It's an amusing list of the various ways skeptics can be dickish. I've noticed that there's been a massive eructation of YDIW skeptics lately, myself.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.
Richard Dawkins
Recent Posts
- The Midwest Science of Origins Conference!
- Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Stanton on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Nerd of Redhead, OM on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Owlmirror on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- themayan on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on More bad science in the literature
- Stanton on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- 'Tis Himself, OM on The Midwest Science of Origins Conference!
- Billy on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- EntropicForces on Botanical Wednesday: Walking? No way
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Rarely have I been so thoroughly misconstrued | Main | Promoting a comment of general interest »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
A taxonomy of dicks
Category: Humor
Posted on: September 4, 2010 10:16 AM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/146222
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 4, 2010 10:25 AM
While this is an excellent list, I believe he may have forgotten one of the most annoying ways skeptics can be dicks...
(/Which is: by being right.)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 4, 2010 10:36 AM
Hahahaha, that was great.
I'm going to adopt 'skeprick'. It's grand.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 4, 2010 10:37 AM
Mildly funny at times.
Posted by: subbie
|
September 4, 2010 10:41 AM
So now we're acolytes? Does that mean that we get nice, pretty robes and have to carry candles everywhere we go?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 4, 2010 10:47 AM
I'd say the acolyte label is a dickish way of dismissing people you don't like as "posers"
Posted by: MarkNS
|
September 4, 2010 10:51 AM
Hmmm...I can be an Imperial Conqueror and a Goad and Withdraw dick at times. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 4, 2010 10:55 AM
I demand evidence for this claim!!
Posted by: dgerard
|
September 4, 2010 10:59 AM
"As rationalists/skeptics, we should ..."
"As rationalists/skeptics, you should ..."
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 4, 2010 11:12 AM
For the lulz, we may need a 'Skeptic's token friend' picture, in the style of 'Colbert's token black friend'...
(/For bonus funny, hang a mitre and/or clerical collar on the uncomfortable-looking 'friend'.)
Posted by: The Picard
|
September 4, 2010 11:13 AM
Loved it. Nobody is let off the hook.
Posted by: gbothel
|
September 4, 2010 11:29 AM
I definitely read eructation as erection.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 4, 2010 12:52 PM
I think I'm more of a DIY Dick.
Posted by: shonny
|
September 4, 2010 12:56 PM
Hm, always be skeptical of someone who can't spell weird properly!
Posted by: jrunderhay
|
September 4, 2010 12:58 PM
@gbothel dicks & erections definitely go together. I'm not so sure about dicks & eructation.
Posted by: Zeno
|
September 4, 2010 1:12 PM
Hey! This post isn't at all what I expected!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 2:20 PM
You were cruisin' for porn on a Saturday morning too and was surprised when Pharyngula showed up in the search results? Blew my mind—not exactly the result I was looking for.
Posted by: Zeno
|
September 4, 2010 2:35 PM
Darn right, Brownian. You always get the best stuff when you include "taxonomy" in your search field!
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 4, 2010 3:07 PM
YDIW? WTF is that? "Your Dick Is Wagging"?
Personally I prefer "skepdick" to "skeprick" because it sounds so much more like "skeptic".
Posted by: F
|
September 4, 2010 3:32 PM
No, MadScientist, you're doing it wrong. Unless you are of the school that does, in fact, encourage wagging your dick at someone as a form of insult. This practice is not particularly the province of skeptics, AFAIK.
Posted by: spencertroxell
|
September 4, 2010 3:39 PM
This was funny until I recognized a description of myself in the 'Squirrel Skeptic' definition.
At least I'll be ready for winter.
Posted by: Ternon
|
September 4, 2010 3:55 PM
Evidence junkies are definitely the worst kind of skepricks.
One might even call them solipsists.
Posted by: windy
|
September 4, 2010 3:58 PM
It doesn't say what kind of dick gets an irresistible urge to nitpick jokey lists on the internet, so here goes:
Yes, you do.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 4, 2010 4:00 PM
A more literal skeptic might include said cursing and scalding as the evidence that makes you believe.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 4:08 PM
Save yourself some time, Zeno, and just head straight for www.cladistiXXX.com.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 4, 2010 4:33 PM
Boring and useless.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 4, 2010 4:51 PM
Hey! This post isn't at all what I expected!
here ya go:
http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2007/07/penises-of-animal-kingdom.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Penises-60582.shtml
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/penis_evolution.php
Posted by: MJP
|
September 4, 2010 4:52 PM
Are these based on real people, or made up? Some of them seem like ridiculous strawmen.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 4, 2010 4:53 PM
...and:
Penises of the Animal Kingdom
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 4, 2010 4:55 PM
Some of them seem like ridiculous strawmen.
such is the bulk of argumentation denigrating the "New Atheists".
Posted by: greg.bourke0
|
September 4, 2010 5:15 PM
PENIS
That is all.
Posted by: dylanstafne
|
September 4, 2010 5:46 PM
Mark NS, I was about to get angry at you but then realized you got me.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 4, 2010 8:12 PM
@F: I'm terrible with acronyms. I've only mastered the 3-letter ones so far. It took me a few years to get the "NOMA" thing, so that's my only 4-letter acronym. It doesn't help any that the same acronym means different things to different groups.
Posted by: klewismax
|
September 4, 2010 11:44 PM
#21
Instead of "Evidence Junkie", I prefer the more technical "Goal-Post Moving Douchebag Denialist".
Posted by: nejishiki
|
September 5, 2010 1:31 AM
Isn't that post itself an example of "You're doing it wrong" skepticism? Or is that some kind of meta-joke?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 5, 2010 8:26 AM
Unbelievable! Now this is just intolerable. If the YDIWs are taking over Dickdom, PLUS we have the religioweasels to contend with, that means EWOTI (Everyone's Wrong On The Internet). We'll never get to sleep if EWOTI. Never!!! Oh well...I'm going to bed.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 5, 2010 11:47 AM
#22 and #23: YES. Saying that ordinary claims "don't need evidence" is like saying that rich people don't need money to buy houses. They need it as much as anyone else, but they don't need to acquire it.
An assertion like "I spilled coffee" is evidence that coffee was spilled. Because of the amount of evidence for liquid-spilling that has been collected over millenia, no further evidence is required for the claim to be plausible. That's the only thing that makes "ordinary" claims special; apart from that, every claim ever made needs evidence to back it up.
(In the absence of even an assertion/cursing, there is, of course, no reason to believe that coffee was spilled. That would just be pulling an assumption out of thin air, left field, and whole cloth.)
Posted by: Ted Zissou
|
September 5, 2010 12:46 PM
I'm still wondering what the "OM" following some of your names stands for. The possibilities that
have occured to me so far are Old Man, OMygod OMbudsman, Over Medicated, On Meth, Obvious Marxist. But somehow I doubt any of my guesses match. What is OM?
Posted by: harold
|
September 5, 2010 12:48 PM
Paradoxically, by preparing this article, the author makes himself into a "YDIW" skeptic.
The description the the "evidence junkie" does not belong in the article, as it describes irrational denialist behavior. With the term "evidence junkie", he actually describes the opposite, the "evidence hater" who unreasonably questions the most obvious and plentiful evidence. Of course, the very word "skeptic" has been co-opted to mean "denialist" in many circles.
The "aristocrat" is actually a sub-species of YDIW ("you're doing it wrong by even addressing that person"). The entire category is basically part of the "concern troll" genus. "Our side is correct but we are doomed because we are offending people by being correct, talking to the wrong people, etc, etc, etc...". Concern trolls are sometimes by not always "double agents".
The "imperial conqueror" and relentless killjoy" types are very common, and those observations alone make it an interesting article.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
September 5, 2010 12:55 PM
Order of Molly. It is to Pharyngula what knighthood is to UK. Granted for excellence beyond the call of duty in commenting.Posted by: Ted Zissou
|
September 5, 2010 1:31 PM
№ 39 Forbidden Snowflake,
Thanks! Very cool and something to aspire to.
>Order of Molly. It is to Pharyngula what knighthood is to UK. Granted for excellence beyond the call of duty in commenting.
Posted by: DagoRed
|
September 5, 2010 2:48 PM
All this talk of dicks in the skeptical movement does nothing to improve skepticism and merely tells me who the "concern trolls" really are.
Complaining about people being dicks is about as immature and petulant as people who complain about dropping in the occasional f-bomb into a casual conversation or comment section when expressing one's annoyance.
So, to you concern troll dicks out there;
shut the fuck up already.
Posted by: Teshi
|
September 5, 2010 6:41 PM
I can't tell if PZ is trying to denigrate this list with sarcasm or actually finds it amusing in a positive sense. I read it as the latter; it does seem that this article is supposed to be somewhat tongue in cheek, especially considering the last paragraph.
Also, if I read the phrase "concern trolls" from skeptics to skeptics one more time I'm going to explode! People are allowed to have opinions about human interactions and to voice them.
Posted by: harold
|
September 5, 2010 11:36 PM
Also, if I read the phrase "concern trolls" from skeptics to skeptics one more time I'm going to explode! People are allowed to have opinions about human interactions and to voice them.
A concern troll - and I'm going to keep calling them that until I have a good reason not to, because it's a good name - claims to believe the opposite of what you believe.
Calling someone a concern troll is by no means an effort to censor them. They can do their concern trolling all day and night long for all I care.
Because concern trolls attempt - in an impotent way - to control the output of others, does not mean that their critics attempt to control the output of concern trolls.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 6, 2010 3:58 AM
People are allowed to voice their opinions. Other people are equally allowed to judge their opinions insincere and ask them to shut up.