main reasons we refer to a cessation of these activities by the technical term 'death'.
Really? Because anyone who has used what science calls 'food' to stop the sensation known to science as 'hunger' has known about it for quite some time now.
S.Simon, based on the above question, please confirm for us which statement you feel does not apply to you:
a) S.Simon is a collection of atoms.
b) S.Simon is having subjective experiences.
If you believe both of these are true, than they are not incompatible, and you have a partial answer to your own question.
Also, there is a difference between "...anything that can not be scientifically investigated..." which is what you actually said, and '... things which science hasn't fully explained yet.', which seems to be what you are saying you actually meant. Noting the difference between these two isn't a distraction, it is a vast, vital, and pivotal point in understanding the nature of science.
If you're commenting on what science can't do, say so.
If you're commenting on what science hasn't been able to fully do yet, you might want to make that clearer.
Posted by: S. Simon | September 6, 2009 6:33 PM
Do you think that you have answered my criticism of this song by showing that science can investigate the temporal and physiological correlates of subjective experience?
What you'd need to do is show that everything of value (to children in this case) from stories and through subjective experience, can be equally or better gained through the knowledge of science.
I'd suggest that you consider the lyrics closely - what I am writing here is not an attack on science - its an attack on people who have set science up to fail and are mis-educating children about the power, reach and nature of science.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 6:45 PM
I don't see what the problem is, Simon. He says he likes the stories. Children value stories. He doesn't tell them not to value stories. He likes the stories as much as anyone else.
Posted by: Anri | September 6, 2009 7:59 PM
S.Simon Sez:
Well, at this point, I'm running as hard as I can just to keep up with the goalposts, so no, not really.
Which is odd, because the lyrics you quoted say:
(emphasis added)
So, what are we arguing here?
In post #257, you complained that things that were outside of the realm of science were considered unreal. And then in post #259, you mentioned things not accessible to science.
I asked for some examples, you listed them, Walton and I pointed out to you that these things were, in fact, accessible to science.
Then, by #261 and #263, you're saying you weren't taking about things science couldn't answer (in which case I'm not certain what you meant by 'not accessible to science', but ok), just stuff science didn't have answers for yet.
In the next post, you seemed to assert that collections of atoms can't have subjective experiences. (#264) I asked you to clarify, and you declined. (#266)
So, let's maybe try again.
What areas of knowledge, and facts (which are, from what I've seen here, what the song appears to be talking about), would be better to impart to children without the use of science?
What aspects of the real world should we impart to them as 'stories', so that when they ask "but how do we know that?", instead of "well, here's what we have been able to discover...", we say "well, it's written in a story..."
To put it another way, do you feel that 'knowledge' of Santa Claus trumps knowledge that reindeer can't fly?
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 8:37 PM
I think that Simon has a very low opinion of children.
I'm reminded of this great comment by craig from last December:
Posted by: Geoff Green | September 7, 2009 7:54 PM
Hi there -- first time commenter (I think), long-time reader.
Just wanted to chime in here on the topic of this post. I purchased "Here Comes Science" yesterday, and basically haven't stopped listening to it since. It's fantastic. A number of the songs are really improved by the videos, which -- though perhaps too literal for some -- I think would help explain some of the concepts explained in the songs to kids. "Meet the Elements" is one which is really improved by the video.
I did purchase the album on iTunes, and as expected the songs were DRM-free. To my surprise the videos were DRM-free as well, so if you want you can burn the videos to a DVD playable on a DVD player. (Helpful if you have kids like mine who have watched them repeatedly since we purchased the album.)
I'm also heading to the concert @ the NC Museum of Art in Raleigh. I guess I'll see some of you there!