Author: VD

Another award

I’ll have to figure out where to put this one between all the soccer trophies and the gilded statue of a little boy in a wheelchair I won for my artistic cruelty. The Right Wing News pronounces judgment, which is of course entirely scientific, dispositive and not to be doubted in any way:

The 7 Best Pure Writers On Conservative Blogs

Vox Popoli: Intellectual, but raw — and always politically incorrect. It’s fun to see what Vox is going to say next.

Is it fun? I will admit that I’m not infrequently surprised and occasionally even a little appalled myself. Evolution was one thing, but how on Earth did I end up a free trade skeptic? I suppose I merely follow where the evidence, the logic, and most importantly, the potential for momentary self-amusement happen to lead.

Atheists and Daddy issues

Behold science in action. We’ll begin with the well-known observation that many atheists have serious problems with their fathers. To this, we add the fact that scientists at Boston University, the University of British Columbia, and UC Davis have all reported evidence supporting my original hypothesis that there is a connection between atheism and higher than normal Asperger’s Quotients, as well as this new study, which has the potential to explain the reason for that connection.

Older men are more likely than young ones to father a child who develops autism or schizophrenia, because of random mutations that become more numerous with advancing paternal age, scientists reported on Wednesday, in the first study to quantify the effect as it builds each year. The age of mothers had no bearing on the risk for these disorders, the study found….

The overall risk to a man in his 40s or older is in the range of 2 percent, at most, and there are other contributing biological factors that are entirely unknown.

My random thought of the day is that older fathers not only increase the number of random mutations, but also tend to behave differently than younger fathers. Certainly everyone who has multiple children knows that the youngest is brought up somewhat differently than the eldest, and at least part of this may have to do with the increased age of the father rather than “been there done that” syndrome. This means that the children of older fathers are likely to experience a double-whammy of Nature and Nurture teaming up against them with regards to the probability of their turning out neurotypical.

This all leads to my hypothesis that the reason atheists are less likely to be neurotypical and less likely to believe in the existence of gods and the supernatural is because their fathers are, on average, older. This hypothetical causal connection between the age of the father and the atheism of the child is interesting in that it would have the potential to explain both the relatively recent increase in the number of atheists as well as the reason Europe is more atheist than the United States and other religious countries.

The testable prediction generated by this hypothesis is that there will be a statistically significant difference in the average/median age of fathers of atheists and the rest of the population. The average age of the atheist’s fathers should be older than the norm, while due to their much greater numbers, the average age of religious individual’s fathers will very closely approximate it. Unfortunately, the USA doesn’t track the age of fathers, only first-time fathers, but Australia does.

1. The average age of a first-time dad in the U.S. was 29.65 in 2010, considerably younger than a Western European equivalent of 32.51 (based on the average of UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Spain only).

2. Between 1988 and 2008 the median age of married fathers increased by almost three years, from 31.0 to 34.1 years, while the median age of unmarried fathers who acknowledged the birth of their child also increased, from 27.0 years to 29.8 years. In 2008 the median age of all fathers was 33.1 years. [This indicates that the median age of all fathers in Australia was 30 in 1988.]

So, for the time being, we’ll use 30 as our approximate average age. And like we did before, let’s take an informal poll here to see if the average age of fathers of the atheists here is, in fact, above 30. Just indicate if you are atheist, agnostic, or religious, and your father’s age when you were born. Here are some examples:

Vox Day: religious-25
Richard Dawkins: atheist-26
Christopher Hitchens: atheist-40
Daniel Dennett: atheist-32
Bertrand Russell: atheist-30
John Russell: atheist-50
Skatje Myers: atheist-32
Friedrich Nietzsche: atheist-31
H.G. Wells: atheist-38
Scott Atran: atheist-26

So the average age of the father of the New Atheists is 32.7. So far so good. Anyone know how old Sam Harris’s or PZ Myers’s fathers were when they were born?

True sporting equality

Louisa Thomas proposes sexism in the name of sports equality:

Because Augusta is a golf course, and because it hosts the Masters, the announcement that the club was taking women was treated as a sports story. It’s actually a business story, and if it says something about women in American culture, then it says something about the rise of women in finance and politics.

For the story to be about women in sports, the debate isn’t about whether Darla Moore and Condi Rice should be able to wear green jackets. It’s whether Stacy Lewis, the top American on the LPGA tour (and the second-ranked woman in the world), should have a chance to compete for one.

Opening up the Masters to female players would be a hell of a lot more controversial than opening up Augusta to female members. But it wouldn’t be impossible. Give women their own leader board, and give them their own tees — but don’t give them their own tournament. Mix the groups in with the men.

I have a much better idea. Announce that women will be permitted to play in the PGA as soon as men will be permitted to play in the LPGA. No different tees, no different rules, just complete equality regardless of sex.

Anything less would be sexist and therefore unacceptable.

A strange trip to Tampa

So we’re told Joe Biden is heading to Tampa during the Republican National Convention… I wonder what sort of kabuki show starring the bumbling Vice-President is in store. How desperate are the Democratic elders to get someone else, anyone else, on the ticket? Is it just a feeble attempt to steal the media limelight or is there something darker in the works?

I was at RNC-New Orleans in 1988, as my parents were delegates. At one point, due to the black suit and shades I was wearing, I was drafted to help three bodyguards hold the doors at a Minnesota Senator’s cocktail party against some literally filthy Democratic protesters who were trying to get in. These things get a little messier on the ground than they usually appear on TV. The parties are surpassingly excellent, though.

Rotten to the core

In case you are wondering, not only is Apple an intrinsically evil, technofascist company, but the Apple Geniuses are even bigger tools that you likely imagined:

It was bad, and it wasn’t just a bunch of young punks working the system; the corruption rained down from above and pooled deep at the bottom.

Jake and Ronald both spoke with smiles and contempt about their former boss-of-bosses, a regional manager from Apple corporate who they allege ran the store like it was her own personal playground. Jake says the rest of the gang wasn’t much better. “It bends my brain to know that, statistically speaking, it’s harder to get a job at the Apple Store than it is to get into some Ivy League schools,” he says. “Yet somehow they’re staffed by some of the most inept people this side of mastering the ability to speak.”

I liked Apple a lot better back in the //e days.

Obama’s murderous legacy

Even black left-liberals are troubled by what they realize is likely the chief legacy of Barack Obama’s term of misrule:

Let us grant that the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, said to be the mastermind behind the foiled underwear bomb plot, should not much trouble us. But surely the killing of his 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and the secrecy around both acts, should.

I like to think that the junior Awlaki’s (reportedly accidental) death weighs heavy on the president’s conscience. In fact that weight does nothing to change the net result — from this point forward the presidency means the right to unilaterally declare American citizens to be American enemies, and then kill them.

It seems America’s liberals and conservatives – both of whom are largely misnamed – share a common inability to grasp the obvious consequences of the actions of the politicians they support. Ta-Nehesi Coates is a rare exception to this, as he clearly sees how the precedent set by the Obama administration can easily be used against them.

The “creeper” debacle was usefully informative in this regard. John Scalzi and his fans illustrated they simply could not recognize that the ability to socially ostracize a “creep” necessarily entails the ability to ostracize any other behavior-based group, and in most cases, any identity-based group as well. In precisely the same manner, most Democrats and many Republicans presently fail to grasp that the ability to legally assassinate a Muslim who is an American citizen on the sole basis of being a President-declared enemy necessarily entails the ability to legally assassinate any American citizen, for any reason, without oversight.

No doubt everyone will belatedly begin to realize this should a future president begin exercising his power to legally assassinate SWPLs. Or church-goers. Or Jews.

This isn’t a Democrat-Republican issue, it is a totalitarian-libertarian one. Coates is astute enough to understand that even if Obama is extremely unlikely to decide to assassinate him, he might not be so fortunate with the next president. Or the one after that. The murderous precedent has been set, and it is the imperial power of the presidency to unilaterally declare death sentences that will be the chief legacy of Barack Obama.

Cannibal dreams and the SFWA

Laura Resnick, an SFWA member, waxed homicidal on SFWA President John Scalzi’s blog:

Laura Resnick says:
August 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Whever I think “alpha male”… my daydream quickly becomes a Sweeney Todd nightmare in which I’m serving the remains to my dinner guests, disguised as some sort of heavy-seasoned stew beneath puff pastry, because I wound up killing said Alpha Male in sheer exasperation before sundown and need to get rid of the body….

Naturally, being an alpha male as per Roissy’s definition, I felt a little uncomfortable reading this strange woman’s fantasies about murdering and dismembering me. Seeing as some of my recent comments at John’s blog, none of which involved violence, had been removed by John himself, I was a little surprised that Ms Resnick’s comments were deemed acceptable and asked for clarification.

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 9:08 am
That’s fascinating, Laura. It appears your female daydreams about the cannibalistic murder of alpha males are perfectly acceptable to the SFWA President here. Are male daydreams about raping “alpha females” equally acceptable to you, John? Or do we have to kill them first? I suppose it’s technically not rape if they’re dead. I don’t know about the cannibalism, though, and you know, Laura is really making me uncomfortable here….

It is more than a little troubling that the President of the SFWA is not merely free with his frequent accusations of assbaggery and other hurtful terms, but is now playing host to the murderously cannibalistic fantasies of certain SFWA members. It tends to raise the question: is John Scalzi still fit for the SFWA presidency when he maintains an environment that is so openly and violently hostile to men?

It is a painful question to ask, as I was a public supporter of Mr. Scalzi’s candidacy. But his recent actions have rendered me a troubled and frightened former supporter.

UPDATE:

Why is Laura’s comment ok, but not The Deuce’s? I’m confused. Is this a gender bias thing?
Cuspidor says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm

John Scalzi says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Cuspidor: Because “slut” and “alpha male” are not equivalent terms in any number of ways. Making an argument that they are is an indication of a failure to understand language. Which is why this sort of word substitution is often neither useful, nor actually anything approaching clever.

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm
They are equivalent terms in the most important way, John. They are both human beings. So, are we to conclude that you find the murder, dismemberment, and devouring of a certain subset of men to be acceptable, but the murder, dismemberment, and devouring of a specific subset of women to be unacceptable? Why do you find it acceptable for Laura to publicly fantasize about murdering, dismembering, and devouring men on your site, but it is not acceptable for The Deuce to do the same regarding women? For the purposes of clarification, is it acceptable for Laura to also publicly fantasize about murdering, dismembering, and devouring women? Would The Deuce’s comments have been acceptable if he, too, was fantasizing about murdering and cannibalizing men?

Which Mr. Scalzi, being the coward that he is, promptly modified: [Deleted because I don’t have patience for VD’s special brand of complete nonsense on this topic. Stay in your own pit of manstink, would you, Vox? There’s a lad — JS]

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm
C-c-c-c-coward! I’ll be bringing this up in the SFWA forum, of course, Mr. President. Your behavior is wildly inappropriate for an official representative of our fine professional association.

Anklebiters will bite

Requiring real names does not reduce unwanted comments:

YouTube has joined a growing list of social media companies who think that forcing users to use their real names will make comment sections less of a trolling wasteland, but there’s surprisingly good evidence from South Korea that real name policies fail at cleaning up comments. In 2007, South Korea temporarily mandated that all websites with over 100,000 viewers require real names, but scrapped it after it was found to be ineffective at cleaning up abusive and malicious comments (the policy reduced unwanted comments by an estimated .09%).

I think some people fail to understand why I delete anonymous comments. There are two reasons. The first is that it is difficult to keep track of who is saying what when there are multiple anonymous commenters. The second is that if you can’t be bothered to take the three steps required to click Name/URL, enter a name, and click okay, the chances that you are going to say anything that requires notice are nil.

I’m not saying that it is necessary to register with anyone or provide your real name, the point is to maintain a consistent identity so that people can connect one comment with another. But that identity need not be linked to your actual identity. The ineffectivness of requiring real identities in nominal pursuit of civility is useful information, however, because it demonstrates that the real object of the campaign against Internet anonymity is something other than civility.

Free trade and the undermining of nations

I understand that many, if not most, of you were skeptical when I pointed out that if free trade were to be implemented on the same scale on the international level that it is on the domestic level, it would necessitate the destruction of the USA as a sovereign nation and the expatriation of nearly 50 percent of its native workers under the age of 35. However, you may be a little less dubious once you understand that I am not the only one who has done the math.

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said. Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural….

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas. He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

As hard as it may be to accept, free trade, mass immigration, multiculturalism, globalism, climate change, and centralized government are all different facets of the same globalist vision of Ein Welt, Ein Volk, Ein Reich. This isn’t some outlandish figment of my imagination, it’s all right there in front of you. The problem is that few have the ability to comprehend the scope of it all, and even fewer have the capacity for putting the various pieces together to see the whole.

John Scalzi still justifying sexism

And droidism. And racism. And homophobia.

In my piece on how not to be a creeper, I made a point that today I’d like to expand on just a little; I’ll explain why in a bit. Here’s the point:

2. Acknowledge that you don’t get to define other people’s comfort level with you. Which is to say that you may be trying your hardest to be interesting and engaging and fun to be around — and still come off as a creeper to someone else. Yes, that sucks for you. But you know what? It sucks for them even harder, because you’re creeping them out and making them profoundly unhappy and uncomfortable. It may not seem fair that “creep” is their assessment of you, but: Surprise! It doesn’t matter, and if you try to argue with them (or anyone else) that you’re in fact not being a creep and the problem is with them not you, then you go from “creep” to “complete assbag.” Sometimes people aren’t going to like you or want to be near you. It’s just the way it is.

This apparently has struck some to be dreadfully unfair, with the implication being that other people responding to folks (usually men) as creepers when in fact they’re trying to make an effort to be charming and witty and fun (or whatever) is some sort of special case in the interaction of human beings, and that such mismatches between intent and reception hardly ever happen in other situations.

To which my response is: you have got to be kidding me. Outside of the realm of possible potential creepiness, you don’t get to choose how other people respond to you, either. In any context. Indeed, regardless of your efforts to present yourself in a certain way, it is almost certain you will come across to some other people as not that way at all, and possibly the opposite of that way entirely.

On the one hand, Scalzi is absolutely right. We don’t get to choose how others feel about us or respond to us. John, for example, responds poorly to both this blog and its readers, referring to them collectively as “a feculent miasma of male self-regard”. That’s absolutely fine, it is simply his opinion, just as the idea that a woman who teaches Lesbianism in Hindu Film is convincing evidence that women are every bit as interested in the hard sciences as men is also his opinion.

You may understand if I tend to consider his opinion to be less than entirely dispositive.

So why am I objecting to what Scalzi is saying if I agree with it? Because he doesn’t actually mean it. Not only that, he doesn’t even realize that he doesn’t mean it. He is dimly aware that something is wrong, which is why he is attempting to “expand a little” on his previous point, but he still doesn’t grasp what it is. He’s appealing to a right in which he does not actually believe.

What Scalzi inadvertently did in his point two was to defend the right of free association. Which would be fine, only we know from Scalzi’s smug soft leftism that he supports absolutely nothing of the sort. Whereas he is absolutely fine with telling those condemned as “creeps” that they simply have to live with their rejection by others, I strongly suspect he is absolutely opposed to telling those condemned as “sluts” or “faggots” or “towelheads” or other behavior-based labels to do the same, much less those whose labels are purely identity-based.

And this is the point that he has resolutely evaded with his irrelevant forays into “false equivalence” and “unfairness”, even though his mention of droids indicates that he must have at least a vague idea of what he has done. Despite the fact that he has presented an argument that justifies all sorts of sexism, racism, and droidism, I don’t believe John Scalzi is actually sexist, racist, or anti-droid, he is merely a glib and inconsistent hypocrite who is willing to use an argument when it happens to suit him, then abandon it when it doesn’t. Now, I readily admit that it is possible I am wrong and Scalzi does support the right of those made uncomfortable by the presence of blacks, women, gays, or anyone else to expect those who make them uncomfortable to go away and leave them in peace, in which case I will of course retract the accusation of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I invite Mr. Scalzi to clarify his actual position on the subject.

As for the actual subject of “creepiness”, the problem is that as a gamma male, Scalzi simply doesn’t understand women or the socio-sexual hierarchy well enough to even understand what it is. As this aspect of the discussion is predominantly Game-related, I address it on Alpha Game.