I'd like to start a movement

It's unusual for us to receive an event that pushes so many buttons all at once, which we now have in the case of the UCSB tragedy. Elliot Rodger killed six people and in doing so ignited controversy all over the blogosphere, touching on feminism, men's rights, pickup artistry, gun control, mental health, and more. Relevant blogs have been buzzing around the clock and will probably have enough material to blog for weeks. I too, have quite a bit to say on this matter.

But before I get to all that I want to establish a rule, and I wish that everyone would follow it. The rule is that we only use the killer's name once (and only if necessary).

The rest of the time we refer to him simply as "the idiot." Let me explain.

When these things happen, the media always focuses on the perpetrator. A few well-intentioned activists can campaign for responsible media coverage but even if official news sources went silent, in the age of social media, you can be sure that information would get out there anyway. So let's change the information. Let's change how we talk about this. There are many reasons someone might kill, some of them I might even sympathize with. But no matter what those reasons are, there is no excuse for indiscriminate murder. And so we should call this man, and others like him, what they are: idiots. They should be ridiculed endlessly after they're gone, in the media, on blogs, and in newspapers. Any would-be killer should be able to open YouTube and see his potential fate as a laughing stock of history. He won't be a villain. He'll be a joke. And maybe, he might even think twice.

Look at this screencap of a video from ABC News:

"Inside the mind of a killer." "Who was Elliot Rodger?" "Chilling manifesto." Such gravitas. Such importance and mythologizing of one who doesn't deserve it. Wouldn't this be so much better?

Unprofessional? Not if we make it policy. We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't pay any respect to fools like this. Speculation and mythologizing fuel their life after death. In truth we cannot deny their immortality. But we can steal their dignity.

C Tran

We're in really big trouble

Reverse birthday party

I was reading a post today over at Black Skeptics where the topic was the death of a friend-- and atheist-- of writer Sikivu Hutchinson. I think funerals naturally draw people toward thinking about their own deaths and what their own funerals ought to be like. As in the case of this man, there was no choice available in the matter, as his friends and family proceeded with a Catholic ceremony in a church. My own family is ostensibly Buddhist with a few Catholics sprinkled around, and so far every family funeral I've attended has been largely Buddhist in nature, so I think I know what to expect if I don't specify otherwise (and I will, by the way).

So here's a good question. It's been asked and answered before but let me provide my own take on it: should atheists have funerals? I mean why bother? The standard answer is that funerals are not for the deceased, but for those they've left behind, because everyone needs a sense of closure and a chance to say goodbye.

Except funerals are for the deceased, just not while they're deceased. Your funeral is your final hurrah, your last and only reverse birthday party, and I think the living take some comfort in knowing that they'll have one eventually, especially if they've had the foresight to plan for it.

But it's most important to soldiers, policemen and firefighters, who risk their lives as a part of their profession. Even if they don't believe in an afterlife, knowing that a grand display awaits them in death reminds them of why they do what they do and who they're fighting for. It isn't even necessarily a matter of the funeral itself, but the ceremony is one component in a greater zeitgeist of admiration and respect for the lives lived.

What's my funeral gonna be like? Well, if I get my way, I'll be disposed of in the most economical and environmentally friendly way possible, and there won't be any Buddhist monks chanting for six hours straight, that's for damn sure (An impressive feat, but ultimately useless. Kind of like carrying a cross 1500 miles). And I would most likely have a statement prepared stating my final existential musings, the things that I couldn't speak to everyone more plainly about while I was alive (Hey, I'm dead. I can say whatever the fuck I want.). I'm pretty sure this is the route most academic atheists will take so in that sense I'm a bore. Well you know what? It's my reverse birthday party, and as long as it's not a surprise party, I'm happy as a clam.

A naturalist's view of a massacre

Inevitably following a massacre people start talking about gun control, but I'm going to move away from that and toward something far more pertinent but rarely spoken of. When you have a naturalist's world view, you can see these things for what they really are, which is mental illness. People forget that your mind and personality comes from a biological organ, and it is susceptible to disease and failure just like the rest of the body. When you see the mind-- the soul, perhaps-- as an ethereal entity piloting a machine, you conclude that a mass killer is evil when he's really just sick. Sick people can't be reasoned with, and they need to be taken care of before these kinds of things will happen. The signs of sociopathy and psychopathy must be detected early, especially when they're children, lest we think of them as having simple personality defects to be grown out of in time.

The latest I've heard is that the mother of the killer knew right away that the perpetrator was her own son. I'm willing to bet she knew he had problems for a long time, but again, society doesn't take these things seriously because society has the completely wrong view of why these things happen. Let's recognize the facts: there is no soul, we are at the mercy of our brains, and sometimes our brains get sick. Let's do it right, and put one person in a hospital instead of a dozen in the morgue.

OMG Zimmerman

wtf is wrong with you, Zim?

George Zimmerman has revealed to Sean Hannity that he believes that Trayvon Martin's death was part of God's plan. As an atheist I was quick to jump onto this and declare another example of a religious evil, but I'm going to wait on that. People aren't always so stupid, and I remember the national letting out a collective groan after Michael "Dog Fighter" Vick declared he had found Jesus following his prosecution. So I can't declare this a religious evil over an opportunistic play for sympathy until I see a sizable population gullible or religion-rotted enough to believe in this new revelation.

Let me be clear, I was actually sympathetic to Zimmerman before this. I don't think he intended to kill anyone, but he presented an unknown threat to an innocent person, and that innocent person chose to fight back, and with potentially deadly force. He responded with assured lethality.

But now, Zim? Are you crazy or are you just an asshole?

The future of gay people will be determined by black people

Much has been made about the connection between black and gay civil rights, and the tendency for some parts of the former to deny any such connection, to the disappointment of progressives. David Weigel discussed the divide yesterday in this piece for Slate.

The principle difference argued by anti-gay blacks is that homosexuals chose to be homosexual, whereas no one can choose to be black. If you find yourself arguing with these people and try to directly counter the assertion, you're making a mistake, for the nature/nurture debate only skims the surface of a much deeper issue, which is that of personal liberty. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is chosen or if it is inborn, it is a personal liberty that no one has any valid reason to deny.

Getting to the heart of the matter is important. It makes the picture clearer for everyone, and makes it clear you know exactly what you're talking about. (The opposite example is a creationist who attacks every possible detail of evolutionary theory without a connecting fiber in any of his arguments.) For this particular case, you'll then be able to skip past sticky discussions of race and other traits you are born with and talk about why homosexuality is or isn't a personal liberty. As I've said before, there is no logical basis for their religiously or culturally motivated bigotry, and they will lose that argument every time.

The Cack-Man cometh

Well, this is disappointing. Manny Pacquiao, world boxing champion, congressman, and humanitarian, is not so humane when it comes to LGBT rights. From the article:

Pacquiao, bearing a conservative stance on the Reproductive Bill which is still pending in the Philippine Congress for approval even after contemptuous debates, believes the sweeping campaign of Obama favoring the gays and lesbians to legally marry is nothing more than a direct attack on the moral society and against the creative power and will of God.

Pacquiao's position as both a lawmaker and an asshole shows why church/state separation is important. A friend of mine, a Mormon, once told me she supports her church in its stance against gay marriage, but she did not support her church's support of Proposition 8, which made gay marriages illegal in California. "If you're gay and you want to get married, don't be Mormon," she said. I wholeheartedly agree. That is exactly the position that theists should have regarding personal liberties such as these, because it is not for them to legislate their moral code to everyone else, unless they can prove that they have a secular, logical basis for their objection. The successful appeal against Prop 8 last year showed in a court of law that there is no secular or logical argument that can be made.