Last active
2 years, 11 months ago
  • You showed up to defend a preference for vocal theists in the provision of services made available to the public, and you referred to objections to said preference as “militant atheism”. Is the bar for “militant atheism” that much lower than what you’d consider “militant theism”, even as a joke?

    And you’re totally right — as long as the non-churchgoers are given the posted prices, that’s totally not a problem. Just like how it’s entirely non-exclusionary when Christians are given reduced sentences. there’s no reason for the non-Christians to complain; after all, the atheists are being charged according to the statutes! So what if one group is given preferential treatment off-the-books; that’s entirely different from, um…required-by-law special treatment?

    I guess it’s just another episode of the “I’m anti-militancy*” brand of tone trolling.

  • Wait…did you seriously just invoke “ITES” in defense of the party whose entire economic plan can be summarized as “the rich people will survive, so screw everyone else”? Not that the Democrats are much better; but how does “It’s the economy, stupid!” justify choosing “worse” over “bad”?

  • I’m not a fan of militant atheism,

    But you are, it seems, a fan of being an apologist for militant theism and deliberate attempts to push religious exclusion. Congratulations!

  • The reference to Arpaio as “America’s sheriff” is telling — we know who counts as part of “America” according to the GOP.

  • M commented on the blog post Denny’s new ad celebrates the right to bear arms in true form

    2012-06-25 13:58:37View | Delete

    In a few places (shout-out to Homer!) the hippies are also hippier. Alaska isn’t all bad.

    (…even if the most liberal places in Alaska still have to deal with moose as major garden pests.)

  • Craibe took the Biblical stance, and even the totalitarian Salvation Army now feels the need to contradict that stance in pretending to make at least a gesture towards basic ethics…I’ll consider that encouraging, even if it doesn’t raise my opinion of the SA (who I know are more interested in giving the impression of humanity than actually interacting humanely with LGBT people).

  • He’ll “support” marriage equality…as long as we allow him to define marriage as a solely private affair and accept his implication that we’re incapable of effective parenting.

    Thanks, Dave, but piss off.

  • M commented on the blog post Matt Barber – The audacity of a fake Christian

    2012-06-21 04:49:55View | Delete

    The speck/plank schtick only works when the “speck” in question is actually a moral flaw. Using that reference here gives Matt Barber entirely too much moral weight: he’s engaging in blatant lies to attack a morally-irrelevant trait in those of us he is already legally superior over (and would like to be more so). Even mentioning the speck/plank idea regarding Barber’s bullshit cedes too much (and implies that departure from the heterosexual-supremacist norm is a moral failing, though maybe a “speck” rather than a “plank”).

  • I think it’s less Stockholm Syndrome than a bunch of rich gay white men who think that their wealth, whiteness and maleness will insulate them from their party’s homophobia.

  • M commented on the blog post ‘You have such a pretty face’ (the rest of you is gawdawful)

    2012-06-12 21:56:35View | Delete

    Somewhere along the line, I got used to describing the body-image environment among gay men as “sometimes almost as bad as the mainstream body-image environment for women of any orientation”. It might not have the sheer force of centuries of phallocratic objectifying aesthetic whim behind it (and it’s whim — the unrealistic body standards that women are expected to embody keep changing, of course), but body-image crap among gay men is still vicious. Even the bears have their own version — and bear-community acceptance has all sorts of macho baggage attached as part of the price of entry.

  • It’s right there in the list of “values”. In Catholic doctrine-speak, “reverence for life” means celebrating an exclusionary, patriarchal, heterosexual-supremacist and reproduction-obsessed model of human sexuality as the obvious and unquestionable Truth (and punishing variation from that model as harshly as possible).

  • Dr. Spitzer’s opinion of the study he conducted is ultimately irrelevant — the value of a study is independent of the author’s opinion. (This is why the whole fundie “Darwin recanted on his deathbed” schtick is pointless — even if Darwin had changed his opinion, the evidence still supports the evolutionary model, so Darwin would simply have become less right in changing his opinion.) On the other hand, when even the author of a study is willing to go into detail about how the methodology was flawed and how the results don’t say what people like the FRC want to pretend — yeah, it looks pretty bad for the heterosexual-supremacists.

  • Even if every element that you and your right-wing race-warrior cronies cooked up were true — it wouldn’t help your insistence that Trayvon Martin deserved to be executed. If someone is being stalked by an armed person out for blood, the only way to stay alive is to strike first and attempt to neutralize the threat. Your whole “case” is based on the presumption that unlike Zimmerman, Martin was required to place his life and safety in the hands of someone who followed him with a gun — only Zimmerman had a right to “stand his ground”, Martin had no self-defense rights at all.

    Of course, laws don’t work that way (nor do ethics), so your crap is quite visible to those who aren’t swimming in it.

  • Actually, according to the Bible, the Sodomites hoarded wealth and luxury, were lazy and arrogant, and refused to help the poor or observe the appropriate treatment of guests and strangers.

  • Sure, LGBT people will come in “all political configurations”. To put it another way — some people who have been shit on by the social, economic, and political elite will think nothing of shitting on anyone they can place below themselves in social, economic, and political terms. It’s just that most of us who follow PHB don’t think that’ that’s an approach that should be honored and praised.

  • You support Perkins being chosen as an “expert” on subjects he mostly just lies about? Or you support a right of right-wing self-proclaimed “experts” to be called up by other people’s TV shows?

  • M commented on the blog post The Hunger Games’ young racist fans

    2012-04-12 21:31:16View | Delete

    I’m not sure Zizek is the best example to follow if you’re claiming to want an anti-authoritarian approach. Except maybe (ironically) in the sense of how people who argue like you (i.e. only fluffy liberalism can ever count as non-fascist) are described by Zizek at every turn as the consummate defenders of neoliberal consumer-capitalist authoritarianism.

  • It’s Magical Hypercapitalist Economics: the solution to every problem is always to deregulate and shovel more money at rich people. Also: government protection of private property and enforcement of contracts, union-busting, suppression of dissent, etc. doesn’t count as “statism”, but trying to get the government to do anything to benefit the public does (and thus is evil).

  • I’m actually mildly surprised about the Libertarian Party’s position here. The attitude I’ve heard most often from Libertarians, especially those in more conservative states, is that “the government shouldn’t get involved with relationships,” so expanding the range of relationships recognized by the government is “anti-freedom” even when it’s a move towards equality.

  • Christians don’t generally embrace evolution

    This is only remotely true in the U.S. and other places where reactionary totalitarians claim to speak for all Christians.

    Then again, it’s not like you’ve shown much concern for little things like “history” or “facts” in your comments…

  • Load More