Three cartoons

February 1, 2016 • 2:45 pm

One on atheism, one on religion + authoritarianism, and one on evolution. I’d say that’s a good haul for today.

roos

Given the level of rancor on the Internet about such matters, I feel that I need to say something about the cartoon below, one that’s bound to anger some folks and provoke a chuckle in others. It seems pretty clear to me that the target of the satire is those who employ double standards when it comes to criticizing sexism, showing their own racism (the racism of lowered expectations) rather than the implied racism of those they accuse. I’d be interested to see if others have a different take.

unknown

Bloom County Facebook page is here.12594044_1122593967771355_1522555412812078116_o

h/t: Vera, Steve

176 thoughts on “Three cartoons”

  1. The Bloom County cartoon is faulty. We can sense dark matter, in its gravitational influence and its gravitational lensing effect.

    1. Yes, the Bloom County cartoon is ignorant at best.

      I saw the Bloom County cartoon in my Facebook feed posted by a Christian friend who expressed smug appreciation at this equivalence between his belief in the invisible and the physicists belief in the invisible. It was completely gag worthy.

    2. Exactly the post I was preparing in my mind.
      Deepak would be proud of us for proving out quantum entanglement. But since I’m planning on a “wee sherbet” or several tomorrow night, may I advise you to stock up on pineapple juice and Ibuprofen for Wednesday morning. Entanglement cuts both ways.
      Has anyone done work on hungover photon entanglement? Do they trip over their own shoelaces and travel at 0.4c?

    1. By the way, there should be a ‘should’ inserted in the third line of the first speech bubble of cartoon #2, I think.

      cr

      1. Perhaps the implication is that women can either dress like sluts or bear their husband’s children — but not both.

        1. Dress like sluts before be-sprogging ; dress like matrons after be-sprogging.
          After all, once the woman has been used for sprogging, there’s no other use for her apart from cooking and cleaning.
          What? Sarcasm detector not functioning?

  3. Of course thousands of years ago the ancestors of kangaroos evolved to their present forms from non-kangaroo ancestors. That is why we see no fossils of ‘roos in the Middle East. There weren’t any.

    1. No, no, no.

      They put the bones in their pouches and carried them to Australia. In fact, that’s why god gave them pouches.

      /sarcasm (is this actually necessary?)

  5. The koalas had it worse that the roos. They had to walk all that way with no eucalyptus (their only food source).

      1. Miraculously and in keeping with the biblical tradition of feeding the multitude whilst it is heading for the promised land, those potted eucalypts were Eucalyptus viminalis, the manna gum.

      2. Just wondering at what point during the long trek to Africa the two lions looked at their two antelope companions and their sentiment changed from “jeez, aren’t we all lucky to be the chosen two!” to “you guys are beginning to look decidedly tasty!”

          1. So, thoughtfully, six pairs provided for the lions to keep them going during the trek. Ain’t god wonderful?

      3. … and the land between Ararat and Adelaide is scattered with Koala-shaped towing harnesses. No?

      4. Which of course came from the seldom-mentioned other Ark, the one with all the terrestrial plants on it.

          1. Ooh, nice angle!

            BTW, do you suppose the carnivorous plants weren’t carnivorous till after the Fall?

          3. No, they ate flying plants that landed on them. All of them. That’s why there are no flying plants left. It says so somewhere in the bible.

        2. And don’t forget the third ark, the one with the 60,000 different species of beetles.

    2. The roos have the long legs; but the koalas have the opposable thumbs. The koalas rode in the roos’ pouches and picked up the bones along the way!

  6. Re: The cartoon with the You are a racist punch line:

    I have heard several “community leaders” in the Minneapolis area state, very firmly, that it “is impossible for an African American” to be racist towards white people.

    In other words, they can shout I hate white people, I will never give a job to a white person, etc.; and that is, by definition, not racist.

    Maybe I completely missed the point of the joke. That’s very possible.

    1. You’ve got the joke. They simply haven’t realised that they’re staring into a loaded barrel, trying to get their hallux onto the trigger.

    2. The way I have heard this explained is that black people can be “prejudiced”, but oh no that’s not the same thing as “racist”, because “racism” is “prejudice” that is embedded in the oppressive white power structure, so by definition only white people can be “racist”.

      I have to wonder at the superb mental gymnastics of which such people are capable…

  7. Kangaroos don’t need opposable thumbs to pickup anything. The Holy Spirit followed with little plastic bags picking up after them.

      1. Actually only one sex has a pouch; it seems a bit harsh to make the females carry all that stuff all the way here…

        1. Well, above I am told they used their pouches. Here you say that that it would only be the lady ‘roos that would do it.
          I am so confused!

  8. As I see it the main problem with the sexist/racist cartoon is that the people who condemn sexism in general almost always condemn it in Islam, too. In real life, the woman would also be angry with the cleric. The charges of racism usually line up with complaints that all Muslims are being tarnished for the crimes of a few.

    1. “The charges of racism usually line up with complaints that all Muslims are being tarnished for the crimes of a few.”

      You mean tarnished because they subscribe to the same ideology, and empower it with their membership? Yes I’m always careful to distinguish between the ordinary run of the mill decent Nazi, and the ones who actually engaged in genocide. :p

      1. I wanted to add I’ll exempt “Muslim children”, and Illiterates, but if you’re an adult who’s actually read the Koran you don’t get a pass. You obviously aren’t as bad as members of Isis, but you deserve some tarnishing.

      2. If I was dealing with Germans in that time period, then I’d be careful to distinguish between those two groups, too.

        1. Quite agreed. And I’ve known ‘muricans from the Vietnam era to get quite upset when I said ‘My Lai’ to them.

          I did say that cartoon was right on target. The target being the lunatic fringe of the SJW spectrum who maintain that all men are sexist opressors except all Muslims, who are oppressed, therefore they have to execute mental gymnastics to reconcile the two.

          The video that Dawkins retweeted says it even more graphically.

          cr

          1. Yep.

            Various feminists actually had the gall to say that the migrant rapists just couldn’t help it because they were ‘disenfranchized’.

        2. “If I was dealing with Germans in that time period, then I’d be careful to distinguish between those two groups, too.”

          If I were a Jew living in Nazi Germany at the time I don’t think I’d spend much time making distinctions as I passed a guy with a Nazi pin on his lapel. Unless I had good reason to believe he was one of the “good guys” who wasn’t going to turn me into the SS, I would consider them all a potential danger, and rightfully so.

          Let me add a quick explanation about the motivations behind my attitude. My mother was a pro-life, pro-gays rights Christian for decades. Ultimately she gave up her religion because she was tired of being tarnished by the anti-gay, anti women’s reproductive choice implication that came with Christianity. If there were no negative consequences that came with that label she might never have made that choice. While people have the right to chose whatever religion they wish, you have no right for that choice to be free from consequences.

          1. By consequences I mean people are going to think things about you that may not necessarily true, not that people should be discriminated against, or physically assaulted, or anything else illegal.

          2. You sure you mean ‘pro-life’ up there? Because that usually is ‘anti women’s reproductive choice’…

            cr

      3. Not all Muslims buy into that crap. Yes, it may be that it is secularism that persuades them to think more liberally, but it is the rest of us who need to stand with them and support them in opposing the nastier parts of their doctrine. My liberal Muslim friends may believe in a God that I think is a myth, but we agree on most other big issues and in that way they are as liberal and Canadian as I.

        1. “My liberal Muslim friends may believe in a God that I think is a myth, but we agree on most other big issues and in that way they are as liberal and Canadian as I.”

          And if I know your liberal Muslim friend I’m not going to tar him with the same brush, but I’m still going to have a problem with him identifying with, and adding to the number of followers of Islam. Because as I stated, or alluded to with numbers comes power. So simply by calling himself a Muslin he is adding to the power Islam as an ideology wields.

          1. Man, speaking of goddies, did anyone watch some of the Repugs on the news talking to the Evangelical flocks in Iowa?? Almost made me lose my appetite. The commentators were talking about which candidates were ideological, but no one dared call the evangelical ideologues…

          2. My point about numbers equaling power goes for Christianity as well. If 75% of Americans didn’t identify as Christians no one would be pandering to the 20% fundamentalists who by virtue of their outspokenness seem to speak for a much larger group.

      4. They don’t all subscribe to the same ideology. Clearly there are dreadful crimes committed by Muslims in the belief that they are implementing “God’s will” but it is also clear that many Muslims, including clerics, do not support such atrocities or believe that they are mandated by God. Since I don’t believe in any god it doesn’t make sense for me to comment on which group has the correct interpretation of “God’s will” but I don’t believe it is fair or helpful to attribute blame for islamic crimes to all muslims without distinction.
        So far as I know there wasn’t a moderate wing of the Nazi party.

        1. There wasn’t a wing, because it wasn’t safe for these people to come out. However, there were many nice members of the Nazi party. One of them was Oscar Schindler.
          Another one was a psychiatrist about whom I read in a R. Hess’s biography. Hess was presented to the public as “the conscience of the Nazi party” to whom ordinary party members could report whatever troubled them. When mentally ill patients were rounded up according to the T4 program, this psychiatrist wrote to Hess, “I am told that my patients are transferred to a new hospital where they will be better cared for. However, different rumors are circulating, I am afraid for my patients and wish to know more details about what will happen to them.”
          Hess’ secretary replied to the sender that his letter was forwarded to Himmler.
          The doctor survived the war and later said, “By that time, I was already considering Himmler to be an incarnation of evil. So as soon as I received the secretary’s message, I knew that my patients were doomed.”
          I guess that he became a Nazi to keep his job.

        2. “but it is also clear that many Muslims, including clerics, do not support such atrocities or believe that they are mandated by God.”

          I understand that completely. So what I suggest they do is form a new religion, and call it “not Islam”, or they can simply stop dressing in ways that make them easily identifiable, and then they can avoid being tarnished with the label Islam. I know better as an atheist living in Alabama than to wear a shirt that says Atheist on it, or a Darwin fish on my car because I prefer not to be tarnished with the baby-eating, devil worshiping brush, something that isn’t even reasonable as opposed to the negative teachings of Islam.

    2. Sastra @8

      ” In real life, the woman would also be angry with the cleric.”

      You have put your finger on the crux. I think the woman in this cartoon is what I have heard referred to as a “Straw Feminist.” I would like to see a real life demonstration of how many actually exist. It seems more likely to me that MRA’s would simply prefer that the woman in the cartoon was an example of the average feminist. I think such feminists are quite rare.

      1. I do not see many feminists protesting against the organized rapes by Muslims.
        Far-right sites are showing a young German woman with a poster “Will trade racists for rapists”. You can see it e.g. here:
        http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/01/29/german-feminist-welcomes-refugees-better-rapists-racists/
        The right-wingers say the photo was originally posted in a leftist Facebook page but later removed from it.
        I don’t know whether the lady with the poster self-identifies as a feminist or not, but she seems to omit two things:
        1) rapists who choose victims from another ethnic group are more than likely to be racists as well;
        2) the poster feeds the misogynist trope that women do not really mind being raped.

    3. “the people who condemn sexism in general almost always condemn it in Islam, too”
      Yes, but the trouble with that particular tautology is that the joke is premised on the notion that the sexism/racism accuser is not within that group but is instead enamoured with the identity politics way of thinking. It seems firmly aimed at the Goldsmiths College Student Union version of feminism/racism rather than a viewpoint shared by most feminists.
      OK, that may raise the larger point about whether it’s fair to mock or criticize an extremist intolerant version of a larger ideology – even if you point out that the vast majority do not hold this extremist interpretation. But if you conclude, as apparently the NECSS did, that it is not fair, then you should at least apply such standards consistently.
      And if you did apply it consistently would there be room for mockery anywhere?

      1. I guess I feel the same way about this sort of mocking of feminism as I do with cartoons and so forth mocking the gnu atheists. Yes, there are extremists who deserve it, who go against the very principles which ought to define them. It just seems to me that sometimes the goal isn’t to pinpoint on this small group, but tarnish the larger one by association.

        1. The larger group is already tarnished by association with the nutjobs.

          This isn’t to say that some people pointing out the idiocy of the nutjob element aren’t doing so with ulterior motives. But just as I’ve seen calls for the Muslim mainstrean to publicly disown the fundamentalist terrorists, could mainstream feminism please disown the sjw’s?

          I used to be sympathetic to feminism. I guess I still am, when I see e.g. muslim women walking around in black sacks I instinctively feel sympathy for them. As I do with any woman who wants an abortion and can’t get one.

          But it’s sometimes hard to remember that when confronted with po-mo sjw ‘feminists’ babbling nonsense about ‘hegemony’ and ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘narratives’ (yes, sometimes the buzzwords they use get in the way of meaning, or just plain irritate me, too).

          cr

          1. “I used to be sympathetic to feminism.”

            That’s not good enough. We (men & women) need men to be feminists themselves (which many are). Do you have to be a tree to be an environmentalist?

          2. I still am sympathetic to the same feminist issues as I used to be, but the problem is that, what does ‘feminist’ mean now?

            I believe women have an absolute right to decide what to do with their bodies (and yes that does include abortion on demand at their sole choice), and an absolute right to wear what they like, and equal pay for equal work is a no-brainer, oh, and if one of the ‘girls’ beats my time round the autocross track in the paddock at the weekend I’m not dismayed, it’s just a shame more women don’t have a go.

            BUT I am quite reactionary about the clumsy distortions of ‘gender-neutral’ language and I side with Richard Dawkins over ‘elevatorgate’. I also like inappropriate jokes and (shock horror) look at Internet porn from time to time.

            So if I said I was a feminist there would be legions of feminists ready to call me a liar. And by their definition they’d be right.

            cr

          9. “Do you have to be a tree to be an environmentalist?”

            I agree you don’t have to be, but to me the term feminist has become comparable to calling yourself a tree hugger as an environmentalist, or a member of PETA as an animal rights supporter.
            Did you ever look up big red Diane? That’s my perception of a modern feminist.

          10. I am a tree hugger though. Even literally, on a few occasions when folks were watching and I wanted to make a point.

            And for one other reason, just after I had my heart valve repair. If I felt a cough coming on, hugging a tree (or a street lamp) countered the painful outward stresses on my breastbone.

            cr

          11. Oh and I did look up big red Diane. Ouch!

            I think not all feminists are like that.

            cr

          12. “I think not all feminists are like that.”

            I know they aren’t, but a VERY VOCAL minority are. I also know that not all Christians are pro-life, or oppose gay marriage, but if I suddenly received incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the son of God, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian.

          13. Yes, that’s the thing. The worst people are often (some of) the most visible (or audible). The availability heuristic then convinces people that all of the larger group are like that.

            /@

          14. What I don’t understand is why feminists are so wedded to the term? So much so that you can agree in principle with everything they say but your branded a sexist for preferring terms like egalitarian, or humanist.
            It seems to me half the time if someone starts a discussion/speech with “I am a feminist” 3/4’s of people will tune out immediately. Say you’re humanist, and make exactly the same points, and people will listen. It seems like the term more important to them than the ideals.

          15. “Say you’re humanist, and make exactly the same points, and people will listen.”

            Mike, I agree with you in principle, but there are a number of specifically women’s issues that need to be addressed (and that affect everyone, so they are obviously humanistic issues as well) that get lost in the shuffle if the discussion is open to all things humanistic. In a mixed discussion, those will (often) simply not be what many (esp. the men) want to talk about, and people won’t listen.

            Diplomacy is often that way nowadays; we say the status of women is critical but for the most part we negotiate with men and feminist issues fall by the wayside. (And yes, I know, three of our–USian–past Secretaries of State have been women.)

            (BTW–we can play beer pong waiting for you to mention equal wages whenever feminism comes up.)

          16. “BTW–we can play beer pong waiting for you to mention equal wages whenever feminism comes up.”

            Don’t try that every time a feminist says 77 cents to a dollar, you’ll need to be hospitalized.

          17. It’s akin to the punching-up/punching down thing, I think. Try this: Egalitarianism is about removing glass ceilings; feminism is about building glass elevators … ?

            /@

          18. Exactly. This readily explains the fact that fundamentalist Christians thought I had a tail when I was Catholic* and now they think I have a tail and eat babies. (Actually I’m not sure whether Catholics keep the tail when they defect.) But to your point, that one goddamn demonic baby eating atheist really sours our reputation as a group.

            *This is not an exagerration. My father met people in the Southern U.S. back in the 1970s who asked to see his tail when he informed them he is Catholic. It is apparently a fairly common belief that Catholic clergy wear robes to cover the demonic tails. You really cannot make this stuff up.

          19. Mike: “Did you ever look up big red Diane?”

            infinite: “Oh and I did look up big red Diane.”

            GUYS! It’s not, “big red Diane!”

            🙄

          22. @ Diane

            Aaaaargh! I’m soooo sorry!

            Mike said “Did you ever look up big red Diane” (should have been a comma in there after ‘big red’, since he was addressing you).

            And I googled ‘big red feminist’ or somesuch.

            And then I posted my comment and forgetfully just copied Mike’s phrase ‘big red Diane’.

            ‘Big red’ is not named Diane and has no conceivable connection with you. My apologies for my embarrassing mistake.

            cr

          23. That’s OK, I was just pulling your chain. (Well, and maybe also wanting to stop this before it became a meme or something! 😀 )

            I did Google big red Diane, though, just in case… 🙄

          26. The same can be said about atheists, however I refuse to call myself anything else. I’m not going to let someone else take my word from me.

          27. “The same can be said about atheists, however I refuse to call myself anything else.”

            I don’t publicly call attention to the fact I’m an atheist in the real world, particularly here in Alabama, and I believe the term feminist has the similar negative connotations nationwide, though obviously not to the same degree.
            If for example I’m arguing for a separation of church, and state here, the last thing I would do is begin a speech, or a discussion with “I’m an atheist”. It’s pragmatism I’m arguing for not a surrender.

          28. If people ask me if I believe in God, I say “no I’m an atheist”. I really don’t care if they are offended because I don’t like bigots anyway.

          29. @Merilee
            (Why does WP not put these posts in chronological order??)

            “What, pray tell, is Big red Diane??? Googling provided no clues..”

            That’s ‘cos Mike shoulda said ‘google Big Red, Diane’. It was an instruction to Diane to google ‘big red’. Not what you thought or I misremembered.

            Mike has already been suitably chastised for his malfeasance with the omitted comma.

            🙂

            cr

          30. OK – finally found the obnoxious woman in question ( after scrolling through several pages of Big Red chewing gum and pop drinks.). Gloria Steinem (who is still doing great stuff in her 80s) she certainly ain’t. I’d be tempted to yell STFU RIGHT back at her, though it’s really not my style.

          35. My family in California all say “soda”. They look at you funny if you say “pop”.

          36. I lived in California and Maryland and various overseas locales before moving to Canuckland and I have never, ever, said soda.

          38. naaaaahhhhh, I’ve always said pop, never soda. I think maybe Californians say pop, but not sure. I’ve lived in too many places.

          39. They don’t say “pop” in California so you probably picked it up from somewhere else. My family in California all say “soda”.

          40. “(Why does WP not put these posts in chronological order??)”

            It puts them in the same order it uses for all comments, which is tree-structured, not chronological. Replies go under the comment they’re replying to; replies to replies follow the same rule, one level deeper; and so on. The indentation maxes out at a certain depth, but the tree structure continues beyond that. The order you see is the flattening of that tree at the indentation limit.

            One confounding factor is that some commenters are using the Reply button in the email notice, and some are clicking through to the website and searching upthread for a Reply button. So comments may appear to be out of order, but only because they’re being hung from different nodes in the comment tree.

          41. @ Mike Paps

            ” …but in the US only 17% of people call themselves feminists, and nearly half feel it has negative connotations.”

            So, like atheism then (only not quite as bad). Guess we really need to stop using the A word!

          42. “Guess we really need to stop using the A word!”

            We certainly should never use it in the sense that we refer to certain issues as part of the atheist agenda, or as atheist issues the way feminists do.

          43. “…the way feminists do…”

            Mike: Not. All. Feminists. I doubt you’ll see Trudeau on those websites you must hang out on.

            Don’t let the self-important whiners acting big online obscure the fact that there is a strong traditional feminist movement alive and well. Feminist, per se, is not a dirty word, anymore than atheist or environmentalist is.

          45. (Sorry about the essentially duplicate post there. When you return to these threads and read them top to bottom you don’t see that someone’s already made your point till too late.)

            @ Mike again:

            “If for example I’m arguing for a separation of church, and state here, the last thing I would do is begin a speech, or a discussion with “I’m an atheist”.”

            Yes, and I would act the same way in the same situation where feminist would be a…omg, a trigger word.

            But in a forum of people who do agree that women’s rights improve the world for everyone, I resent people speaking ill of the big concept that is feminism. The world does not consist solely of privileged snowflakes bloviating on the web about po-mo feminism. There is quite a history behind the term and much good work still being done in the traditional sense to improve women’s lives.

            We almost lost the word “environmentalist” a few decades ago when environmental extremists touched off a backlash. Today the pendulum’s swung back on that one.

          46. @ Gregory
            “The indentation maxes out at a certain depth, but the tree structure continues beyond that. The order you see is the flattening of that tree at the indentation limit.”

            Thanks. That explains a lot.

            “One confounding factor is that some commenters …. are clicking through to the website and searching upthread for a Reply button.”

            Yes. For example your comment had no Reply button, this is in theory a ‘reply’ to Mike Paps.

            Once the indentation limit is reached, Reply buttons disappear.

            This is *not good* for usability.

            cr

          47. I agree, as Canada’s new PM said at Davos, We shouldn’t be afraid of the word feminist, men and women should use it to describe themselves anytime they want. And he went on to say that men need to be part of the conversation to close the gender gap.

          48. I don’t know what the situation is in Canada, but in the US only 17% of people call themselves feminists, and nearly half feel it has negative connotations. It’s clearly, if nothing else, a polarizing term. When however you ask people if they support gender equality the numbers are something like 9 in 10. The support for many feminist issues is clearly there, but the term is turning people off. I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise.

          49. The support is clear except when feminist issues clash with other liberal ideas, for instance when Muslims insist in gender separation at events or veiling women or Jess don’t want to sit next to women in planes. Then the support fades.

          50. And that is where the absurdity lies. The support fades under the very circumstances that make feminism necessary. While it’s never one cause, I think it’s safe to say that a very large percentage of anti-woman bigotry can be attributed to religion, even when it comes from people who aren’t necessarily religious. Centuries of patriarchal views feed into stereotypes many people don’t think twice about.

          52. The same goes for the word ‘socialism’ in the US, I think. A lot of people will support better State-funded care for the disabled, or farm subsidies for rural areas, or health care for the poor, or [you can fill in the blanks, I’m not USAnian], but point out to them that those are socialist policies and watch them run!

            cr

          53. And this is what I love about Bernie Sanders. He didn’t give a shit and refused to shy away from the term; instead, he self identified as a socialist, explaining what it was and he became well liked for it.

          55. I’m actually surprised he has turned out so well though I probably shouldn’t be. I think I was just too cynical to jump into Trudeau mania part deux. 🙂

          56. I hear ya. You get to a certain age and you’ve learned not to get your hopes up too high.

            Speaking of Sanders, the Onion has a story up about him now:

            Wealthy Donors Pump Millions Into Sanders’ Campaign In Last-Ditch Effort To Destroy His Credibility

  9. The Bloom County cartoon aims to disparage scientists by equating a scientific hypothesis (dark matter) based on evidence (distribution of galaxy velocities) with religious superstition. It’s the old gambit of “see, science is based on faith too”. It even mockingly refers to “secular rationalists”. Surely, as one of the latter, you didn’t intend to support this cartoon’s message.

    2. The similarity to that cartoon, and the video Dawkins tweeted struck me as well. BTW the video was inspired by the Goldsmiths fiasco, which many don’t seem to get.

      1. And which is why, as I understand, Dawkins withdrew the Tweet. It wasn’t that he caved to criticism but that he hadn’t realized the female character was widely-known (though not by me) to be based on a particular woman.

        1. “the female character was widely-known (though not by me) to be based on a particular woman.”

          A particular horrid person who was eminently deserving of that lampooning. The cartoon version of her was in fact an improvement.

  11. If the man in cartoon 2 is a RWNJ, then the woman is probably correct. When RWNJs criticize the treatment of women in the Muslim world it’s a good bet they’re motivated to do so by xenophobia rather than concern for women. Witness the way they treat women here at home. They impose all the same shackles they “condemn” in Muslim countries: reproductive rights, professional glass ceilings and even attire.

    1. It’s entirely possible to be sexist and racist, I guess.

      But that’s not what the cartoon was aimed at.

      (What’s a RWNJ?)

      cr

      1. Ok. What does that have to do with the point I was making?

        (PS – I think abortion clinic doctors and children of conservative faith-healing denominations, to name just two classes of victims, would disagree that RWNJs don’t pose an existential threat.)

        1. Women are now having it hard, globally. If this woman is against someone who defends women because she suspects that he is doing it for the wrong reasons, I think she is making an error of judgement.

          The “right” and “left” allocations, esp. of nutjobs, varies from country to country. Where I live, RWNJs have recently beaten Jehovah’s Witnesses, and leftists have defended the cult. While I didn’t approve the violence (the proper action would be a protest to our religious authority), and I understand the impulse of leftists to defend every group with harmful potential, it was ironic to me to watch feminists to stand for fundamentalist control freaks who leave women to bleed to death.
          To your P.S.: You are right that RWNJs are an existential threat to many individuals. However, Islamists endanger whole societies.

          1. Which right wing nut jobs are beating Jehovah’s Witnesses and which leftists have defended the cult?
            You said something that made me really take notice when you stated: it was ironic to me to watch feminists to stand for fundamentalist control freaks who leave women to bleed to death.
            Why would feminists stand for a situation that would allow Jehovah’s Witness women to bleed to death? Who are they?

          2. They were members of a small right-wing Bulgarian party called VMRO, plus some soccer fans. You can read a little about it here:
            http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428134
            All leftists whom I know defended the attacked Witnesses, including a lady who blogs under the title of “Openly Feminist”. She wrote (I’m translating from the Bulgarian original): “…If we do not protest against the event as if every one of us is a member of this church… we will have no right to complain tomorrow if someone attacks us with stones in our own homes. Write to the Attorney General, to the Interior Minister… And let the colleagues journalists stop fanning the flames, let them read their textbooks and see that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are no cult…”

            I understand that the author is against any physical violence, but when the victims are preachers of an anti-medicine and psychologically abusive cult which should not have been let in the country in the first place, I’d just take the popcorn.

  12. Hi Dr Coyne, I’m a Christian, and I recently posted part 1 of my review of the Albatross on reddit, if you’d care to read it:

    [Link removed by Ceiling Cat. A miracle!]

    Regards, /u/lapapinton

    1. After reading your review, I seriously question whether you comprehend what you read. You make arguments that were clearly and meticulously refuted over and over again.

      You completely misunderstand the point of the outsiders test of faith.

      1. If you’ve got some critical comments to make, can I suggest that you make them on reddit?

          1. Reddit is a site composed of various subreddits dealing with different topics which you can post content to.

            I’d prefer to discuss it there because I don’t like the comment formatting on WordPress.

            I posted it here because I couldn’t find Jerry’s email.

          2. Top right-hand corner of the page ; follow the link to his professional (U.Chic) page.
            I’ve been on Slashdot since … how many years before Reddit crawled from the primeval slime … and never seen the need to go there, establish an account etc.

          5. “Reddit is a site composed of various subreddits”

            X is composed of various sub-X – that’s as helpful an explanation as I have seen in many a year. Hint: a recursive definition requires a base case.

          6. 😀

            Yes. That reminded me of the time my husband & I went to a country restaurant that had lots of signs about a “turkeyorama” coming up. So he asked the waiter, “what’s a turkeyorama?”

            Waiter: “Well, it’s like a beeforama only with a turkey.”

        2. On Reddit, where you wrote this as CA comment on your own post:

          “Somebody pointed out that this isn’t very well written, and the way it jumped from subject to subject made them feel like they were reading an interior monologue.

          Yeah, I may be a pretty terrible writer, but I’m going to build a wall and make Jerry Coyne pay for it. “

          Yeah, no. I’d say your post isn’t worth responding to on Reddit, or here. And this isn’t a place to plug your Reddit post.

          1. Somebody complained that the flow of the review jumped around too much.

            In that comment I was parodying Donald Trump’s “stream-of-consciousness” style of rhetoric, and his idea of getting Mexico to build a wall for the US.

            I’ve deleted the comment now, though, so feel free to give your reply if that was what was putting you off.

  14. The male-female cartoon is incoherent and bizarre, to say the least:

    The man’s comments ARE sexist.

    The man’s calling her an “Imam” for calling her out for it is idiotic.

    So, at worst, her statement, “You are sexist!” is just incorrect, but hardly worthy of a punchline.

      1. Yeah, I think he’s quoting some actual Imam.

        The cartoon *could* be read the other way, that he’s calling her an imam, but it’s not the interpretation that springs to mind. At least, not to mine.

        cr

        1. No it isn’t.

          The first bubble has continuation dots …

          … the second starts with same dots.

          How else could it be drawn?

          It *could* be taken the way you read it, but you are, I think, the only person who did take it that way.

          cr

    2. The point is that criticism of sexism in Islam is *racist* but just plain expression of Caucasian sexism is vile (which it is). Double standards.
      I can’t see how You don’t see that

    3. The Imam Mohammed Ibn Al Hazar the man in the cartoon is referring to is the Islamic author of that statement that he’s quoting. And a lot of highly respectable Islamic sources Do say this – in fact the usual orthodoxy does its just that some liberal muslims choose to ignore or reinterpret this – however according to orthodoxy their views would be more like the imam cited. The man is the cartoon is Not calling the woman in the cartoon this (Mohammed is a man’s name anyway). I could cite religious law books of the Hanifa (more moderate) school or works on Principles of Fiqh (underlying precepts of Islamic law)if you like but I won’t unless asked.

  15. Oh, the first cartoon is wonderful, especially since it can be multiplied by the koalas, wombats, and every other non-opossum marsupial.

  16. Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
    The middle cartoon about sexism/racism is TOTALLY BRILLIANT! because it is what people are wrongly understanding as an either/or – it is in fact entirely sexist the quote he is saying, in both cultural contexts and we have to stop giving religion a cultural pass on social progress – and frankly I like the idea that the man is being the feminist. reading dependant…..also shows the whole “assume thang” and responding to the entire message rather than a knee jerk emotionalism

  17. Regarding the kangaroos – what’s truly remarkable to me is that, according to biblical literalists, you’d have to believe that after the animals got off the Ark, all the marsupials decided to go to either Australia or the Americas. How did they know to do this? Was there a vote? Was there a great marsupial schism?

  19. In the middle cartoon the man may or may not be a sexist and/or racist. He is merely reporting what an Imam has stated. On the other hand, the woman who may or may not be a feminist comes across as an impetuous know-it-all who jumps to conclusions.

Comments are closed.