Saturday Storytime: Silver Linings

Tim Pratt commented ’round these parts this week, which reminded me that I hadn’t posted any of his stories for a Saturday selection. He’s a writer, under various names, of short stories (obviously) and novels, including the recent exploration of gender in Victorian England, The Constantine Affliction. He’s is also an editor, both of anthologies and of Locus Magazine. He also tweets prolifically. In short, he apparently writes all the things.

Back in the unregulated days, when the Gracious Trading Company mined in full force, whole small countries were turned into deserts by the strip-mining of the clouds overhead. These days there were only a few outlaw cloud miners, since existing cloudboats were damned hard to acquire and new ones nearly impossible to fuel—there were only a few places where mountains touched the sky, allowing cloudstuff to be gathered from solid ground. The small number of outlaw miners weren’t enough to do much harm in the aggregate, but in the specific . . . Well. It was dry days ahead for the good people of Crater Rim.

I first knew something was amiss when the shouting started, though I just thought someone had just fallen. Then there was a sudden lurch as the mooring lines were cut free. I grabbed a handhold and kept my grip, but Salmon, fast asleep, rolled right off the gasbag, and I heard him curse and bounce on the side. I made my way along the curve of the gasbag so I could get a look around.

There was another cloudboat coming toward us from the west, its gasbags black, its deck polished and gleaming, utterly unlike the patched and ragged mien of the Corpulent Whale. Captain Ham was shouting about pirates, which wasn’t strictly accurate. There aren’t enough cloudboats plying the skies to support full-fledged pirates, but occasionally two outlaw ships will happen upon the same seam of silver, in which case the better-armed bunch generally gets all the spoils. And the losing boat gets its gasbags popped for a swift midair scuttle, if they’re lucky. Crueler foes will just poke slow leaks so the cloudboat drifts to the ground gradually, providing ample time for the people on the ground to set up a proper welcome, the kind with tar and torches and hanging ropes.

But this black ship was no mining vessel. It was a warship, the only one of its kind in all the world.

And it was coming for me.

Keep reading.

Saturday Storytime: Silver Linings
{advertisement}

Legacy of War

I was looking through some old posts and reread this one. I hesitate to repost it, because the situation in Liberia is now such that there are no NGOs on the ground thorough whom you can help. The war is over, but its effect remain, and there is very little we can do there. Doctors Without Borders does do this work wherever they’re allowed, though. We also still need to understand that this is what happens when we go to war.

“Battlefield” is such a terribly misleading term. It suggests that war is contained somehow, that it has its own special place. It ignores that spaces for war are made only by destroying what was there before.

In order to make space for fighting and killing, farms fall, schools fall, homes fall. Places that were once used for celebration fall that people may have room to fight. People, of course, fall whenever they are not quick enough to flee.

But that isn’t all that needs to be destroyed to make room for war. Continue reading “Legacy of War”

Legacy of War

Atheists Talk: Matt McCormick on "Atheism and the Case Against Christ"

This show was rescheduled from July.

Can we prove atheism? Can we prove that no god exists? According to one school of thought, the answer is “No”, because we can’t absolutely prove a negative. Philosopher Matthew McCormick, however, considers this standard to be unrealistic. It isn’t the standard we apply for any other question that influences how we live our lives. Why should we treat it as the standard for accepting atheism?

In his soon-to-be-released book, McCormick lays out the case for atheism along multiple lines of argument. From the publisher’s description:

Is the evidence about Jesus as it has been relayed to us over the centuries of sufficient quantity and quality to justify belief in the resurrection? How can we accept the resurrection but reject magic at the Salem witch trials? What light does contemporary research about human rationality from the fields of behavioral economics, empirical psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy shed on the resurrection and religious belief? Can we use contemporary research about the reliability of people’s beliefs in the supernatural, miracles, and the paranormal to shed light on the origins of Christianity and other religions? Does it make sense that the all-powerful creator of the universe would employ miracles to achieve his ends? Can a Christian believe by faith alone and yet reasonably deny the supernatural claims of other religions? Do the arguments against Christianity support atheism?

This Sunday, Matt McCormick joins us on air to discuss his book.

Related Links

Listen to AM 950 KTNF this Sunday at 9 a.m. Central to hear Atheists Talk, produced by Minnesota Atheists. Stream live online. Call in to the studio at 952-946-6205, or send an e-mail to [email protected] during the live show. If you miss the live show, listen to the podcast later.

Atheists Talk: Matt McCormick on "Atheism and the Case Against Christ"

Within the Movement (Updated)

One more response to Ron Lindsay’s post on divisiveness from yesterday. Ron suggested that the issue of abuse was largely solved “within the secular movement”. What happened in the comments–on the CFI site–suggested otherwise.

It isn’t just Ron who feels this way, either. There are plenty of people who want this to be just “some trolls on the internet”. So I started thinking about what “within the movement” really means. Continue reading “Within the Movement (Updated)”

Within the Movement (Updated)

A Dose of Perspective

The anti-Atheism+ crowd, the ones who go around complaining about it everywhere, like to suggest that everyone sees things the same way they do. In fact, they say this to each other a rather lot, reinforce the idea even.

Every once in a while, however, that idea comes up against a fresh audience. It did just that yesterday, on a MetaFilter thread dedicated to Annalee Newitz’s io9 post on conferences and conventions dealing with harassment. This being MetaFilter, the discussion was pretty good. In fact, it was better than I’ve seen MetaFilter on harassment, but they have been talking about the topic almost as much as the rest of us lately.

After a good chunk of mostly respectful and non-derailed talk, up showed Decani, whom some of you will recognize as Jack Rawlinson.

Re the only one of these three I actually know a lot about:

Though some would cast this as a war between sexism and feminism, it isn’t that simple.

You can say that again. And the only people casting it in that way are those on the Watson/Skepchick side.

There are women and feminists on both sides of the debate.

Aye, and plenty of them on the non-Watson/Skepchick side, too. And the numbers are increasing as Atheism+ spins ever further out into la-la land.

The divide is between people who believe feminism is integral to skepticism (Watson) and those who think it’s irrelevant (Dawkins).

No, it really isn’t. That shows an incredibly superficial reading of the situation.

Yeah, I know. It all looks so familiar, not to mention multiply debunked. But does it work on a novel crowd?

For that, you’ll have to read the rest of the thread. SPOILERS: At least until the flounce.

A Dose of Perspective

The Source of the Division

I dislike disagreeing with Ron Lindsay. He has done and continues to do an amazing amount to rejuvenate and professionalize atheist, humanist, and skeptical activism within the U.S. I have a great deal of respect for him.

Usually, I don’t have to disagree with him, either. He’s a smart, nuanced thinker, well-versed in a number of subjects. Usually, I learn from him.

This morning, however, he posted “Divisiveness Within the Secular Movement” at the Center for Inquiry blog. It’s his answer to the discussions of the “divisiveness” of Atheism+. There are parts I like. His suggestion to not borrow trouble over something that is designed to broaden the appeal of movement atheism is good. His description of the current divisions within movement atheism, and the diagnosis of the source of the division, however, I think is badly off.

Go read his whole piece. I won’t do it justice by describing it. I’m copying the comment I left there to here because I think it articulates some general principles well, not because I want it reflect on Ron’s remarks out of context.

Continue reading “The Source of the Division”

The Source of the Division

A Date With the Authors

I mentioned a little while ago that I’m featured in a new anthology called Atheist Voices of Minnesota. As I said then, I think this is an important book, though that’s definitely not because I’m in it.

Why? Because much of the value of the book comes from hearing from people who aren’t the “normal” faces and voices of atheism.

Who do you hear from instead? This book collects 36 essays from people whose commonalities are limited to having a connection to Minnesota. Many of the people in the book come from somewhere other than Minnesota, and they can compare how different parts of our world see atheism.

This Sunday, at the Minnesota Atheists monthly meeting at the Southdale Library in Edina, you’ll get to hear from a large number of the people who make this an important book.

To celebrate this very special occasion, 16 of the 36 contributors will briefly present their own personal stories by reading excerpts of their writings from the book.

Here is a list of the 16 presenting authors in alphabetical order: Norman Barrett Wiik, Beth Becker, Ryan Benson, August Berkshire, Jill Carlson, Justin Chase, Kori Hennessy, Michelle Huber, Eric Jayne, PZ Myers, Robin Raianiemi, Elizabeth Stiras, Todd Torkelson, James Zimmerman, and Stephanie Zvan.

The bulk of the time will be dedicated to authors reading portions of their essays. Other contributors, though not reading, will be present to talk about their pieces after the meeting and to sign copies. Atheist Voices of Minnesotawill be available for purchase. All proceeds benefit Minnesota Atheists, with the majority of the funds going to support the radio fund.

Afterward, we will venture to Q. Cumbers Restaurant for dinner.

If you’ve got a little time this weekend, come on out and hear us.

A Date With the Authors

In Which I…Harbor Death Threats?

So, the reaction to my post on Isaac Asimov’s invitation to give a talk lauding sexual assault at Chicon III (and his turning it down because it would require him to get consent from the women who would act as his props on stage) is getting an interesting reaction. Most of it has been what I expected:

  • “Yes, it happened to me/someone I know.”
  • “Oh, Asimov? Really? Sad panda.”
  • “His female characters always seemed a little weird.”
  • “Wow/Grr. I can’t believe (though I do believe) people would behave like this.”

All pretty typical reactions. Not much of the denialism I was braced for. 

Then there were the reactions I didn’t expect, like the ones from Earl Kemp, issuer of the invitation himself.
Continue reading “In Which I…Harbor Death Threats?”

In Which I…Harbor Death Threats?

The Search for Slavering Dogs

Profile photo of drooling mastiff.
Photo by Robert Bejil Photography. Some rights reserved.

Dear Dr. Coyne:

I have a question raised by a recent post. In it, you set some ground rules for your comments:

In the comments section below, please stick to the interview and topics covered by Dawkins. We’re not going to have a pack of slavering dogs accusing Richard of being a “raving misogynist,” since he isn’t.

I checked. I did manage to find two people who had called Dawkins a “raving misogynist”. One of them was on Facebook. One on Tumblr. Neither of them appeared to be drooling. Neither appeared to be someone who comments on your blog.

So who are these “slavering dogs”? I mean, I can understand not wanting such a creature to comment on your blog, but with only two of them, neither of whom appears to be a fan, surely you don’t need to issue a general statement, do you?

Or maybe you’re being more general. You say in a comment:

No, I think the characterization is quite appropriate for those who call Dawkins a misogynist. And this is the end of that discussion.

I don’t think you can quite mean that, though. Reducing people to “slavering dogs” based on their opinion of one person’s behavior…well. And doing it so unilaterally, not subject to appeal? Continue reading “The Search for Slavering Dogs”

The Search for Slavering Dogs

Mock the Movie: Space Hercules Edition

Mocking time!

This Thursday, September 13, at 9 p.m. EDT, the mocking crew will subject ourselves to the Lou Ferrigno version of Hercules (currently available on Netflix and Amazon streaming video). This version promises that it’s “updated” for the 1980s. That apparently means bad hair, bad special effects, and…space aliens.

As he labors, so shall we. We probably won’t feather our hair, though.

Continue reading “Mock the Movie: Space Hercules Edition”

Mock the Movie: Space Hercules Edition