A new cat poem from Jenny Blackford

See here for Jenny's post about the forthcoming anthology of fiction and poetry, Futuredaze. This will include her poem, "Learning How to be a Cat".

Following is a provisional table of contents:

POETRY:

E. Kristin Anderson
Jenny Blackford
Cathy Bryant
Sandi Cayless
Alicia Cole
John Grey
Evelyn Lumish
Irving
Brittany Warman
Neil Weston
Anna Della Zazzera

FICTION:

Steve Alguire
Camille Alexa
Stephen D. Covey
Danika Dinsmore
Gregory Frost
Nancy Holder
Alex J. Kane
Rahul Kanakia
Miri Kim
Rich Larson
Dale Lucas
Alex Dally MacFarlane
Jack McDevitt
Sandra McDonald
Jennifer Moore
Katrina Nicholson
Chuck Rothman
Mark Smith-Briggs
Leah Thomas
Llinos Cathryn Thomas
Lavie Tidhar
William John Watkins

No holding hands, please - we're Republicans

Now this looks like the stupidest piece of legislation I've read all year, if not in my entire life. A bill passed by the Senate in Tennessee demonises adolescent sexuality to extent that kids are not even supposed to hold hands.

Edit: To be fair - see the thread below - the Bill does not explicitly mention holding hands, although it does define "gateway sexual activity" in a formula that could arguably be broad enough to include petting, kissing, and even hand-holding. I don't know what has been said about any of these by proponents in political debates, but it would have been honest of the site I linked to if it had explained that the Bill does not mention any low-level sexual actvities specifically, and that the inference that "gateway sexual activities" includes such things as holding hands is, well, an inference, even if the debates make clear that it was intended to be caught by the Bill.

This is another example of the perils of relying on reports, rather than actually looking at legislation. Mea culpa. But all that said, the overall intention of the legislation does seem to be to demonise and discourage adolescent sexuality, even in mild forms, as far as possible.

Justin Vacula to debate Catholic philosopher

Justin Vacula (host of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast and co-organizer of the NEPA Freethought Society) and Catholic philosopher Ronda Chervin will debate the existence of God via podcast on 19 August. Looks interesting for aficianados of such debates. More detail at Justin's blog.

Chris Hallquist on what you can say about Islam

Over here, where he refers to (and quotes from) my discussion of the issue in Freedom of Religion and the Secular State. In case the context is not clear, in the quote concerned I'm worrying about accusations of Islamophobia, and the way these are made more difficult to reject when far-right organisations co-opt arguments that actually have merit. So here's another quote from the book to think about:

At the same time, I do not doubt that some dislike of Islam, or impatience with Muslims and their spiritual leaders, has a quasi-racist character, grounded in parochialism and xenophobia, and perhaps a dislike of Arabs in particular. It is not coincidental that much of the public criticism of Islam as a religion, and of Muslims and their practices, emanates from European political parties and associated groups found on the extreme right, such as the Front National in France and the British National Party (BNP) in the UK. These organizations typically promote an intense, even bigoted nationalism — combined with what they portray as a defense of Christian traditions and values, and an endangered "Christian identity." They thrive on a fear of strange cultures and a fear of change — fears that are somewhat understandable in a new century overshadowed by the massive terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001.

An obvious problem for critics of Islam who do not share the values of the European extreme right is that they may find themselves painted with the same brush. Conversely, extreme-right critics of Islam have gained a degree of respectability by co-opting issues and adopting stances that many politicians and members of the public find compelling. In making this point, José Pedro Zúquete refers to arguments about the situation of women within Islam:

"When the situation of women in Islam is discussed, the European extreme right puts forward arguments that, in a not-so-distant past, were considered to be positions exclusive to progressive and feminist groups in the West. The extreme right has been visibly active in its rejection of several cultural practices associated with Islam — ranging from the use of the headscarf and forced marriages, to honour-killings and female genital mutilation — by using arguments similar to those employed by mainstream groups that denounce inequalities and discrimination against women."

Indeed, as Zúquete details, extreme-right groups have also co-opted such notions as secularism and animal rights, in their campaign against what they see as an Islamic threat to European and Christian identities.

So, leading in to the quote on Chris Hallquist's blog, there's the whole question of accusations of Islamophobia being used to shut up people who have genuine criticisms of Islam and related cultures, the problem of the European extreme right opportunistically using arguments that may sometimes even have merit, and what do you actually do if you have criticisms of these kinds, but are not from the extreme right at all?

Sunday Supervillainy: The Avengers crushes the Dark Knight Rises

At this stage, there doesn't seem much prospect of The Dark Knight Rises matching the box office takings of The Avengers. Given the terrible events in Colorado a bit over a week ago, the comparison is probably no longer a fair one - all bets are off in such an altered atmosphere, especially in the United States.

Still, after a very strong working week, Monday to Thursday, The Dark Knight Rises has seemingly pulled in a second Friday gross in the United States well below that recently achieved by The Avengers. I can't see the gap being bridged at this stage... and nor can I see The Dark Knight Rises achieving the same kind of success outside the US as its rival.

That said, The Dark Knight Rises is headed to be an enormously popular movie in its own right. It will probably achieve a total worldwide box office well above a billion dollars ... but not at a level to put it in the top three or four movies of all time, measured in gross, unadjusted box-office receipts.

Justin Vacula also wondering about "sexual images"

He has a post on the subject over here.

While we're on the subject, what about this image? It certainly has something to do with sex. So, would you classify it as a sexual image or not? Should images like this be prohibited from public display because they are regarded as "harassing"? It's certainly foreseeable that a lot of people would be offended by it, but is it offence of a kind that should affect policy?

Twitter joke appeal succeeds

In a small victory for freedom of speech, a British appeal court has overturned the conviction of Paul Chambers, who had been found guilty back in May 2010 of sending a "public electronic message" that was of a "menacing character".

The offending message was a joke which expressed annoyance that an airport was closed because of snow - Chambers was heading there to meet a friend (now his fiance): "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

So, there's one step back from the culture of surveillance, fear, and creeping authoritarianism that we often seem to be heading towards. Good for the court for overturning this ridiculous conviction, and shame on the prosecuting authorities for ever pursuing the case.

My updated CFI profile.

Over here if y'all are interested.

Jerry Coyne on courtesy and posting behaviour

This is a superb post by Jerry Coyne over at Why Evolution Is True. There's much in it for us all to take to heart. I'm not going to repeat it all here, but the sentiments most certainly have my general support ... and I think they're worth passing on if you have a blog or site of your own.

It would be nice if we all saw the internet as a place for respectful discussions aimed at making intellectual progress, rather than, say, a site for war, or for imposition of our own ideas through whatever tactics appear necessary. I know Jerry has copped flak over specific incidents and issues, but if you look at the quality of his blog site, day in day out, over a period of years, it's a fine example of the sort of discourse that we want.

Really, I'm proud to have Jerry Coyne as a friend, even if we're fated (see what I did there?), to go on wrangling about issues to do with free will and the like, and he can take a bow for this particular contribution.

In Jerry's honour, a special bonus kitten photo.

No sexual images, please - we're atheists

I have a post over here at Talking Philosophy, and it's attracting some good, thoughtful discussion - although the comments thread is fairly brief at this point.

As I say in my latest comment on the thread, you'd hope that what convention organisers are really trying to do is create an environment that won’t be hostile or demeaning to women (or, presumably, anyone else, but I do think that particular issues arise with making the environments of conventions welcoming to women).

Perhaps policies should say that explicitly – it's vague, but it would have some meaning in that it could govern how the rest of the policy is interpreted. Instead, the policy that I'm criticising in the post has prohibited all sorts of categories of behaviour that are described in sufficiently sweeping terms to (one hopes inadvertently) catch up innocuous or beneficial behaviours, such as selling posters of pre-Raphaelite art.

Of course, what is hostile or demeaning to women (and others) is also contestable, and there are large grey areas. We’ve discussed some of the issues right here at this blog, where I’ve often complained about demeaning representations of women in comics. What is perceived as demeaning will depend on certain cultural codes, and not everyone has internalised the same codes in their heads. There are no answers that are objectively binding - there is no such thing as an objectively demeaning image in, say, a metaethicist's strong sense of "objective" - but there certainly are facts about what will, in a particular society, strike ordinary, reasonable people who are not especially prudish as demeaning to women. We're looking for images that are objectively demeaning in the weak sense of "objective" used by lawyers - i.e. not what a particular person actually experiences as demeaning but what an ordinary, reasonable person within the milieu would probably perceive that way.

This image is one that I've criticised in the past, but some people might think it falls in a grey area. Very well, but I could find images much more demeaning than that if I wanted to. The point is that we can keep a convention environment free of images that most people would regard as pornographic and demeaning to women (unless we are actually discussing them) without tending to demonise all expressions of eroticism.

However, the main thing that a convention needs to do is make clear that no harassment of any kind will be tolerated. I.e., if someone hassles you - sexually or otherwise - the organisers will have your back (Richard Carrier put it that way in one of his posts on the subject, and I think it's as good a way to convey the idea as any). You need the policy to specify how a complaint can be made, and everyone needs to know that complaints will be investigated fairly. No long list of specific prohibited behaviours is needed. People generally know when they are behaving in nasty or callous ways. The point is to make clear to the small minority who do so that it won't be accepted (and to give that sort of reassurance to possible victims).

There's more from me in the comments on the thread at TP.