Time to bore you all with personal drivel. Stability has, sort of, lasted. A fortnight of down has been pulled out of. Productivity has occurred. I might even manage my own ridiculously high standards one day. I stress that I am inordinately lucky, my idea of failure is not everyone’s, my experience of mental illness is not everyone’s. I’ve only lost about a decade of my life to reduced capacity (so far?), and my reduction was/is not what it is for everyone.
- Category Archives Level 0
Apologies for lack of blogging. Short version: I’ve been working too hard and I am changing careers, so things have been a little tough. Enough of that, on with today’s blahg.
Today’s verbose rant is vomited forth for a simple reason: Someone Annoyed Me On The Internet. The topic: Remote mental health “diagnoses”. So with a little expansion and adaptation, I’ll repeat what I said to this person. Continue reading
Offence. It’s a popular word. Oxford Dictionaries give the definition I am interested in as:
2 [mass noun] annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself:he made it clear he’d taken offence I didn’t intend to give offence.
Well. Isn’t that nice?
Dear fellow atheists, sceptics, and scientists. Yes, scientists, for the driveller who has caused me consternation today used the words “As scientists we have no choice but to accept reality.”, so presumably this person is a scientist. The sentiment expressed is one I whole heartedly agree with too, but it’s used in this context to shore up some misogynistic nonsense. Or “humour” as it will doubtlessly be dubbed by some. But more on that later.
Part 1: Credit:
Here’s the object under scrutiny. The web cache version was brought to my attention by Sam Cook (@sam_cook), and I noticed the object when it was mentioned in my Twitter time line by Tracy King (@tkingdoll), Suzi Gage (@soozaphone), Dean Burnett (@gawrboy), and Martin Robbins (@mjrobbins). I’d also like to give credit to Kylie Sturgess for collating the original tweets and linking them, and for writing a detailed, well referenced post far faster than I could have! Curse my new boy inexperience!
My reply to the organisers. (Including ironic misspelling of “de rigueur“, curse you autocorrect!)
Much has been made of late of the issue of feminism, and social justice in the wider sense, within the sceptical and atheist communities. I think the problems some people have are to do with ladders. One of the issues that is brought up is that “feminism” (or whatever social justice topic has arisen) has nothing to do with atheism or scepticism. The problem with this claim is that it ignores ladders. Intellectual ladders.
Content Warning: Long, Probably Dull.
What does this mean? Does this mean I think religious people are stupid (as recent misinterpretations of a poorly understood and conducted social science study might imply)? Do I hate god(s)? Do I live amorally? Immorally? In essence, what kind of atheist am I?