Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Name and shame

Someone who witnessed the following (paraphrased) exchange on Facebook commented that she couldn't honestly tell sometimes whether people are genuinely confused about the difference between description and prescription, "is" versus "ought," or are just trolling.

I have trouble fathoming the former, but the latter is more disturbing.

Friday, March 2, 2018

Facts and feels

It's trivially, and sometimes importantly, true that facts don't care about your feelings. Facts don't care about anything at all, because they are incapable of caring, but the point being made in this case is that facts are true regardless of how much you may not want them to be true. Neil deGrasse Tyson put it another way: "The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."  And he was right-- it is great.

However, there is also a sense in which "Facts don't care about your feelings" can be self-justifying and bullying.

It's self-justifying because telling yourself this when someone is reacting emotionally to your statements, especially angrily as a rejection of those statements, means you can use this to convince yourself that the statements are, indeed, facts. Why would someone get so pissed off about something that isn't true? They just can't handle the truth!

And it can be bullying in that "facts don't care about your feelings" carries an unstated addendum "...and neither do I."  Having feelings about anything at all, and allowing them to affect your decision-making, is often denigrated as inherently irrational, even though we would be severely handicapped in our ability to make decisions without those feelings.  Right now many conservatives in America are relying on this presumption alone-- that people with strong feelings about something are incapable of thinking about it reasonably-- to try and shut down the arguments that Parkland students in Florida are making for increased gun control.

They're correct about one small part of that-- people who are hysterical are often not good decision-makers. When we want to suggest that a person's emotions invalidate any views they hold by rendering them irrational, we use words like "hysterical," "apoplectic," and especially "outraged" to indicate the presence of an emotional reaction so strong as to cause a person to lose their grip on reality. Which is, of course, just dishonest when in fact they are simply displeased or angry.

Anger can, in fact, be a powerful and productive motivator-- Lindy West described feminism as "the collective manifestation of female anger" in a recent essay for the New York Times. Passionate people get things done-- that's why people who don't want those things to get done are so dismissive and fearful of that passion.

And if "facts don't care about your feelings" means "reality exists independently of your reaction to it," then it is simply fallacious to insist that emotional people can't make rational statements. It's an ad hominem fallacy, in fact-- attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.  If facts are impervious to feelings, then you could have all of the feelings or none of the feelings and that would be irrelevant to whether or not you also have the facts.

For these reasons, I went a little into the realm of the absurd with today's cartoon. Also because "facts don't care about your feelings" is just especially galling when it comes from the mouth of someone with a record of taking or leaving facts according to (irony?) how he feels about them.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

A great mythtake

Recently I was listening to the Embrace the Void podcast episode "Tolerate Me Bro!" about Popper's paradox of tolerance. Hosts Aaron Rabi and GW were talking about how this paradox plays out in the context of platforming or deplatforming speakers, which is to say, the decisions that providers of platforms (talk show hosts, conference organizers, etc.) make about whose voices to amplify, and the reasons they have for doing so or refusing to do so.

Rabi made the point that if your intent as the owner of a platform is to allow for a productive debate, the paradox of tolerance suggests that you are justified in establishing a threshold of expertise and/or viewpoint acceptance for those who participate in the debate. So, for example, if your goal was to have a meaningful, good faith discussion about evolution, it would be reasonable for you to exclude creationists from the discussion because they would not be able to participate from a place of knowledge and honesty.

Rabi wasn't talking about MythCon, and I'd like to make that clear so that it doesn't look like I'm putting words in his mouth as I apply that "threshold of good faith" concept to a skepticism conference held in Milwaukee.

Last year's MythCon was preceded by skeptics arguing in various places online about the fact that the organizers chose to invite Carl Benjamin, otherwise known as Sargon of Akkad, an alt-right Youtube rabble rouser known for his strident antifeminist views and flirtations with white supremacy.  Many people encouraged the more respectable skeptic figures to drop out, which "Thinking Atheist" Seth Andrews did after significant grousing about the so-called "outrage brigade" raising the alarm about the conference.

Others, such as Matt Dillahunty and Thomas Smith, stayed in, relaying their displeasure about the experience afterward. Smith was especially condemning after having been faced with the prospect of "debating" someone who had once tweeted "I wouldn't even rape you" at a sexual assault victim. When this fact was brought up on stage the audience cheered for Benjamin's tweet, making it clear that if there was any faith to be found, it wasn't the good kind.

Fast forward to last week, when the organizers announced the speaker list for the 2018 conference. Did they learn their lesson from last year? Not even slightly; rather it's clear that they chose to double down. Their GoFundMe page for this year's conference explains it thusly:
We lost $12k on #Mythcon 2017 and are raising money to support the cost of #Mythcon 2018. We cannot stop talking about, listening to and challenging ideas and issues that are important to us. We will not find progress talking only to those who agree with us. We need to explore beyond our comfort zone, ask difficult questions, criticize ideas and try to find common ground in order to work on conflict resolution.
Under this pretense we see that the schedule for 2018 features the following panels:

  • How has the political climate divided the atheist community? -- Includes "Armoured Skeptic," an antifeminist and "SJW" antagonist who also featured in the 2017 conference, and David Smalley, an atheist podcaster who apparently originated the term "screeching left."
  • What is the impact of intersectionality? -- Includes Peter Boghossian, who submitted a fake academic paper on the "conceptual penis" to a paid journal in an attempt to demonstrate that gender studies is based on hatred of men. 
  • Where do social justice, the secular community and identity politics meet? -- Includes Carl Benjamin and Richard Carrier, the latter of whom is actually a mythicist, apparently the only one at the MythCon conference...who is also currently suing two blog networks and multiple individuals for reporting on allegations of sexual harassment by him. 
There are other panels, and other speakers, and I do not intend to impugn any of them here. Good people inevitably seem to get sucked into bad conferences sometimes.

That's kind of the point, though-- the inclusion of qualified speakers lends a veneer of respectability and legitimacy to others. The people participating in good faith, by their inclusion and through no fault of their own, lend their halo effect to the trolls and charlatans.

There are important, nuanced debates to be had about intersectionality, social justice, the secular community, identity politics....all of it, but many of the people chosen to have a platform in these discussions are not qualified, and they are disqualified not only by their lack of expertise but by their rejection of the entire subject matter.  There is no threshold of good faith at this conference, because participants are given a platform not based on their expertise and willingness to engage in productive discussion, but virtually based on the opposite-- their willingness to stir the pot, to say inflammatory things that upset reasonable people and delight the sort of people who like to see reasonable people get upset.

MythCon has gone full troll, which wouldn't be a big deal-- skeptics interested in meaningful discussion can just look elsewhere; there are plenty of other opportunities-- except that they're still trying to maintain a facade of credibility in the process. That's something they shouldn't be allowed to do. We do not have to tolerate the intolerant. We do not have to lower the threshold of good faith for those who have no intention of or ability to practice it. We do not have to, and we should not. 

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Shared grief, shared battle

This morning Roxane Gay tweeted "It is interesting to note the difference in support for the kids in FL versus the kids in Black Lives Matter. I say that with full admiration for the kids in FL, to survive such a trauma and fight for everyone to be safer. But that’s also what was happening in Ferguson and beyond."

She's right. There are differences-- Black Lives Matter is fighting against police racism and brutality, while the Parkland students are fighting against gun culture and the politicians who benefit from and perpetuate gun culture. But gun culture and the police brutality have a love-hate relationship with each other, and mutual racist sentiments and behavior going back probably as long as both have existed. Their common violence must be our common cause.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Mythical creatures

I got-- and am still getting-- a lot of feedback on my Facebook post of Ijeoma Oluo's tweet about how her niece who "dumps any dude the moment he tries to make her feel less than she is in any way."

Most of it by far is from women, tagging other women into the thread and saying things like "This is totally you," or "This is what your daughter's going to be like" or "This is how I want to be."

But there are also a few detractors, mostly male, saying things like "I hope she likes ending up old, bitter, and alone." As if the two options are:
  • Put up with any way your (male-- this discussion is entirely heteronormative) partner treats you, or
  • Die alone, and sad about it.
Now, there are plenty of people who die alone, and I'm sure some of them are sad about it. There are plenty of people who break up with someone and later wish they hadn't. But I have never in my life met a woman who broke up with a man because he was possessive or controlling and then spent the rest of her life single and wishing she'd stuck with him. 

The men making this quasi-threat in its more extreme form-- "Hey bitch, you're never going to get another man if you dump them for that"-- seem to be expressing a form of what I think of as "bigot universalism," the tendency of people with bigoted views to assume that everyone in their group shares those views. In this case, they're men who not only don't see controlling behavior as wrong, but assume that all men engage in it and therefore a woman who doesn't want to be controlled by a man is SOL if she wants to be with a man at all. 

What I actually see far more commonly is woman expressing relief and even pride about having gotten away from a man who tried to control them, and who are now living life on their own terms, either with a new partner or on their own, happily or at least happier than they were with that man.

Notably, the men in the thread making the "You'll die alone" argument always seem to be young-- under 30 or so. The men calling out those guys skew a little older. 

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Jigsaw McConnell

Mitch McConnell wasn't, by himself, the one who forced the government shutdown yesterday, but he was the one who took to Twitter to pose a completely unnecessary and torturous false choice to Democrats:
  • "Save" CHIP (the Children's Health Insurance Program), which expired in September, which the Republicans (who, btw, own the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate right now) could have and could still renew at any time if they chose to do so, or 
  • "Save" the roughly 700,0000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy which allows them to legally remain in the United States, the only country they really know since they were brought here as children. 
For more information on why this choice was, in addition to being torturous for obvious reasons, completely unnecessary, see Brian Beutler's article The Shithead Shutdown.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018


I'm honestly exhausted from trying to talk to people who take Grace's account at face value, but still see nothing wrong with what Ansari is described as having done, for whatever reason-- she didn't leave fast enough, she didn't say no loudly or frequently enough, she didn't do this or didn't do that. All of the focus seems to be on blaming her for being insufficiently assertive in preventing his actions, when (presumably) he's the one, and the only one, ultimately responsible for his own actions. And his actions were not okay. I can't see any reason why that shouldn't be part of the broader discussion of what consent means in a sexual context.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The faintest praise

It's really disturbing me to see people talking seriously about electing Oprah as president. 

The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that causes people of low ability to grossly overestimate their ability, because among their inferior abilities is the one that allows them to accurately assess the quality of their own skillset. 

Donald Trump, in a stunning display of the Dunning Kruger effect, thought himself of proper aptitude to take the presidency, and a significant enough portion of Americans agreed with him to make that come to pass. 

What's supposed to happen is that when someone who lacks the sense to recognize his or her own lack of aptitude for such a position, he or she is immediately talked out of it by people who know better, or-- worse comes to worst-- loses the election because at least the electorship does know better. 

In Trump's case, neither of these things happened. I'm reading Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House like nearly every other American right now, which makes it clear that Trump's own campaign and current administration also did not and do not believe that Trump is suited for the presidency, but supported and encouraged him anyway for the sake of their own personal gain. 

Your everyday Trump supporter, on the other hand, with little to nothing to gain (and potentially much to lose) from a Trump presidency, apparently shared Trump's Dunning Kruger effect with him and thought that being a shady real estate developer turned TV celebrity made him an optimal candidate for president. 

Now I'm seeing a very similar thing happen with Oprah, who is suddenly being promoted as a presidential candidate for 2020 because of the speech she made at the Golden Globes the other night, because it appears that liberals have been jealous of conservatives and want their own inexperienced, unqualified celebrity candidate for president. 

Presumably Oprah, however, does not suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect and recognizes that while she is an accomplished talk show host, actress, and businesswoman, these things do not amount to sufficient experience to be on your city council, let alone president. 

I can only imagine how the numerous-and-growing body of potential Democratic presidential candidates who do have sufficient experience and ability are feeling right now.  

Sunday, January 7, 2018

I've reinstated my Patreon page

I've reinstated my Patreon page. If you like the comics I've been creating and want to help ensure that there will be more, a donation would be very much appreciated.

Here's the link


Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Roll and scroll

Plenty of fucks to give

This comic was inspired by Rebecca Kukla, who was musing the other day (in the sense of contemplating, and also inadvertently acting as my muse) on why people seem proud to be all out of fucks to give. "I am still totally stocked on fucks to give," she noted. "I give tons of fucks and there are way more where those came from. I am just careful to give my fucks to worthy recipients, is all."

To give a fuck is to care about someone/something. It can feel liberating to declare that you don't give a fuck, if you've been giving too many fucks, too often, to the wrong recipients. But actually having no fucks to give is a dire situation to be in.

Mildred, in the fantastic film Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri (seriously, go see it), has almost no fucks left to give, which means that she's not what you'd call the hero of that story.  She's in deep, deep pain, and commits acts as a result of that pain that hurt other people. This is realistic. This the kind of thing that people do, when they have almost no fucks left to give. 

But giving a fuck is arguably our entire reason for existing on this planet. People who give a fuck are the only ones capable of improving the world. If someone depends on you, as a child does on a parent, then giving a fuck is mandatory.

We all have days when we're simply overwhelmed, and feel like we can't manage the emotional labor of giving a fuck for even another second. That is fine. That is normal. That does not make us sociopaths, for whom not giving a fuck is a psychological condition. We don't want to not care at all. We want to care effectively, meaningfully. We want to care in the right directions-- not spend our resources on futile or undeserving targets.

So with these thoughts in mind, I drew a comic about a person who is a careful steward of her fucks. A fuck farmer, if you will. As of right now this comic has been shared over 1,300 times on Facebook, which is well over the number of shares of anything I've ever posted before. Apparently it resonates with a few people.