Okay, that’s totally insensitive, but come the crap on people, it’s 2018—if you have the technological capability to be a YouTube star, you also have twenty-four hour access to nearly all of the world’s Scientific and Medical literature literally at your fingertips. There is no excuse for this kind of ignorance, so pardon us if we’re less than compassionate when people who spread dangerous bullshit get killed by the fruits—literally in this case—of their labor.
So consider that our “in before white knighting and concern trolling”; not that it’s going to stop anyone from firing off their virtue signal flares to call for roadside mob assistance.
When Life Gives You Cancer, Make Lemonade
Mari Lopez—not to be confused with the actor who played Slater from Saved by the Bell and now hosts dog show tournaments—was one half of a Vegan YouTube video blogging team who rose to their dubious celebrity by promoting not just Veganism, but the idea that Lopez’ cancer was cured by “eating a raw vegan diet, drinking juice and praying to God”.
Videos in their series included a two-parter entitled “STAGE 4 CANCER HEALED BY JUICING & RAW VEGAN DIET”. Here it is, for now at least. Feel free to download it in case the people still running this account come to their senses and try to cover their tracks:
Where’s the Harm?
Surely no one else would buy into these people’s bullsh…. oh. (From their video comments):
ragerage
If you’ve never had cause to stray off the darker paths the world of self-published health expert videos, YouTube is chock-full of this kind of dangerous garbage. We needn’t remind you that behind every single view on each of them, is a person who might be looking for genuine medical advice, and stops their search upon watching one of these shameful things:
Mari (Left) and her niece/video partner Liz (Right)
“I was healed by God and faith and used to live a gay lifestyle…”
Not only did Mari Lopez believe sticking to a vegan diet and drinking juice cure her of her cancer, it also apparently cured her of lesbianism.
“I was healed by God and faith and used to live a gay lifestyle,” she claimed in one of her videos. There’s a lot that we could follow this up with, but the story is already awful enough so we’ll leave it at that.
Doubling Down on Dumbass
a caption would go here but at this point it’s not even worth it man
In the wake of her video partner’s death, Babe.net’s Harry Shukman followed up with Liz Johnson. In his interview with her (comments in link are themselves, cancer) she attributed Mari’s death, in part, to eating microwaved food during her chemotherapy:
“My family is not familiar with that style of living [Raw Vegan diet]… What happened was, as Mari was living with my mom, my mom started to tell her that she needed to eat meat now. She said it was OK to use things that she didn’t want to use. My aunt was very against the microwave because of cancer-causing issues with that, and my mom would cook her things using the microwave.”
Have you ever been working an article and gotten sad at the subject matter and then just stopped writing the damn thing?
Do facts upset you? Do you not like the results of Scientific research? Boy do we have great news for you!
That’s right, instead of analyzing studies for flawed methods or bad data, you can just call the researcher a dick!
A study conducted by Ralph Barnes , Heather Johnston , Noah MacKenzie , Stephanie Tobin , and Chelsea Taglang—presumably not dicks—sought to discover if “ad hominem” attacks on researchers have any effect on whether or not the actual research is considered valid by the public.
Two separate experiments were conducted involving a group of 439 college students and a group of 199 adults, both reading various research claims. Each claim was accompanied by either a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science, or a personal attack on the scientist who made the claim, and sometimes both. The individual participants were then invited to express attitudes about the claims.
“..ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims…”
Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.
Ouch. Keep in mind though that this mostly applies to non-scientists trying to interpret (or misinterpret) the results of research, based simply on the impression that there was a conflict of interest.
The results of the current study indicate that laypersons significantly reduce their confidence in a claim due to knowledge of a conflict of interest. This has practical implications, as 91% of anti-vaccine websites explicitly claim that the bio-medical field is rife with conflicts of interests and this communication tactic may play a part in the success of the anti-vaccine movement.
The important takeaway is that when dealing with a science denier’s nonsense, this is yet another thing to keep an eye out for. Expecto Stupidum.
There’s an insidious, BS argument technique currently spreading like a rhetorical pestilence through Social Media, conventional media, and even in academic institutions. Here’s how it works:
1. Person A states their argument in good faith, providing a reasonable degree of supporting evidence.
2. Person Bdeliberately misunderstands Person A‘s argument and re-frames it as something morally objectionable, before replying to that argument instead.
This technique goes well beyond the conventional “Strawman”, in that it shamelessly engages the emotions of bystanders in order to paint a target on Person A. for a mob of people in the midst of a moral panic.
We’ve been informally calling this a “Straw Witch” argument, because the entire point is to rally all the village idiots to burn your opponent at the stake.
Dude on the lower right’s Tumblr is surely “lit AF”
Nowhere is this more evident than in theChannel 4 interview conducted recently with Clinical Psychologist and tenured Professor Jordan Peterson—an interview in which this technique was used so flagrantly that it inspired a series of memes:
If you think this is a ridiculous misrepresentation, you clearly haven’t watched the video. See the link above. Also, this will be the only reference to the Tide Pods phenomenon made on Bullshido. We’d like to think we’re more high-brow than that, but it’s really because that joke is not going to age well.
“Let me just get this straight. You’re saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”
Seriously though, here’s an example of what actually happened in that interview if you don’t want to suffer through it:
JP: “The reason that I write about lobsters is because there’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. And I use the lobster as an example because we diverged from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago: common ancestor. Lobsters exist in hierarchies and they have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy, and that nervous system runs on serotonin just like our nervous systems do. And the nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn’t.”
Interviewer: “Let me just get this straight. You’re saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”
Even someone with a severe dislike of Peterson’s stances on issues would have to acknowledge that the interviewer was nowhere in his league—barely playing the same sport.
We get the point the writer is trying to make about not calling people things they don’t want to be called, it’s just the way they did it was cringey as f…
Who the Hell is Jordan Peterson and Why Should I Give a Shit?
Before we get to “who”, let’s talk about “why”. We’ll start by clarifying ourselves: this is not a hit piece on Jordan Peterson, but neither is it a puff piece, or any sort of cheerleading/pandering to Peterson’s growing list of—dedicated, if not frothing—Internet fans. Y’all should know better.
We’re not concerned with ideology on Bullshido, just bullshit. However, since the man is an emerging figure in public discourse, our purpose is to cover both the bullshit about him and the bullshit coming out of him.
This is not a hit piece on Jordan Peterson, but neither is it a puff piece, or any sort of cheerleading/pandering to Peterson’s growing list of—dedicated, if not frothing—Internet fans.
So those of you with weaker intellectual constitutions who subsist on sugary-simple narratives should probably seek shelter at this point, because the dissonance radius on this cognitive bomb is set wide enough to catch all simpletons of any slant.
A school desk: your grandparents’ academic safe space
To say it’s difficult to write an impartial account of who Jordan Peterson is, and why so many people are paying attention him right now, would be something like bringing up Hitler as simply a “notable” historical figure. Appropriately, bringing up Peterson in certain circles can evoke as many as ten Hitler references (a decahitler, or Dh¹).
Most recently this happened in a conference room at Wilfrid Laurier University, where grad student Lindsay Shepherd—teaching a class on media and communications—was hauled in front of a review panel simply for showing a video of a debate with Peterson as one of the participants. The subject being discussed was the use of gender neutral pronouns in the singular (such as “they”), and if you somehow missed it the first time, this was a Communications class.
Anticipating an administrative brow-beating, Shepherd recorded the event, in which—you guessed it—Peterson was compared to Hitler by one of the members of the panel.
“This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.”
-Professor Nathan Rambukkana, PhD, Wilfrid Laurier University
Full audio below: Trigger Warning: Angry Tears, RAGE³
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3GaYEjfX5s
This is just one of a few incidents that encapsulates the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, and the issues of gender diversity, tolerance, and free speech that follow him around like the cloud on that dirty kid from the Peanuts cartoons.
Peterson rose to public consciousness after pushing back against Bill C-16, 2016: “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code“ that affords protected status “gender identity or expression”. His criticism of this bill revolves around the fact that it requires people to use a person’s “chosen pronouns” rather than the conventional “he” or “she”. He rejects the “70+ genders” because “those are terms generated by the post-modern neo-marxists. I think those people are reprehensible murderers, so guess what? I’m not going to say their words because I know what they’re like, I know where that leads”.
Where that leads, according to Peterson, is mass starvation and gulags. Jordan Peterson is without a doubt, conservative and on the political right. He abhors Communism and the philosophy behind it, Marxism, and sees many of his fellow academics as a wave of Marxist infiltrators stroking their villain’s mustaches from within the safety of academia to influence younger generations of college students to take up their causes. Those causes are Social Justice and “equity” movements. He rails against these for seeking to provide “equality of outcomes” rather than opportunities.
Central to the ideology of these Marxists, according to Peterson, is the philosophy of “Post-Modernism”, which asserts that “truth” is subjective, and socially constructed–decided by collective agreement rather than existing independently on its own. This isn’t wholly correct, but we’re certainly not going to wade into that epistemological septic lagoon (blah blah blah art criticism blah blah post-structuralism blah Foucault blah blah Sokal smackdown blah). That’s beyond the point we need to address here, especially for a website that got its start by organizing its members to beat the crap out of each other, Fight Club style (TW³: …everything).
But put our own ridiculously problematic history aside for a second and put a mental pin on that last paragraph; we’ll be circling back to it.
Jordan Peterson’s Struggle
(Get it, it’s a Mein Kampf joke? Things can still be funny if you explain them as long as you use a condescending grammatical voice that implies the reader is in on the joke, unlike those other idiots.)
Rather than opening ourselves to charges that we’re re-framing his arguments for our own purposes, let’s directly quote Professor Peterson on various subjects:
On Marxism:
“In Venezuela everyone is equal, they all have the same number of bones to gnaw on..”
“…it’s their unconscious wish for brutal, male domination.”
On “White Privilege”:
I think the idea of white privilege is absolutely reprehensible, and it’s not because white people aren’t privileged. You know, we have all sorts of privileges, and most people have privileges of all sorts, and you should be grateful for your privileges and work to deserve them, I would say. But, the idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that’s more racist than that. It’s absolutely abhorrent.
We’re not going to turn this into a repository of quotations; there are plenty ofsources on the Internet for that already. We just want those of you who are unfamiliar with the man to get a sense of who he is and what he believes.
Peterson’s current notoriety can be directly attributed to the fact that while planting his flag on the opposite side of the social battlefield, he struck a large vein of disaffected, disenfranchised young males who—left in a moral vacuum due to the waning of traditional cultural values—are looking for guidance on how to live meaningful lives. The young men attracted to Peterson’s message don’t want to abandon the ideals of strength, exceptionalism, individualism, and personal achievement, so often maligned by the left. Like him, they push back against the notion that there’s something innately wrong with masculinity, instead reveling in it—to varying degrees which sometimes stray into territory their “Social Justice Warrior” opponents label as “toxic”.
Jordan Peterson on Strength
It’s easy to see the appeal of this approach: it’s positive and affirming, especially to people who don’t see themselves as privileged, but as persecuted. Nobody likes being made to feel they’re guilty simply for having been born into a certain body, which ironically seems to be a point missed by the Social Justice movement when it comes to the primary targets of their war: remember, a war needs enemies. The rationalization for judging only a particular group of persons (in this case, melanin-deficient and bearing the additional disability of a y-chromosome), lies in an entire academic field’s sketchy notions of power dynamics.
But radicalized hostility on one side only ever swings the pendulum harder back to the other side, and there is always someone on either side willing to rally angry people to fight for their agenda, while the reasonable voices lurking a bit closer to the middle try to slow that pendulum/wrecking ball as best they can. Voices like Steven Pinker, who addresses the extremism in academic circles with even-handed clarity:
From Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”, a measured, reasonable criticism of the reasons for a rift between the “hard” Empirical sciences and (largely antipositivist) Social sciences. Screen captured from a Kindle copy of the book because the Fascists at Amazon blocked CTL+C.
Like we said, reasonable, right? (Alt-Alt-Right?)
The Truth about Peterson’s BS
So assuming you had no knowledge of the entire brouhaha coming into this, and assuming you’ve made it this far without gouging your eyes out or making a stupid attack helicopter reference to your bros, here’s where it gets dirty.
Before we start, let’s be clear: the subject of “Truth” and how one comes to know it has been debated for as long as people were capable of debating anything. There’s a whole field of Philosophy dedicated to how we can know things, and so much of these ideological battles can be traced back to fundamental disagreements within it leaking out into the wild like chemical agents into the hands of people poorly qualified to use them—ourselves included (and you too, don’t kid yourself).
Cavemen armed with nerve gas isn’t the point though, because we’ll fully acknowledge that Jordan Peterson is no intellectual primitive (he’s not, get over it). The point is that Jordan Peterson rails against the unfounded, un-empirical assertions of “post-modernist” thought out of one side of his mouth, while preaching out of the other side his own assertions of para-theistic meta-narratives—or to use actual people words—religious bullshit. To be even more clear, because we’re sure some of you are going to deliberately get this wrong just to argue some asinine point⁴, we’re not making a claim with regards to truth in religion one way or another: we’re just pointing out that Empiricism isn’t some kind of a “home base” you can run back to for safety every time you venture into enemy territory, in a game of intellectual tag.
(Resist the urge to make another “safe space” reference. Resist the urge to make another “safe space” reference. Resist the urge to make another “safe space” reference.)
It’s simply bullshit to believe that your assertions about Truth are different than anyone else’s assertions about Truth, when all either of you are doing are making goddamn assertions. It’s bad enough that the word “Truth” itself has been beaten like Ed Sheeran as a stepchild [editor’s note: revisit reference in a year when no longer relevant]. But bouncing back and forth between credible Scientific knowledge and revealed religious “truth” in a discussion of cultural values is like playing Gin with a mixed deck of tarot and Magic the Gathering cards: nobody wins because it doesn’t make any fucking sense.
TL;DR, Jordan Peterson Memes
For those of you less entertained by drawing pretty pictures than tasting the crayons, here’s your reward for clicking on this post. For everyone else, JP memes are top notch even if you hate the guy. Enjoy. Or don’t. Fuck you. This is the only TL;DR you’re getting.
This one is a little too on-the-nose to be genuinely funny.Starter Pack memes are always a solid investmentPixel rationing obviously due to central planningOh, yeah, the whole “Jordan Peterson sounds like Kermit the Frog” thing. Shit, missed out on a joke about that. Here. Whatever.We legitimately have no idea what’s going on here. And that’s where we’ll leave you. FIN
Footnotes and Whatnots
There is no Imperial measurement for Hitler references, except perhaps converting from a base of 9mm².
That’s a Luger/Suicide joke. It’s okay because, Nazis.
Yes, we’re aware we’re not using trigger warnings correctly. Go ahead and add us to the list that includes nearly everyone else on the Internet.
Refer back to the first paragraphs of this monstrosity.
Sure, you’re sitting there with a deliberately stupid look on your face as you read this. But then you uncross your eyes, wipe off the drool, and realize that it’s important for Science to study general Human stupidity so we can have even the remotest chance at coming up with a “cure” for it.
Anti-vaccine advocates are a particularly insidious form of stupid–one that, without even needing to resort to hyperbole, could be responsible for the deaths of millions should their nonsense take hold in the public consciousness. Matthew Hornsey, PhD, of the University of Queensland is one of the people working on the topic. He studied the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and anti-vaccination views.
Just imagine this, in color, in your neighborhood elementary school
What he found out, shouldn’t surprise anyone, but does bring us that much closer to figuring out how to “fix stupid”.
According to Science Daily: Hornsey and his co-authors surveyed 5,323 people from 24 countries on five continents using online questionnaires between March 31 and May 11, 2016, measuring antivaccination attitudes and belief in four conspiracy theories: that Princess Diana was murdered; that the American government knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and chose to let them happen; that a shadowy group of elites exist to plot a new world order; and that John F. Kennedy was murdered as part of an elaborate plot.
Those with strong beliefs in conspiracies were most likely to hold antivaccination attitudes regardless of where they lived. For example, the more people believed that Princess Diana was murdered, the more negative attitudes they had about vaccinations. In contrast, level of education had a very small impact on antivaccination attitudes.
Perhaps the least ridiculous image we could have found to represent the conspiracy theory about Princess Diana’s death
So the takeaway of this is, if you have a friend who’s anti-vax, you might want to be a bit wary about the other dumb shit they also believe. At least that might help explain why you keep running out of aluminum foil.
Sources and Further Reading
Matthew J. Hornsey, Emily A. Harris, Kelly S. Fielding. The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: A 24-Nation Investigation.. Health Psychology, 2018; DOI: 10.1037/hea0000586
Do Martial Arts instructors have any duty to screen their students before teaching them the skills of physical violence?
For outsiders who only know about Martial Arts through popular culture, there’s a gross, sometimes deliberately-crafted misunderstanding that a cornerstone of the hobby involves turning students into better people. Discipline, honor, self-confidence, and Eastern spiritual concepts are all dumped into a pot to make a marketing stew, that’s offered to consumers in the hopes that some of them will find it tasty enough to sign up for classes. And many people do.
Martial Arts in the United States alone are a multi-billion dollar industry. In the days when yellow-paged phonebooks were still a thing, you could flip through several of those pages, all filled with ads for schools teaching Karate, Taekwondo, Kung Fu, and less recognizable combinations of Asian words. Nowadays, an Internet search of “Martial Arts Near Me” in many places, returns a map that looks like the skin of an un-vaccinated child in a dirty pre-school:
“What are you, a Chicken?” Pox
Clearly there is a lot of competition for students, and the disingenuous technique of promoting the character-building aspects of the industry while only winking obliquely at its violent aspects is wildly successful. It appeals directly to the concerns of nervous helicopter parents and others with qualms–reasonable or unreasonable–about the idea of learning how to hurt other people. But that’s the thing about marketing–it’s the art of selling you an unreliable car based on the rich leather seats. And as long as it doesn’t involve outright falsehoods, we generally accept being sold on the sizzle rather than the steak.
So let’s be clear: the point of Martial Arts is to learn how to hurt other people. It’s not building character, it’s not self-improvement, it’s not fitness, or discipline, or honor, or cultural appreciation/appropriation/approbation. You do not need to know how to throw a punch to be a more focused individual. Mastering the nuances of sinking a forearm under the chin of an unwilling person in order to choke them unconscious is not a pathway to being a more upstanding member of society. Practicing how to kick someone’s head off their shoulders does not result in enlightenment, just encephalopathy.
So let’s be clear: the point of Martial Arts is to learn how to hurt other people.
An honest, fact-based understanding of any subject is the mandatory prerequisite for addressing its associated problems, whether by social pressure or government intervention. (This is why millions of dollars are spent in advertising to confuse the public.) In the case of the Martial Arts, the emphasis on promoting the ancillary features of the fighting arts dangerously muddies the water for several reasons, most importantly in this context being the fact that if your product can be used to harm people, you have some moral–if not legal–duty to try and ensure those who buy your product do not use it negligently.
Now, to answer the question ourselves: no, it’s not reasonable to expect a school owner or instructor to screen everyone who signs up for classes. In a perfect world, it would be easy enough to do that there wouldn’t be a financial disincentive to run background checks on everyone before they hit the mats. But that’s not the world we live in–background checks cost money, students won’t volunteer to pay them, and many schools run on tight budgets as it is. Realistically this will not be something that gets implemented any time soon.
On the other hand, by the time someone has been around long enough to earn a black belt–a symbol of mastery of your style–those excuses no longer hold water. At this point in the student-teacher-business relationship, thousands of dollars have generally been spent on classes, events, uniforms, and chintzy gym swag. More importantly, in order to award the belt, an instructor has spent thousands of hours directly evaluating the person’s performance and skills–to the point they have significant knowledge of his or her character within the walls of their school, if not out in public as a potential ambassador of their lineage.
This should be enough of an incentive for the greater Martial Arts community to police itself. But sadly, if it were, this piece would be unnecessary. Regardless, when it comes to screening a student before promoting them to an instructor or mastery-level rank, the answer is yes, there is absolutely a duty to screen them before setting them loose on a trusting public. Virtually every other notable sport, especially those involving children and teenagers, already includes background checks for those in positions of trust. Why not Brazilian Jiujitsu?
The Offenders
The most recent instance of this issue comes with legendary Brazilian Jiujitsu figure Rickson Gracie promoting convicted sex offenders: Scott Naugle, instructor at Leverage Jiu-Jitsu, who was convicted of sexual battery of a child less than 13 years of age. Romolo Barros Silva, who pleaded No Contest to sexually assaulting three women. David W. Arnebeck, owns three martial arts schools. In 2013 he was convicted of molesting a 15 year-old girl, in 2015 he was promoted by Rickson to second degree black belt.
Rickson Gracie with Romolo Barros Silva, and Scott Naugle. (Via BJJEE.COM)
The problem in the Brazilian Jiujitsu community almost seems systemic. This isn’t the first case of a “legendary” figure in that community not only promoting a sex offender, but continuing to associate with him, as we detailed with the Rigan Machado promotion of rapist Paul Saucido.
Other black belts in the community continue to speak out, but the problem remains unchecked.
Gracie Jiujitsu instructor Mike Stewart Jr. bravely calling out the entire community.
As of this post, no action has been taken to strip either the rank or affiliation from these sexual predators, and they continue to be in a position to prey on vulnerable students–including children–who come to them, ironically seeking the ability to defend themselves from predators; or even more tragically, for discipline, honor, and self-confidence.
There comes a point when covering the constant assault on facts gets overwhelming, when despair creeps in and you just want to throw up your hands and walk away to preserve what’s left of your appreciation for the good things in society; like art and music and sports and memes and Korean barbecue-flavored potato chips.
Then you stop and realize that if everyone did this, if there wasn’t a single person to stand on the beach with a bucket against a tide of bullshit, then nobody else would have the luxury of making art and music, playing sports, or making memes and new flavors of potato chips.
Because it’s hard to taste anything good when you’re up to your neck in shit.
Let’s step back for a second and acknowledge a few things: from an Editorial perspective, Bullshido prefers to stay out of Politics. We’ve found that not only are there far more qualified people addressing the issues of BS in politics directly, there are far more unqualified people out there who are desperate to believe in the BS because it’s their implicit duty as a member of their chosen political tribe. Or to put it another way, people who treat their political party as a sports team–like any other sports fan–don’t get upset when a ref fails to call a penalty on one of their players; only when it happens to the other team.
And also like sports fans, there’s significantly more emotion invested in the outcome of “the game”, than preserving the integrity of the rules for future players.
The “Banned” List
transgender
fetus
diversity
entitlement
vulnerable
evidence-based
science-based
In the darkest fantasies of Alex Jones and Breitbart conspiracy theorists, if you read these words aloud and in a Russian accent, you would be able to awaken a superpowered, deep-state science sleeper agent (the Global Warming/No More Winters Soldier). But alas, this list was published in a piece by The Washington Post as terms that were banned for use by the CDC in applying for funds. The story immediately prompted outrage:
This is Orwellian: Trump admin gives CDC, the nation’s top public health agency, a list of words/phrases it is prohibited from using. Words/phrases are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” & “science-based” https://t.co/DBwHilmgZi
Astonishing: at the world’s preeminent public health agency, Trump Admin. prohibits use of these words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
(Not to get too far into the weeds here, but this kind of thing was exactly what happened in Soviet Russia, and one of the contributing factors to their loss in the Cold War.)
Here’s what apparently happened: in anticipation of planning for future budgets under a potentially hostile administration, an internal memorandum circulated within the CDC suggesting altering terms to secure funding for certain critical public health initiatives. And while this is a sad statement about the administration that this might be necessary, the key issue is that it was not a mandate from the administration as the presiding narrative suggests.
We’ll put it in terms they’d understand at the CDC:
Regular injections of Nuance are required to fully immunize yourself from pathogenic narratives.
Biting the Fans that Feed You
As a Science and Skeptics website, we are acutely aware that our bread is buttered more often than not by people who take issue with the Trump administration for a whole host of things. And while many of their complaints have significant merit, this one does not belong among them.
So let this be a reminder that when it comes to media skepticism, the first thing to be skeptical of is a headline you want to believe. You can pick up your buckets and shovels at the door and join us on the beach.
We need to talk about Victim Blaming, and that’s not going to go over well with certain people.
Of course, it is terrible to tell someone who has suffered a sexual assault that they bear any responsibility for what happened to them–regardless of what they were wearing, what company they were keeping, or where they happened to be when the attack occurred. It is never the fault of the person who was assaulted; period, full stop.
On the other hand, the people who believe the victims share some of the responsibility for what happened to them, whether out of genuine ignorance of how societies and cultures work, or conscious rationalization for their own dark impulses, are to blame for giving sexual predators justifications for their behavior; also period, also full stop.
But it’s those dark impulses that are the crux of this matter. Whether you want to couch this issue in terms of Evil, or Psychosis, or Bad Parenting, isn’t relevant to the most productive way of addressing it. There have always been and will likely–regardless of the emphatic assertions by twinkle-eyed optimists–always be those who want to hurt innocent people. And there has always only been one way of stopping them.
On Strength and Safety by Professor Jordan B. Peterson
#MeToo, and also, #F**kYou
In the wake of the #MeToo movement–encouraging victims of harassment, sexual assault, and rape to come forward and “out” the people who victimized them–many powerful people and celebrities have had their behaviors and crimes brought to light. The number of women who have spoken up with a “me too” seems to have finally gotten the point across to the general public that there really is a problem that needs to be addressed.
But as inappropriate as it is to reference a cartoon public service announcement, “knowing” really is “only half the battle”. The rest of the battle is getting actual justice for the victims, and most importantly, empowering people with the tools to prevent becoming victims themselves. And despite what certain ideologically-tainted voices in the discussion like to assert, it’s not blaming the victim to acknowledge that threats exist, and that it is both rational and responsible to prepare for them.
It’s not Victim Blaming to acknowledge that threats exist and that it is rational to prepare for them.
Stacks of untested rape kits
As reported by USA Today in 2015, tens of thousands of rape kits sit untested in evidence rooms across the United States with no apparent means or political will to ensure they get used towards prosecuting rapists. And what’s even more alarming is that several thousand of those kits belong to child victims. This should serve everyone as a bleak reminder that at the end of the day, you and you alone are responsible for your own safety.
This is why I’ve started telling my daughter that if someone touches her chest, her ass or between her legs without her permission, to punch them in the goddamn face. Aim for the nose, Sweetheart. You don’t want to catch their teeth and get a cut. That’s a good way to get an infection. You want nose or eyes, and maybe use that front choke Daddy taught you. Turn your forearms so the bone goes against their carotid and jugular. That’s what makes them pass out.
Regardless of whether or not violence the “right” answer to the problem is irrelevant when–at the end of the day–it is the effective answer. While academics argue the causes of sexual predation and rape kits go ignored by law enforcement, predators continue to find more victims. Perhaps it’s time to see about ensuring there are fewer predators.
“If she can get away with this, the b—-h has got to die. The b—-h has got to die.”
Just in case you were concerned that this is another example of the media taking something out of context in order to push a narrative, these words are from a 41 second video on YouTube entitled: “”Why Judge Karen McDonald must die a painful death”.
Judge Karen McDonald
(No, we’re not going to link to the video in question.)
Karen McDonald is a Circuit Court Judge for Oakland County, MI. Recently, she sent Rebecca Bredow, to jail for ignoring a court order to vaccinate her 9-year-old son. Bredow had agreed to the vaccinations as a part of the divorce from her ex-husband with whom she shares custody. She reneged on those terms and refused vaccination, prompting the week-long stent in the pokey.
Rebecca Bredow, Anti-Vaxx Mom
The good news is that during Bredow’s time in jail, the child was vaccinated, prompting much of the outrage.
Judge McDonald is currently presiding over a separate case also involving a divorced mother, Lori Matheson, who refuses to vaccinate her 2-year old in defiance of the wishes of her ex-husband.
Pseudoexpert Witnesses
Dr. Tony Bark, who did in fact not play that one creepy healer character from the later seasons of 90’s SciFi series Farscape whose name escapes us but who literally had a third eye which is a bit on the nose if you ask us and yes that’s a pun and yes this is a run-on sentence.
In addition to testifying for over an hour, claiming religious and personal justifications for refusal to vaccinate her child, Matheson called in Dr. Tony Lynn Bark as an expert witness to provide support for her arguments.
Bark, who is described as a “vaccination whistleblower”, associates herself with the quacks involved in the Anti-Vaccination movement started by disgraced former doctor and fraud Andrew Wakefield and the backers of the pseudoscience, pseudodocumentary “Vaxxed“.
Her testimony was challenged due to her lack of credentials in Immunology as a general practitioner, and Judge McDonald grew visibly frustrated with Bark’s inability to comport herself as a proper expert witness. At one point in the trial, McDonald lost her patience and had to instruct Bark how to behave on the stand.
“The proper court procedure is not being followed. I can go in the back and do the research myself and I have, and it takes not a lot of time to learn how to introduce an expert witness. It hasn’t been done. Read the case law,” McDonald said. “There’s a way to do this and I can’t do your job for you.”
Judge McDonald ruled that Dr. Bark can only testify about experiences “with her own patients…she’s not qualified as an expert in immunization.”
Facts Against Anti-Vaxx
In 2011, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine reviewed over 1000 research papers on vaccines, concluding that “few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines“. They also concluded that “the evidence shows there are no links between immunization and some serious conditions that have raised concerns, including Type 1 diabetes and Autism“.
Despite this comprehensive meta-analysis being available for over 6 years, there has been no sign of a slowdown in the movement of the most virulent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Instead, the level of hostility seems to be increasing, and death threats via social media are now the new normal faced by those who are epidemiologically and immunologically literate.
Bullshido does not do celebrity news, which is fortunate because neither of these people are actual celebrities any more.
And for regular readers of our articles, you’ll be familiar with both Jenny McCarthy and Steven Seagal as peddlers of bullshit in their own rights. So it makes for a bit of popcorn-munching schadenfreude when two assholes like these go at each other.
From the movie “Bullshitzilla” (not really)
Or at least it would, if the allegations weren’t serious.
In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement, people are coming forward in large numbers to recount their experiences of sexual harassment or worse, at the hands of powerful Hollywood celebrities. Strange as it may sound to someone who didn’t live through the 1980’s, at one point this description could be applied to Steven Seagal; and so could–allegedly*–this behavior.
Jenny McCarthy on the set of BASEKETBALL with Robert Vaughn, 1998
Former Playboy model and advocate against vaccination Jenny McCarthy’s story with Seagal goes back to 1995 when she was auditioning for a role in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. The actor instructed McCarthy to take off her dress because the movie contained nudity.
McCarthy says she responded “no, there’s not, or I wouldn’t be here right now. The pages are right in front of me. There’s no nudity.” At which point Seagal insisted she remove her dress.
“I just started crying and said, ‘Rent my [Playboy] video, you a**hole!’ and ran out to the car. I’m closing my car door and he grabs me and says, ‘Don’t you ever tell anybody.’ He won’t sue me or say anything because he knows it’s true.”
Seagal was most recently in the news for–despite renouncing his United States citizenship–criticizing NFL players for a lack of patriotism.
Under Siege 2 Young
The accusation from McCarthy originally surfaced in 1998. However, more recently Katherine Heigel recounted her experience on the Jimmy Kimmel show as a 16 year-old actress, calling for help to fend off Seagal. (This occurred on the set of the same movie for which McCarthy had auditioned.)
…the last day of shooting, and again, I had just turned 16 on this movie. And he said, ‘You know Katie, I got girlfriends your age.’ And I said, ‘Isn’t that illegal?’ And he said, ‘They don’t seem to mind.’ And I said, ‘Mom!’ I’m not making that up…”
Lisa Guerrero, correspondent for Inside Edition also accuses Seagal of impropriety, while auditioning for a lead role in one of his films. As she told Newsweek when she arrived at Seagal’s home for a casting call, he appeared in only a silk bathrobe.
“When I read about Harvey Weinstein, the reports of him appearing in a robe triggered me. That’s exactly what Steven Seagal did. I found out later that he was notorious for this.”
She went on to describe how she was later invited back to his house for a “private rehersal”, and on turning it down was given the role of “blonde beauty” instead of the lead.
Above the Law
Steven Segal no longer resides in the United States, so should there be any legal recourse for these or related allegations against the former actor, it’s essentially a moot point. Regardless, despite our efforts over the years to explain to people how the Martial Arts abilities on which he based his acting career are on par with his dramatic ability, the former star still commands the admiration of a significant, albeit cognitively challenged base of fans.
So like Gene Lebell did–allegedly*–we’re going to keep squeezing until the shit eventually comes out.
