Really, JREF?

Michael Shermer is a serial womanizer. When new women come into the movement, they’re often warned about certain older men like Shermer.  He raped Alison Smith.  And you, JREF, want to promote him?

Fuck You.

Really, JREF?
{advertisement}

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' -The Adrian Peterson version

Everyone knows the old maxim of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, no? It’s a shorthand guide to human behavior.  I don’t want someone to shoot me, so I won’t shoot anyone (never mind that I don’t own, and have no intention of ever owning, a gun).  I don’t want someone to run me over with a car, so I won’t run over anyone with a car.  I don’t want someone to spit in my food at a restaurant, so I don’t spit in other peoples’ food.  Apparently a Minnesota Vikings running back never got the memo to follow that rule-he was recently indicted on charges of negligent injury of a child:

According to law-enforcement sources, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson beat his 4-year-old son with a tree branch as a form of punishment this summer, an incident that allegedly resulted in multiple injuries to the child. According to reports, Peterson has been indicted in Montgomery County, Texas for injury to a child.

The “whooping” – as Peterson put it when interviewed by police – occurred in Spring, Texas, in May. Peterson’s son had pushed another one of Peterson’s children off of a motorbike video game. As punishment, Peterson grabbed a tree branch – which he consistently referred to as a “switch” – removed the leaves and struck the child repeatedly.

I deplore the use of violence to solve problems. It doesn’t actually solve the root problem in most cases, and often perpetuates more violence.  In addition, corporal punishment is a means of behavioral adjustment with questionable efficacy.  Furthermore, it instills fear of a parent in a child and is often taken to extremes.  Such was the case with Adrian Peterson:

The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child’s back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child’s hands. Peterson then texted the boy’s mother, saying that one wound in particular would make her “mad at me about his leg. I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch.”

Peterson also allegedly said via text message to the child’s mother that he “felt bad after the fact when I notice the switch was wrapping around hitting I (sic) thigh” and also acknowledged the injury to the child’s scrotum in a text message, saying, “Got him in nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I’m all tearing that butt up when needed! I start putting them in timeout. N save the whooping for needed memories!”

In further text messages, Peterson allegedly said, “Never do I go overboard! But all my kids will know, hey daddy has the biggie heart but don’t play no games when it comes to acting right.”

In what world is that not going overboard?   Is it only extreme if you put your kid in the hospital?

I have another issue with corporal punishment:  it denies the agency and humanity of children by treating them as property.  If you get pissed off at another adult, you don’t have the right to grab a stick off a tree and beat them. You don’t have the right to take your belt off and beat someone if they talk back to you.  Yet for some reason, this is seen as A-OK to do with children, as if they don’t have rights. As if they’re the property of their parents to be treated in the fashion they choose.  I’m sure most parents have their childrens’ best interests at heart, but that doesn’t change the fact that such violence against children would not be acceptable-it would, in fact, be a crime-if committed against an adult. Why isn’t corporal punishment considered assault and battery?  I’m not arguing that children should have every right an adult has, but when it comes to issues of bodily integrity and autonomy, corporal punishment is a clear violation.  Denying children the right to their bodily integrity is a violation of their human rights and should not be tolerated.  Yet it is.  Widely.  Perhaps universally.  That doesn’t make it right.  Neither do arguments from tradition.

Adults aren’t allowed to beat their friends or spouses.  Why do parents get this special right when it comes to their children?  Children are harmed, sometimes even killed by corporal punishment, yet so many people cling to the idea that it is somehow a necessary tool for parenting when it ought to be abolished.  Children are some of the most vulnerable members of society and we ought to be protecting their rights, not violating them.

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' -The Adrian Peterson version

‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ -The Adrian Peterson version

Everyone knows the old maxim of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, no? It’s a shorthand guide to human behavior.  I don’t want someone to shoot me, so I won’t shoot anyone (never mind that I don’t own, and have no intention of ever owning, a gun).  I don’t want someone to run me over with a car, so I won’t run over anyone with a car.  I don’t want someone to spit in my food at a restaurant, so I don’t spit in other peoples’ food.  Apparently a Minnesota Vikings running back never got the memo to follow that rule-he was recently indicted on charges of negligent injury of a child:

According to law-enforcement sources, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson beat his 4-year-old son with a tree branch as a form of punishment this summer, an incident that allegedly resulted in multiple injuries to the child. According to reports, Peterson has been indicted in Montgomery County, Texas for injury to a child.

The “whooping” – as Peterson put it when interviewed by police – occurred in Spring, Texas, in May. Peterson’s son had pushed another one of Peterson’s children off of a motorbike video game. As punishment, Peterson grabbed a tree branch – which he consistently referred to as a “switch” – removed the leaves and struck the child repeatedly.

I deplore the use of violence to solve problems. It doesn’t actually solve the root problem in most cases, and often perpetuates more violence.  In addition, corporal punishment is a means of behavioral adjustment with questionable efficacy.  Furthermore, it instills fear of a parent in a child and is often taken to extremes.  Such was the case with Adrian Peterson:

The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child’s back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child’s hands. Peterson then texted the boy’s mother, saying that one wound in particular would make her “mad at me about his leg. I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch.”

Peterson also allegedly said via text message to the child’s mother that he “felt bad after the fact when I notice the switch was wrapping around hitting I (sic) thigh” and also acknowledged the injury to the child’s scrotum in a text message, saying, “Got him in nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I’m all tearing that butt up when needed! I start putting them in timeout. N save the whooping for needed memories!”

In further text messages, Peterson allegedly said, “Never do I go overboard! But all my kids will know, hey daddy has the biggie heart but don’t play no games when it comes to acting right.”

In what world is that not going overboard?   Is it only extreme if you put your kid in the hospital?

I have another issue with corporal punishment:  it denies the agency and humanity of children by treating them as property.  If you get pissed off at another adult, you don’t have the right to grab a stick off a tree and beat them. You don’t have the right to take your belt off and beat someone if they talk back to you.  Yet for some reason, this is seen as A-OK to do with children, as if they don’t have rights. As if they’re the property of their parents to be treated in the fashion they choose.  I’m sure most parents have their childrens’ best interests at heart, but that doesn’t change the fact that such violence against children would not be acceptable-it would, in fact, be a crime-if committed against an adult. Why isn’t corporal punishment considered assault and battery?  I’m not arguing that children should have every right an adult has, but when it comes to issues of bodily integrity and autonomy, corporal punishment is a clear violation.  Denying children the right to their bodily integrity is a violation of their human rights and should not be tolerated.  Yet it is.  Widely.  Perhaps universally.  That doesn’t make it right.  Neither do arguments from tradition.

Adults aren’t allowed to beat their friends or spouses.  Why do parents get this special right when it comes to their children?  Children are harmed, sometimes even killed by corporal punishment, yet so many people cling to the idea that it is somehow a necessary tool for parenting when it ought to be abolished.  Children are some of the most vulnerable members of society and we ought to be protecting their rights, not violating them.

‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ -The Adrian Peterson version

Zimmerman is back in the news…

…maybe this time it will lead to him being put in prison where this murderous vigilante belongs.  I should hope I don’t need to remind people that George Zimmerman was responsible for killing 17 year old Trayvon Martin in 2012 and was later acquitted of all charges despite the fact that the gun toting, racist scumbag instigated the entire situation that led to Martin’s death (I guess I just did that though). Via The Grio:

According to WSVN, Lake Mary police officials said they received a 911 call Tuesday from a man claiming Zimmerman threatened to kill him during a road rage altercation.

Authorities said they received a second 911 call from the same man on Wednesday, saying George Zimmerman was waiting for him outside his place of work and that he feared for his personal safety.

Police say they’ve spoken to Zimmerman, who admitted to exchanging words with the man Tuesday.

The unnamed man does not want to file charges, so Zimmerman will not be arrested.

Well crap. There goes that wish.

Zimmerman is back in the news…

That's it. I'm done with Dawkins.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

He doesn’t understand a damn thing about Rape Culture.  He also doesn’t understand what rape even IS.  He’s been told over and over again to listen to what people are telling him. He’s been told that he’s privilege blind. He’s been told that he takes to social media and expresses himself inelegantly at best, and offensive at worst.  He continues to pay no heed to the people explaining to him how he’s wrong.  I’m done with him. I want no part of anything to do with him.  I really want to burn my copy of the God Delusion.

Fuck you Richard Dawkins. To infinity and beyond.

****

Update:  Apparently Dawkins has deleted his Tweet.  I guess he’s trying to cover his tracks. Or perhaps he listened to someone and realized how harmful his Tweet was…naaah.

That's it. I'm done with Dawkins.

That’s it. I’m done with Dawkins.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

He doesn’t understand a damn thing about Rape Culture.  He also doesn’t understand what rape even IS.  He’s been told over and over again to listen to what people are telling him. He’s been told that he’s privilege blind. He’s been told that he takes to social media and expresses himself inelegantly at best, and offensive at worst.  He continues to pay no heed to the people explaining to him how he’s wrong.  I’m done with him. I want no part of anything to do with him.  I really want to burn my copy of the God Delusion.

Fuck you Richard Dawkins. To infinity and beyond.

****

Update:  Apparently Dawkins has deleted his Tweet.  I guess he’s trying to cover his tracks. Or perhaps he listened to someone and realized how harmful his Tweet was…naaah.

That’s it. I’m done with Dawkins.

What were they thinking?

I tried to think of something witty for this post, but I’m coming up empty.

A 15 year old, 70 pound high school student was tackled by not one, not two, but three campus security officers.

Why?

Her school has a no cellphone policy and she was using her cellphone.

Sam Houston High School in Texas takes its “no cell phones in class” policy seriously. The footage above shows 15-year-old, 70-lb sophomore Ixel Perez screaming and crying as three campus cops tackle her to the ground to get her phone. One of them puts his knee on the side of her head.

How do you say to yourself “Me and my buddies better tackle this 15 year old girl to get her to stop using her cellphone at school”?  What the hell goes through the mind of people like this?

What were they thinking?

Apologizing is only the second step

The Human Rights Campaign has apologized to the transgender community for ‘putting their issues on the back burner’ in the past:

‘I am sorry for the times you have been underrepresented or unrepresented by this organization,’ HRC President Chad Griffin said over the weekend at the Southern Comfort Conference in Atlanta.

‘What happens to trans people is absolutely central to the LGBT struggle,’ Griffin added. ‘And as the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, HRC has a responsibility to do that struggle justice, or else we are failing at our fundamental mission.’

The biggest and most-publicized snub happened in 2007 when HRC endorsed a version of the Employee Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) that did not include gender-based discrimination.

The reasoning HRC gave was that the legislation would have an easier time making it through the US Congress without protections for transgender persons.

That last line is a great big ‘screw you’ to the transgender community.

This is a nice step.  Apologies are good.  They are often a way to tell others that you’ve messed up and you recognize that (in seeking to redeem one’s past actions, apologies are a necessary step-right after acknowledging wrongdoing).  To do so publicly is laudable, especially when the apology is unreserved.

This is not, however, the end.  In fact, it’s only the first step in making amends to the transgender community.  Subsequent steps need to be taken to show-visibly-that the HRC supports  trans people.  These steps need to be consistent and ongoing.

The HRC should also be ready for continued resistance and even a rejection of their apology.  You can’t say “I’m sorry I screwed up” and expect everything to be copacetic.   Offering an apology does not mean that the offended party must accept it. Some will. Some won’t. Don’t be pissy if your apology is not accepted.  This is a possible consequence of screwing up.

The coming months and years will determine how truly apologetic the HRC truly is.

For those interested, here is an example of a really good apology:

 

On Wednesday morning Kickstarter was sent a blog post quoting disturbing material found on Reddit. The offensive material was part of a draft for a “seduction guide” that someone was using Kickstarter to publish. The posts offended a lot of people — us included — and many asked us to cancel the creator’s project. We didn’t.

We were wrong.

Why didn’t we cancel the project when this material was brought to our attention? Two things influenced our decision:

  • The decision had to be made immediately. We had only two hours from when we found out about the material to when the project was ending. We’ve never acted to remove a project that quickly.
  • Our processes, and everyday thinking, bias heavily toward creators. This is deeply ingrained. We feel a duty to our community — and our creators especially — to approach these investigations methodically as there is no margin for error in canceling a project. This thinking made us miss the forest for the trees.

These factors don’t excuse our decision but we hope they add clarity to how we arrived at it.

Let us be 100% clear: Content promoting or glorifying violence against women or anyone else has always been prohibited from Kickstarter. If a project page contains hateful or abusive material we don’t approve it in the first place. If we had seen this material when the project was submitted to Kickstarter (we didn’t), it never would have been approved. Kickstarter is committed to a culture of respect.

Where does this leave us?

First, there is no taking back money from the project or canceling funding after the fact. When the project was funded the backers’ money went directly from them to the creator. We missed the window.

Second, the project page has been removed from Kickstarter. The project has no place on our site. For transparency’s sake, a record of the page is cached here.

Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.

Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization calledRAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged.

We take our role as Kickstarter’s stewards very seriously. Kickstarter is one of the friendliest, most supportive places on the web and we’re committed to keeping it that way. We’re sorry for getting this so wrong.

Thank you,

Kickstarter

Apologizing is only the second step

Today in Anti-Lgbt news

Todd Starnes, a FOX News contributor graced the world with his views on same-sex marriage (I don’t recall asking him though).  From Right Wing Watch:

In an interview last month on the Daystar program “Joni,” Fox News commentator Todd Starnes agreed with the suggestion that marriage equality will legalize man-dog marriage.

Discussing the case of a Colorado bakery that denied service to a same-sex couple (and which ironically baked a cake for a “dog wedding”), Starnes agreed with cohost Rachel Lamb’s assertion that man-dog marriage is on its way, saying, “when you redefine marriage, that means anything goes.”

It’s that time again folks!  Let’s play clear up some misconceptions and harmful lies being spread by right wing conservatives (that’s a full time job on it’s own, which I’d be happy to do, if I was getting paid)

Point the First:  Marriage Equality is about opening up the institution of marriage to all consenting adults.  Please note those last two words-consenting and adults.  Not between adults and children-children cannot consent.  Not between adults and animals-no one is arguing to allow marriage between humans and animals, and even if they were, again, no consent.  Right wingers have a difficult time understanding consent.

Point the second:  If you run a public business in the United States, you cannot discriminate against your customers.  That means that a cake baker that runs a public business cannot discriminate against a lesbian couple.  That would violate the anti-discrimination laws.  I know many fundamentalist religious nitwits think that their “sincerely held religious beliefs” are a get out of jail free card to discriminate against LGBT people, but really, it isn’t.  If you run a private business and you want to be a bigoted, discriminatory asswipe, fineby me it’s lawful, even if I think it is immoral and unethical.  If you’re a public business, no way, no how.

 

 


 

Gambia passes bill imposing life sentences on gays

An extreme anti-gay bill was recently passed in Gambia:

Gambia has passed a bill that imposes life sentences for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ in what is already one of the most homophobic countries in Africa.

Officials told AP on Monday that the bill was passed last month and gives life sentences to ‘serial offenders,’ people with HIV and those suspected of having sex with someone who is under 18, disabled or drugged.

Suspects who are parents or guardians of the other person or ‘in authority over’ him or her are also targeted by the bill.

Gambia already punishes gay sex by up to 14 years in jail under a law that was extended to women in 2005.

Remind me again, this is the 21st century, no?  This is yet another example of a country pushing its archaic, regressive, anti-equality views on its entire population, with no regard to the human rights of its citizens.

 


 

 

Gay US college student gets note on first week of semester: ‘Faggots don’t belong here’

A gay student at Azusa Pacific University (APU) in California, US returned to his room in the first week of semester to find a note pinned to his door.

However, this was not a welcome note, in fact quite the opposite. Scrawled in green pen were the words: ‘Faggots don’t belong at APU. GET OUT.’

The individual who received the note has not been revealed, but the image of the note which was pinned to his door has gone viral on Twitter.

This ought to be counted as terrorism. Whoever wrote that note clearly wanted to scare the student away, and I can easily understand how fearful that might make him (or other LGBT students for that matter).

 

Today in Anti-Lgbt news

Some politicians really ought to talk less

Brace yourselves.

You may need to sit down before reading this.

Ready?

A politician in the US said something stupid and bigoted.

After assuring ThinkProgress that he “respects everyone” and “loves people,” Pittenger said he believes companies should have the right to fire or refuse to hire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“You need to respect the autonomy of somebody running their business,” he said. “It’s like smoking bans. Do you ban smoking or do people have the right to private property? I think people have the right to private property. In public spaces, absolutely, we can have smoking bans. But we don’t want to micromanage people’s lives and businesses. If you have a business, do you want the government to come in and tell you you need to hire somebody? Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?”

 

Wait.

Hold on.

STOP.

HALT I say!

(source)

There’s just a few problems with this Congresscritters’ comments.

  1. This is how he “respects everyone”?  By claiming that some people don’t have the right to be protected from being fired for their sexuality or gender identity?  Last I checked, neither of those characteristics tend to affect the ability of an individual to do their job (just like ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, age, or race).  Respect: I don’t think you quite understand what this word means.
  2. Pittenger says he “loves people”.  Let me guess, LGBT individuals don’t qualify as people to him.  If they did, maybe he’d realize how discriminated and oppressed we’ve been in society and we need to be treated as a protected class so that we aren’t unfairly fired, or turned down for jobs.  Hmmm, maybe this is an example of that Christian “love” I’ve heard so much about.
  3. The imposition of smoking bans is not the same thing as the imposition of non-discrimination practices.  You’re seriously arguing that the government shouldn’t be able to tell you who you can or can’t hire and fire.  So I guess you want to repeal all advances in civil rights.  You want to businesses to be able to hire or fire someone based on their gender, race, age, disability, ethnicity, RELIGION, and more? Oh, wait.  You were just talking sexuality and gender identity.  Silly me.  Didn’t realize you were doing some of that special pleading I’ve heard of.

I was recently informed that there are some people who take umbrage to being called douchebags.  I must fess up. I have called people douchebags.  I only use the term for those who deserve it.  But in deference to the individual that has stated they don’t like the word, I shall not use it to describe Pittenger. Nay, he shall not be called a douchebag.

He’s more of a doucheCANNON.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some politicians really ought to talk less