APA’s DSM-V drops Asperger’s, adopts “gender dysphoria”

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the bible of mental and behavioral disorders, is currently being prepared for its fifth edition (to be released in May 2013), the first major revision in nearly 20 years, and there’s some buzz over a few of the changes that have been made. One that I found noteworthy is the noted exclusion of my own diagnosis, Asperger syndrome:

The term “Asperger’s disorder” will not appear in the DSM-5, the latest revision of the manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added “autism spectrum disorder”, which is already used widely. That umbrella diagnosis will include children with severe autism, who often do not talk or interact, as well as those with milder forms.

[…]

Some on the panel opposed the idea of dropping the specific diagnosis for Asperger’s. People with that disorder often have high intelligence and vast knowledge on narrow subjects but lack social skills. Some Asperger’s families opposed any change, fearing their children will lose a diagnosis and no longer be eligible for special services, but experts have said this will not be the case.

From what I’ve read, the idea is to eliminate the superfluous categories and subdivisions of autism and to combine those with ASD on a more general scale of severity, ranging from mild social handicaps (such as I) to those who are incapable of interacting with anyone else coherently. I suppose it’s for the best, though I now wonder how this revision might affect my own diagnosis, considering how widely influential the DSM is, even abroad.

Also interesting, and rather more positive, is a change that many in the trans community have been awaiting:

The term “gender identity disorder”, for children and adults who strongly believe they were born the wrong gender, is being replaced with “gender dysphoria” to remove the stigma attached to the word “disorder”. Supporters equated the change with removing homosexuality as a mental illness in the diagnostic manual decades ago.

The fact that gender dysphoria is indicative of some ingrained atypicality is no reason to brand those who have it as “disordered” in any way, and it will be quite telling (albeit unsurprising) to see who will choose to double down on that particular term in the wake of this reclassification.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Yet another study finds gays and lesbians make great parents

It looks like homophobes will need yet another change of underwear, as a new report in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry concludes that not only are same-sex parents every bit as good as their heterosexual counterparts, even when raising “high-risk” children, but they’re actually more likely to help underprivileged kids in the first place:

Of the 82 foster children that psychologists at UCLA monitored for the study, 60 were placed with straight parents and 22 with gay or lesbian parents. After a two-year period of evaluation, the psychologists found little difference between the children’s positive outcomes.

According to the study’s lead author, doctoral candidate Justin Lavner, “The children showed meaningful gains in heterosexual, gay and lesbian families. Their cognitive development improved substantially, while their behavior problems and social development were stable.”

There was, however, one important difference: Gay and lesbian parents were significantly more likely to adopt children with heightened risk factors — such as premature birth, prenatal substance abuse or repeat placements in foster care. And yet, despite the additional challenges, these children made near-identical gains to the others in the study.

This isn’t the first report that indicates how LGBT parents may actually be better on average at raising well-adjusted kids. I suspect the cause for this is more cultural than biological; after all, who better to teach young’uns to be loving and understanding than people who faced problems with acceptance back in their own formative years? There’s no reason to believe that sexual orientation in itself has anything to do with one’s parenting instincts, but our society’s treatment of LGBT people most certainly affects how they go about their child-rearing duties, having “been there”, themselves.

Meanwhile, friend of Preliator Rob F posits the following theory:

This is why anyone who is why simultaneously being both anti–choice and anti–LGBT adoption is a hopelessly incoherent position. These people cannot possibly think that research going on since the 1970′s and all showing the same result (same–sex couples are just as good as different–sex couples) is inadequate. The only possible explanation is that they really do believe that being raised by a same–sex couple is worse than death. If they do believe that then they really are the worst sort of homophobe. If they don’t, then they are simply the usual anti–choicer who sees forced birth as a woman’s punishment for daring to have sex. That’s why those people’s opposition to LGBT adoption is motivated not only by homophobia but also by deep misogyny.

I see his point, but I think the answer is actually simpler. What I’ve seen from homophobes (and other regressives in general) leads me to believe that people who devote their time and energy to hatred and advocating for oppression generally lack the clarity of mind to recognize their own prejudice, resulting in an unholy amount of cognitive dissonance in their closed little minds. They can be perfectly intelligent and aware otherwise, and may even present the occasional semi-cogent (if invariably fallacious) argument, but I don’t believe they have it in them to realize the glaring incongruity in opposing both abortion and LGBT adoptive rights. Rather, they’re simply victim to knee-jerk reactionism against both and never bother to try and reconcile the differences between the two contradictory positions.

After all, bigotry isn’t particularly renowned for its cognitive vigor.

Edit (10/29/12 10:11 PM ET) – Fixed a typo (via Grammar Nazi).

In which ‘xkcd’ makes me wonder if I have ADD

This is so absolutely and incontrovertibly me that it’s almost frightening:

Click to see the whole thing. Being diagnosed with three relatively rare and unrelated conditions (Asperger’s, Tourette’s, and a variable stutter), I sometimes wonder if I don’t have some mild form of ADD or OCD to boot as an explanation for some of my miscellaneous peculiarities, such as the fact that I find it annoyingly (and perhaps increasingly) difficult to focus on more than one or two things at once, especially when under any kind of pressure – which includes merely trying to hold a conversation whilst cooking. (I can’t say how many times I found myself about to put the milk in the damn cupboard.)

Then again, I’m probably just paranoid. Yeah. That’s it.

Tags: xkcd • ADD • OCD

Gawker and the scientific case for treating pedophiles humanely

I got nuthin’, so here’s a flower

It’s been a while since I’ve (presumably) creeped y’all out with this subject matter, but long-time readers may remember that pervasive social stigmas faced by discouraged sexual minorities was an early running theme on this blog (whatever that might say of me). It’s now time to jump back in, not because some other travesty of justice or reason has transpired, but because Cord Jefferson at Gawker has penned a lengthy, detailed and wonderfully insightful piece on the changing scientific views of pedophilia and how those stuck with this most unfortunate sexual attraction truly aren’t the devils that our society makes them out to be.

The whole thing is a definitive must-read, but here are just a few highlights, starting with describing just some of the endless difficulties these people face in their everyday lives:

Then there's the problem of finding homes for pedophiles who are arrested and eventually put back into communities. In Florida, where Miami-Dade County has grown increasingly restrictive about where people who commit sexual crimes can live, the department of corrections has started housing a small group of pedophiles under a bridge, like real-life trolls. Elsewhere in America, with neighborhoods both informed and alarmed by a growing number of sex-offender tracking sites, it's now become easier than ever to harass and intimidate a pedophile in your neighborhood until he moves away. But to where? Nobody seems to care as long as it's not near them.

In an ABC News article from 2003, a corrections officer from Los Angeles told reporter Michael S. James that imprisoned pedophiles "usually don't make it" without protective custody. Leslie Walker, a prisoner's rights activist, told James, "[Child sex offenders] are at risk of being murdered, having their food taken, having their cells defecated and urinated in. Their life is truly a living hell." Good, most people will say.

I take it “most people” haven’t received the memo about how the precepts for being a decent human being include acting like one even towards those one wouldn’t consider to be decent human beings.

The article then focuses on the number of (mostly Canadian!) researchers who are growing convinced that rather than being a mental illness or some other potentially treatable (or even curable) disorder, true pedophilia – as defined as the exclusive sexual attraction towards prepubescent children (as opposed to hebephilia or ephebophilia, and unlike those who engage in pedophilic acts whilst still being attracted to adults) – is in reality more akin to an actual sexual orientation in shape and function, with the accompanying limitations:

Study: Lazy thinking leads to conservatism?

As usual, my abject ignorance about the proper manner to conduct and examine studies hinders my ability to assess the reliability of this new report, so I post this with naught but a quiet cough:

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

I’ll leave it to my scientific betters to say whether this is a result worth putting any trust in, so for now, allow me to indulge in some psychobabble.

From my perspective, these findings do seem to make some sense. Using myself as an example, I’m aware that moments where I feel more apathetic, tired, angry and otherwise unable (or unwilling) to engage in deeper thinking are also where I’m more likely to speak and act more from gut feeling – short-sighted, quick-response shallow thinking that mostly ignores larger ramifications and even some of the ideals I try to hold myself up to. After all, what good peacenik hasn’t occasionally found themselves shouting in bloodlust when feeling particularly emotionally upset, even when their calmer, more level-headed selves are the first to decry such behavior?

Of course, I’m not using this subjective example as a representation for what happens to everyone else who does engage in such knee-jerk reactionism on a more regular basis. After all, there certainly are plenty of intelligent and deep-thinking conservatives out there, even if their voices are increasingly eclipsed by the rabid dung-flingers who’ve been taking over more mainstream politics over the last few years. I’m fairly certain no-one can reasonably say that popular Right-wing hubs like Breitbart.com and Townhall are bastions of meaningful and intelligent discussion. (And the less is thought about Fox News and the WorldNetDaily, the better.)

In the end, maybe it’s just a matter of principles, a set of standards in behavior and modes of thought that some people feel are worth trying to live up to, and others who don’t.

(via @todayspolitics)

Tags: conservatism • conservatives

Daily Blend: Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Dr. Marty Klein

UK court: Someone actually has to mention you in order to commit defamation. (Davy Vara, take note.)

Therapist Marty Klein ^[pictured] at The Humanist thoroughly debunks the myth of “sex addiction”.
(via The Agitator)

Boy Scouts of America reaffirm their homophobia.
(via Joe. My. God.)

Finally, Clint Eastwood’s dog wants you to get off his lawn:
(via @DannyDutch)

[full size (691×656)]

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Robin Tolbrook • Stuart Parr • defamation • libel • English Democrats • Britain • Bloggers4UKIP • Marty Klein • sex addiction • sex addicts • sex • Boy Scouts of America • homophobia • gay bans • dogs • Clint Eastwood

Daily Blend: Friday, June 01, 2012

Dennis “Dave Mabus” Markuze

Connecticut becomes 17^th state to legalize medicinal marijuana. (Or, to the Obama administration, to paint a bull’s-eye on their dispensaries.)
(via @todayspolitics)

An update on the current status of Dennis “Dave Mabus” Markuze ^[pictured]. (If the name doesn’t ring a bell … good.)

Why do people keep trying to link atheism to high-functioning autism (aka Asperger’s)? (Better yet, why do some think it’s a mark against atheists?) Aspies’ brains are wired to favor logic over emotion; if anything, their conclusions are generally more reliable, less prone to emotional contamination. (Not that I’m biased, of course …)
(via The Daily Grail)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Connecticut, USA • medicinal marijuana • medical marijuana • marijuana • pot • Dennis Markuze • David Mabus • trolls • autism • Asperger syndrome

Daily Blend: Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Jerad Wheeler

DeKalb County cop ^[pictured] who committed doggycide at the wrong address in January now under investigation for kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach.
(via @radleybalko)

Far-Rightists, hate groups and assorted anti-gay wingnuts everywhere react to President Obama’s newly professed support for gay marriage, while Mitt Romney tries desperately to stay relevant.

Inherently dangerous and aggressive dog loses a limb to save its owner’s life.
(via Rob F)

“The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.” — noted Christian apologist and dishonest fraud, William Lane Craig.
(via Rob F)

Institute of Obvious Research: Dogs display remarkable empathy with humans. One of my earliest memories of dogs was when I was in time-out as a four-year-old and my grandma’s beloved golden lab came up to me all meekly and just stared at me with his fuzzy head in my lap. My mother said he knew I was sad and wanted to comfort me. I still miss him.
(via @NESCent)

This almost makes me like Miracle Whip. (Almost.)
(via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: DeKalb County, GA • Raven Dozier • Jerad Wheeler • police brutality • Barack Obama • gay marriage • marriage equality • same-sex marriage • wingnuts • conservatives • hate groups • pitbulls • dogs • William Lane Craig • WLC • agnosticism • reason • empathy • animal psychology • Miracle Whip • mayonnaise • Stephen Colbert • The Colbert Report

Study: Nonbelievers more compassionate than believers?

Interesting: New research seems to indicate that nonbelievers who help others are motivated more by compassion than are charitable religious folks:

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

Note that this study doesn’t mention whether religious and nonreligious folks are more charitable in general others than one another, but merely looks at their motives for doing what they do. It’s also uncertain whether this study can be interpreted to mean that atheists, agnostics and religious “nones” are actually more compassionate in general than believers are, though I would personally reckon that any such difference, if statistically significant at all, would be too small to merit more than a footnote.

Arguably, the idea is for people to be charitable and helpful regardless of their reasons for doing so. But it does fit within the general atheistic experience that religious folks who aid others are more likely to do so because of religious teachings – ie. habit, or a sense of responsibility – than purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, this isn’t to say that theists can’t or don’t do good for goodness’s sake, but it does bear thinking that those brought up to believe in sin, penitence and post-mortem judgment may well have different ideas when it comes to how – and why – they should help others.

(via RichardDawkins.net)

Tags: atheists • agnostics • nonbelievers • religious nones • believers • theists • nontheists • charity •

Study: Homophobia caused by repressed homosexuality – take 3

Following up on reports I mentioned both last year and just weeks ago, here’s another study that claims to show a link between anti-gay behavior and latent, repressed homosexual desires:

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like “homosexual” and “gay”) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.

The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when “me” precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when “me” precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

Naturally, stand by for squawks about “junk science!” from the usual bigoted suspects to commence shortly. Because, of course, science is only valid when it can be twisted to seemingly support their delusional worldview about being the last bastion before the evil perverted gay onslaught. And any findings that dare to contradict them are clearly the result of prejudiced and incompetent shills for Big Homo.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology • homophobia • homophobes • homosexuality

Study: Homophobia caused by repressed homosexuality, redux

Yeah … I got nothin’.

It’s becoming clear that those who make it their life’s work to rail against homosexuality are usually self-repressed closet cases whose visceral, almost obsessive revulsion stems from their own internal struggle with their latent same-sex attraction. I blogged about a study that found as much last year, and now, a new study corroborates these findings and digs deeper into the effect of growing up in less tolerant households:

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author.

"In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward," adds co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who helped direct the research.

[…]

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying," explains Weinstein. These individuals risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same sex attractions, so many people deny or repress that part of themselves, she said.

Be sure to read the full article for more details on the methodology and findings of the experiments. All in all, none of this is new to anyone who’s been keeping up with such research over the years, but it’s always nice to stay updated with new data, especially when it further solidifies the schadenfreudelicious fact that bigoted asshats who spend more time and energy talking about gay sex than actual gays do usually have more in common with those same-sex sinners than they’d like to admit, even to themselves.

Honestly, I’d normally feel naught but pity and compassion towards people who suffer from such self-damaging internal struggles. But frankly, when someone spends their time making the world a worse place to be for other people, be it by throwing around Bible verses or cramming through anti-gay legislation, regardless of their motivation for doing so, I’m afraid my sympathy simply dries up.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: gay • gays • homosexuality • homophobia • homophobes

Daily Blend: Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Ontario, CA top appeals court legalizes brothels to protect prostitutes. More of this, please.
(via @BreakingNews)

Baltimore, MD cop suspended after grabbing a woman’s cellphone to stop her recording him. More of this too, please.
(via The Agitator)

More Cracked awesomeness: Five ways modern men are trained to resent women. A perfect explanation for MRAs.

Today in WTF?: Herman Cain (redux). ^[pictured]

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Ontario, CA • prostitution • brothels • Court of Appeal for Ontario • Baltimore, MD • Paul Southard • Cracked.com • misogyny • Herman Cain • Sick of Stimulus

Study: Prejudice and conservatism linked to lower intelligence?

While it’s obvious that prejudicial and regressive ideologies can be espoused by anyone, anywhere, a new study tentatively claims that bigotry and social conservatism tend to be more pronounced in people of statistically lower intelligence:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

Now, before anyone jumps the gun in either direction, I’ll point out that this is just one study that purports to discern one small link between overall intelligence and general levels of prejudice. I suspect there may naturally be any number of intervening factors at play, localized cultural viewpoints and religious beliefs being key amongst them. I’d also like to know just where the study’s sample pool comes from. In the end, I’ll leave it to actual experts and statisticians to decide just how reliable these findings are.

But nonetheless, it certainly does seem to mesh with both common sense (think the growing anti-intellectual/anti-“elite” sentiment amongst conservatives of late) and other bits and pieces of research we’ve seen on related matters so far. It also apparently supports similar findings from previous studies, as noted in the article, itself. All in all, it boils down to basic human psychology: People who are less able or privileged in life for one reason or another, especially those stuck in more restrictive or regressive cultures, tend to stick more to their traditional and tribalistic guns, which acts to discourage higher levels of tolerance and open-mindedness for new or different things, including other social groups and minorities. That much, at least, has been established beyond debate.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: LiveScience • conservatives • conservatism • IQ • intelligence • prejudice

Daily Blend: Thursday, April 25, 2011

Dr. Michael Mann

• “Climategate” scientist Michael Mann ^[pictured] cleared of any wrongdoing – yet again (again).

• In a twist no-one saw coming, the majoritarily Republican-led government defense of DoMA is based on bullshit from rotten sources.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector claims that poverty is a Leftist scam based on ^{[citation needed]}.

• NASA discovers stars you could set foot on. (Barring the vacuum. Whatevs.)

• Bill Donohue is upset over NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to keep professional god-botherers out of the families-only 9/11 ceremony.

• How sexists find love: Deconstructing the workings of “Game” (pick-up artistry).
  (via @PersonalFailure)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Michael Mann • Climategate • John Boehner • Defense of Marriage Act • DoMA • Edie Windsor • Lisa Diamond • Paul Clement • Robert Rector • Heritage Foundation • child poverty • brown dwarfs • NASA • stars • Bill Donohue • Michael Bloomberg • 9-11 • clergy • Game • pick-up artists • misogyny • dating

Daily Blend: Thursday, August 18, 2011

Jan Cline

• Salem, WA woman ^[pictured] sets up weekend yard sales to help pay for her cancer treatments. City steps in and shuts her down. (You can donate here.)
  (via @radleybalko)

• Abortion rights groups sue Texas over new prohibitive law; two anti-choice lawmakers try to shut them down. Court tells lawmakers to fuck off.
  (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

• ATF agents who oversaw the epic failure that was operation “Fast and Furious” get fired disciplined promoted.

• Hi, I’m Chuck McClure. You may remember me as the official who’s trying to put a woman away for up to 10 years because she shoplifted a $1.50 can of beer.
  (via The Agitator)

• Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) establishes his small-government credentials by criticizing a law that doesn’t actually exist.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Perry then further establishes his scientific credentials (amongst far-Rightists) by claiming global warming is a scam run by greedy scientists.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Skeptic Tim Farley has an in-depth article on the David Mabus saga and its apparent, recent conclusion with the nutter’s reported arrest.
  (via BadAstronomy)

• Warren Buffet claims super-rich pay lower taxes than anyone else. Shockingly, PolitiFact rates it as (paraphrased), “Well, fucking duh, mate.”

• Six totally fucked-up ways your brain can let its grip slip on sanity.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Jan Cline • cancer • garage sales • yard sales • Salem, WA • Texas • Sam Sparks • Dan Patrick • Sid Miller • ATF • Fast and Furious • William McMahon • William Newell • David Voth • Victoria Hall • beer • Chuck McClure • shoplifting • Rick Perry • Illinois • scientists • Dennis Markuze • David Mabus • Tim Farley • SPVM • Twitter • Warren Buffett • rich • taxes • PolitiFact • Cracked.com • mental health • mental illnesses • Fregoli Syndrome • Mirrored-Self Misidentification • visual agnosia • somatoparaphrenia • anosognosia • prosopagnosia

Daily Blend: August 17, 2011

• Sir, I’m arresting and threatening you with my taser to inform you that riding your bike at night without reflectors is dangerous.
  (via @radleybalko)

• Homeopathy giant ^[pictured] sues lone Italian blogger for exposing their quackery.
  (via @bengoldacre)

• No, Vox Day, the American Psychological Association’s decision to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder (which I agree with^*) is not a “normalization” of “aberrant” behavior like homosexuality that announces the death of society (or something).

• NewsBusters finally gets one right, catches MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Breitbarting a Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) quote to sound racist.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• You might be a conservative if (you fit into any of these simplistic but undeniably accurate stereotypes) …
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Oh my, Dépardieu.

• Clothes retailer Abercrombie & Fitch offers large bribe to get Jersey Shore cast to stop wearing their brand.
  (via @radleybalko)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

* I am increasingly of the opinion that pedophilia, as with all other —philias, is simply a (relatively) rare yet ingrained sexual orientation/preference and does not, in itself, constitute a psychological handicap. Details vary, of course.

Tags: George Christopher • Jerome Harrison • bicycles • Boiron • homeopathy • Samuel • Vox Day • American Psychological Association • homosexuality • NewsBusters • MSNBC • Ed Schultz • Rick Perry • Barack Obama • racism • conservatives • Gérard Dépardieu • Abercrombie & Fitch • Jersey Shore • Mike Sorrentino

Daily Blend: Sunday, July 24, 2011

Donald Trump

Just saw Harry Potter 7½. Excellent finale to a wonderful series based on another terrific series. Had a great sense of epicness throughout, the battle was riveting, and I loved the due respect Snape was given.

• Battlefield 3 launch LAN party combats sexist asswipes by banning them women.
  (via Blag Hag)

• Great article about Internet trolls and anonymity, aka “deindividuation”. My take: Anonymity’s lack of direct criticism simply allows people to reveal their true natures, for better or worse.
  (via @flipcritic)

• Think Donald Trump [pictured] is an asshole? You (probably) don’t know the half of it.
  (via @PersonalFailure)

• PZ Myers explains why he doesn’t believe in gods. I swear he plagiarized my thoughts.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Battlefield 3 • LAN party • misogyny • Tim Adams • trolls • Donald Trump • PZ Myers • gods • Harry Potter

Vox Day: Women just bitch about objectification for attention

Dr. Tara C. Smith

So, a few weeks ago, I commented on a blog post by Vox Day wherein he spewed his typically sexist spiel over Aetiology’s Dr. Tara Smith complaining when she had the very possibility of her being a good scientist be casually dismissed because of her looks. Rather than address any of Dr. Smith’s points, Vox rather chose to declare that she was really just bitching about it to get attention, because that’s all those silly vain females want, anyway. It was apparently inconceivable to him that she might actually have been irked at being objectified.

Well, guess who’s back?

The godless gamma

I know many alphas and even recovering deltas working on their Game find it impossible to comprehend the full depth of cluelessness about women possessed by the average gamma. But I doubt it will surprise anyone that a self-described "liberal skeptic, rationalist and atheist" who entertains "a passion for science" doesn't grasp the very first thing about women.

Yes, because when a woman is irritated at some dolt dismissing any possibility of her having a career other than being a Hollywood pin-up babe on the sole basis of her aesthetics, she’s obviously just flattered. And hiding it. Underneath her venting. For some reason.

Vox must be just incredibly in-tune with the female mind, because that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I have absolutely no doubt it doesn't. Because like most gammas, the poor lad thinks that women essentially think like men, except of course for their greater purity of character. He simply cannot fathom that women view everything through the perspective of their own sexual market value.

Did we fall into a Möbius strip of argumentation, here? Vox, who apparently believes he knows what other people think better than they do, asserts that women who bitch about being reduced to eye candy simply do so in order to garner more attention, because they’re all just desperate for flattery and acceptance by their male sexual superiors. I, drawing from my perspective as a non-male supremacist, rejoin that women are not actually as grotesquely superficial as his distorted views make them out to be. Vox then restates that, well, yes, they are. (“So, there,” basically.) What next? Should I merely reiterate that he’s got his head locked up his proudly masculine ass?

Daily Blend: Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Too true for too many

Be counted! Have you taken the easy-peasy, 100% anonymous Preliator Survey 2011?

• House GOP trying to “plaster some bullshit religious platitude [pictured] on the same government buildings [it’s] simultaneously trying to sell off and close down”.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Information is Beautiful’s consciousness survey informs me that I am a “Functionalistic Identity Theorizing Higher Order Theorist”. ¿Que?

• Patriotic Teen Fails Spanish.

• Seems about right.
  (via Diaphanitas)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

TED talk: Jonathan Haidt on the real difference between liberals and conservatives

The traditional assumption is that liberal and conservative morality differ in that leftists tend to value fairness, openness and change, whilst rightists tend to rally around authority, purity and traditionalism. And as Jonathan Haidt, associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, shows us in this interesting (20 minute long) TED talk, that’s pretty much how it is.

(via @todayspolitics)