The Word of... meh.

One thing that I find… difficult about writing this blog is not giving completely the wrong impression of my actual viewpoint. Let me give feminism as an example. If I’m just going to talk about what I would naturally talk about, I’d probably end up being a lot more likely to be speaking against feminism than for it. Not because I am, but because most of what feminism says is entirely reasonable, and talking about it seems somewhat pointless. Let’s say someone is raped. This does not seem like something I can spend that much time on. Rape is terrible. Right to ownership of one’s own body is the second most important right, if you agree with the concept of rights. Or rape is treating someone as a means, rather than an end, if you’re a Kantian. If you’re a utilitarian, it’s a little lower pleasure at the cost of a lot of higher pain. What… what else am I going to say about that? Is there disagreement on this one? There is really nothing much to say. Say someone is found guilty of rape and is given a shorter jail term than if they’d been caught jaywalking? Well, I can tell you that that’s awful, and that that is a really skewed sense of priorities. But, again, I don’t have much else to say about it. There are no complex issues involved, it’s just wrong. I also don’t feel the need to mention that I disagree with the Chinese treatment of Tibet, or that I am broadly in favour of women getting the vote. I’m a lot more likely to mention it if I disagree with the feminist movement on something, since that’s actually a lot more interesting to talk about, and likely to require more explaining. Dog bites man is not news* – man bites dog is. That I don’t like rape is not something that’s worth your time to read about, or that I feel the need to explain – that I hate freedom and apple pie is. That’s one reason I try and avoid current events, since if I’m not talking about one particular issue I don’t end up expounding only those of my views that make me look even more like an evil bastard than I actually am***. Also for other reasons, but that’s one of them.

Now, in a normal blog, one written by someone with skills such as ‘planning’ and ‘vague coherence’, this would be when I’d come to the ‘but’ part of the post. But, sadly, you are not reading a blog by a member of that exalted company (and if anyone is still reading this blog under that false impression, I would direct them to the ‘next blog’ button at the top of the page, which random chance dictates shall lead you to greener pastures****). Thus, the preceding paragraphs have little or nothing to do with… anything, really, but are merely the insane product of my deranged imaginings. As, I suppose, will be the succeeding ones, so maybe they’re more connected than I thought.

Anyway, I’m a Christian. As you can of course tell from my unfailing love and kindness, my dedication to humanity, and my habit of burning at the stake those with whom I have minor theological disagreements. But I am also what is known as an apatheist. That rather rare word means that I don’t think it matters whether or not God exists. Now, many people would say that it’s quite important if an omnipotent being rules over the entire universe. Some would say that the existence of Heaven and Hell is a question that might concern people somewhat. I, however, disagree.

Let me start with the idea of the idea of the Irenaean theodicy. Which you’ve probably heard in a more basic form – but I’m going to explain it again in order to give myself a false sense of self-worth, and to try and justify to myself all the time I’ve spent studying the bloody thing. Also, my conception of it is mixed up with Hicks, meaning that it’s not quite the same as the traditional theodicy (not that that actually matters too much in this case). So, here’s the basic version: Ought implies can, you can’t say someone is wrong for doing something if they couldn’t have done anything else. I cannot really be blamed for the crusades, because even if that might be the kind of thing I would do, Christian that I am, there remains the minor fact that I hadn’t been born back then, which would make blaming me pretty unreasonable.

The extension of ‘ought implies can’ is that ‘ought implies can not’. If you can’t say someone is wrong for not doing something unless they could have done it, then you can’t say someone is right for not doing something unless they could have done otherwise. And if you can’t say that someone was right for not doing other than as they did, it follows that you can’t say that they were right for doing as they did. So morality implies freedom of choice – cliché as it is, a gun cannot be good or evil.

Which means that people without the opportunity to be evil cannot be good.  So, the argument goes, there is no point in God creating a world in which we do not have free will. The only way people can be good, is if they have the chance to be evil. Furthermore, one is only truly good if one is tempted to do evil – if one simply does the right thing because one might as well, that’s not really good.  Only a truly evil person does evil when it provides no advantage to them over doing good. By which I mean that I don’t think anyone does that, actually.

So you need natural evil, to provide temptation towards evil. And you need the ability to commit moral evil. Furthermore, you need not to know whether or not God exists. Because if you did know that there was an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being judging your every action, who would reward or punish you depending on if you’d been good or bad, if His presence were inescapable… you wouldn’t really be doing good. You’d be doing literally the only thing that was the least bit sane to be entirely altruistic the whole time. What’s more, it would be almost impossible to do good even if you wanted to – even if you would do something based entirely on the fact that it is good, the fact that you will be rewarded for it is pretty much impossible to forget. So without some kind of epistemic distance***** good becomes impossible, and freewill non-existent.

And that’s the important bit. Because if that’s true, it means that looking for proof of God is pointless. And it means that a Universe with a God should look exactly like a Universe without God – at least as far as we can ever tell^††. So it’s not important in that way. And if you did know, how would it affect your behaviour? Well we’ve already established that doing good just because of Heaven isn’t really good at all^{†††††} – if you’re really going to do good, it has to be altruistic, it has to be done because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s in your own self-interest^‡.

So there you are then. There is no good reason why the existence of God should either be possible to determine, or should affect what you do. And I’ve mentioned before that any God who cares more about worship than about good and evil isn’t worth believing in.

That leaves only one thing: If a particular holy book is the source of morality. That would make God’s existence important, at least as far as it meant that the morality of a particular religion was right. Fortunately, I’m a Christian, and used to interpreting the word of God according to my whim. IT’s kinda how we do stuff – the bible is the word of God as written by man, so it’s not inerrant. People interpret it according to their conscience... And the point is, you can do that. The Bible is the word of God written by the hand of man, and written for the mind of man… but, actually, that’s not the point. Because even I don’t know what I’m talking about most of the time. The point is that a good person can do nothing but evil deeds, and still be a good person – because being a good person is, by any reasonable definition, based on the person rather than the thing^‡‡‡. Which means that a person who works as hard as they can to do the right thing, even if they happen to be wrong about it, is a good person, regardless that they ended up with the death of millions. The point is the goodness of the person that matters. The other point is that if a holy book happens to be right in accordance with goodness, there is no way of knowing, so it affects little, and if it is true, it doesn’t matter if God wrote it – it matters what it says.

So… God doesn’t matter. His existence or non-existence doesn’t affect anything, nor does it affect anything in my behaviour. I am an apatheist. Not much else to say, really. Even though I’m sure I forgot something. So let me finish with a sonnet I wrote in Terza Rima. Because I’ve never done it before, and I heard it was really hard.

Lo! I can see, though ‘twas hid so well

Gleaming in darkness but hid from view,

Deep in the night time and lost in hell,

Devils and demons it’s wealth accrue.

Lo! I can see, that it’s holy still,

Rising from fire, and all made anew.

Should from its depths I now drink my fill?

Should I be careful of legends so old

Endlessly ancient, but perhaps, still,

Out of the ages, something of gold?

Beautiful flowers from knowledge grow,

Oh, How much more, from this thing extolled?

Just for few small pennies I’d know,

All of the things which can from it flow.

People were right. That is actually really hard… my congratulations to anyone who can figure out what I’m talking about. And yes, that actually is a sonnet. So there.

*Because those evil creatures will attack you the moment you let your guard down**.

**I am not a dog person.

***Heaven knows, I really don’t need help with that.

****I’d also direct you to Hitherby Dragons, because it’s been far too long since I blatantly plugged it.

*****Philosophers like feeling important, so they give things like ‘God not letting people know He exists’ fancy and complicated names like ‘epistemic distance’, hoping it will fill the emptiness inside^†

^†My love to any philosophers reading… though I would like them to explain why they’re reading this… just… why?

^††Although if you were to somehow compare the two , they would probably look completely different^†††.

^†††Although only as long as it’s impossible to do so – if they are possible to compare, they have to be the same^††††

^††††I’m pretty sure there is a clearer way of putting this.

^{†††††}If your name is Ayn Rand, you may want to ignore this entire post, by the way. Should probably have mentioned that earlier. Sorry Ayn.

^‡Unless, again your name is Ayn Rand^‡‡.

^‡‡You may think this doesn’t apply to you either, as a follower of Ayn Rand. But, unfortunately, the special treatment is just for people with that exact name. Come back when you’re on a stamp. And are called Ayn Rand.

^‡‡‡Virtue ethics away!... I make a distinction between ‘good person’ and ‘good deed’, and I make no claim here of which is more important, or of anything but the distinction between them. I simply ask that it be recognised that George Washington was a good person because of who he was, not simply because of what he did^‡‡‡‡. And that even though he was still a good person, his acceptance of slavery was kinda wrong, regardless of the perpetrator – and that he didn’t really do it because of a flaw in his character, as such^{‡‡‡‡‡}. Or if a man goes into a neighbour’s house, and lights a fire, so it will be warm when he comes home. But he accidentally lights the house, instead. The person is clearly a good person who tried to do something nice, even if they are unutterably stupid. The action (setting someone’s house on fire) is kinda an evil one.

^‡‡‡‡Which was, of course, to lead a totally unjustified terrorist revolt against the legitimate government of his people.

^{‡‡‡‡‡}Arguments about how flawed Washington was sound like things to avoid with a ten foot pole and a suit of armour. But ‘allowed slavery’ isn’t really one of them, I would say – in that time, and in that place, it was an absence of greatness, not a flaw. Incidentally, I have now surpassed my own record for number of footnotes, I think. Addiction to the things is one of my flaws.

A rant on Tony Harris

I'm in a bad mood, and I need something to be good and annoyed at. What can I think of? I need something that's not too old, so I can pretend to be vaguely topical. Let's see... Oh, of course! Tony Harris. I love you Tony.

Unfortunately, I'm also a lifelong fan of The Ballad of Reading Gaol. So this could get ugly. Yes, I know a lot of people have already explained why what he said is... utter rubbish*. But I don't care. I need to savage something, and this is recent enough to be somewhat relevant. For those of you who don't know, Tony Garris is a comic book artist, who said some stuff which was mildly objectinable to some people. I was planning just to quote the bits of what he Said** that I disliked, but so little ended up being left out that I decided to just do the whole thing. So here it is, line by line, what he said, and why he probably shouldn't have done so.

I cant remember if Ive said this before, but Im gonna say it anyway. I dont give a crap.

Oh, great! You're the last person we can expect long, angry, offensive rants from, then? I mean, if you don't care, then it shouldn't matter to you, right? So I guess I can just finish here if you're not...

I appreciate a pretty Gal as much as the next Hetero Male. Sometimes I even go in for some racy type stuff ( keeping the comments PG for my Ladies sake) but dammit, dammit, dammit I am so sick and tired of the whole COSPLAY-Chiks.

Oh joy. There's more. I must say, though, I'm glad he's keeping it PG. I mean, I wouldn't want any of this to get crude. But, anyway, we've done with his introduction, we're getting into the really bad stuff. Onwards!

I know a few who are actually pretty cool-and BIG Shocker, love and read Comics.So as in all things, they are the exception to the rule.

Can I just interject here to say that he's offered absolutely bloody nothing to convince me that his 'exception' is so exceptional as all that, really. What Harris is saying here is  that there are girls at comic conventions who actually care about comics. Yeah, groundbreaking stuff, that. Then he's implied that they're in a minority. This would be surprising.

Heres the statement I wanna make, based on THE RULE: “Hey! Quasi-Pretty-NOT-Hot-Girl, you are more pathetic than the REAL Nerds, who YOU secretly think are REALLY PATHETIC.

Minor aside: why is it relevant if the girl is 'hot' to you? Why is this an issue? Would everything you're going to describe from here on out be perfectly fine if it was a 'hot' girl doing it? Someone has to meet your personal standards of attractiveness before they're allowed to wear skimpy clothing, is that it? What is wrong with you?
Also, those speech marks there? I'm pretty sure that they never close.

But we are onto you. Some of us are aware that you are ever so average on an everyday basis. But you have a couple of things going your way. You are willing to become almost completely Naked in public, and yer either skinny( Well, some or most of you, THINK you are ) or you have Big Boobies. Notice I didnt say GREAT Boobies? You are what I refer to as “CON-HOT”. Well not by my estimation, but according to a LOT of average Comic Book Fans who either RARELY speak to, or NEVER speak to girls.

OK, a lot of that comes pretty much under what I just said, giving the impression that people who don't meet Tony Harris' personal standards of attraction should keep their shameful bodies hidden from view. With, of course, a healthy dose of insulting people who find the 'wrong' people attractive. Thanks, Harris. Thanks a lot. And then there's the other bit. Let's let him dig himself a little deeper, shall we?

Some Virgins, ALL unconfident when it comes to girls, and the ONE thing they all have in common?

Yeah, remember when he was talking about how these girls secretly think comic book are pathetic? I'm beginning to think there might've been the tiniest bit of projection in there somewhere. This seems like a good time to establish my credentials. I'm not, in any real sense of the term, a 'comic book fan'. I've read the really famous ones - like Watchmen, Death Note and Sandman - and I know who all the people are, but I don't exactly go out and buy the new issues every week. On the other hand, I've been to (non-comic) conventions, and I've cosplayed. As Two-Face. So I do feel that I'm close enough to the people he's insulting to be incredibly insulted by this. This is his description of 'average comic book fans': people, some of whom are virgins, who rarely or never speak to girls, and who all lack confidence dealing with women. No. Just... no. Go away. You are wrong, and not only are you wrong, you are also incredibly insulting to every single comic book fan ever, and I would like you to stop now, please. You're accusing these women of yours of secretly thinking that comic book fans are pathetic? well, then the difference between them and you is that they have the courtesy to make it a secret. Go. Away.

The are being preyed on by YOU. You have this really awful need for attention, for people to tell you your pretty, or Hot, and the thought of guys pleasuring themselves to the memory of you hanging on them with your glossy open lips, promising them the Moon and the Stars of pleasure, just makes your head vibrate.

I'll comment on this section in a bit, but can I just say that that is rather odd bit of imagery. It makes your head vibrate? What? Is that an expression. Is it just me? Do other people's heads shake violently when they're happy? Is... is that something that happens?

After many years of watching this shit go down every 3 seconds around or in front of my booth or table at ANY given Con in the country, I put this together.

And here we have his 'evidence' for his claims about the majority of women. The women he knows aren't like that, of course. But the ones he doesn't know? Who he just sees outside his booth? well obviously they're shallow 'faux geeks' who're just there to manipulate the poor pathetic men of the con. The fact that he doesn't actually know these people is irrelevant - the wise Tony Harris can just tell that those evil harpies are up to no good.

Well not just me. We are LEGION.

Oh, right. False alarm everybody. It's not Harris saying these things after all. He's actually possessed by that one group of demons from the Bible. Phew, I was really worried for a moment there.

And here it is, THE REASON WHY ALL THAT, sickens us: BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW SH-T ABOUT COMICS, BEYOND WHATEVER GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH YOU DID TO GET REF ON THE MOST MAINSTREAM CHARACTER WITH THE MOST REVEALING COSTUME EVER.

Like I said, I've been to several cons. Let's talk about DWCon 2012. I, as my love of footnotes (and the fact that I've probably mentioned it before) probably tells you, am something of a Terry Pratchett fan. But this isn't about my great taste in literature. At the Discworld Convention, there were a lot of people who hadn't read all the books. There were people who hadn't read more than one or two. There might even have been people there who hadn't read any (poor memory, sorry, I am genuinely not sure if any of the adults were completely devoid of Discosity). So, of course, we chased them down, lynched them, and hung them from the hotel balconies. Oh, wait, no, that's cults, not conventions. There is no minimum threshold of knowledge about a character you have to have before we will welcome you into our fold. The idea that we're this exclusive, borderline xenophobic group who won't accept new people and will exclude you for being different isn't only bloody stupid, it's also one of the most damaging stereotypes there could possibly be about us. Not to mention being the exact same thing we're always complaining at the mainstream for. And if you don't know anything about a character except that you think they look cool? That's awesome. And cons are a chance to dress like that without people judging you. Or locking you up.

Now, just to try to be entirely fair to Tony Harris, yes, there exist girls who'll use the fact that they're considered conventionally attractive to get some advantage. There's a guy called Pavlov who might suggest that if someone gets a consistently positive response from doing something, it's really not that surprising if they do it. And they're only at fault for it if you genuinely believe that men can't control themselves around attractive females. Now, I'm asexual, so I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that's an entirely accurate assessment. And even if you think it is unforgivable, there are about seven thousand million people on this planet. You'd expect all kinds to exist. It reflects on the female part of the population about as much as... say... Tony Harris, to pick a random example, reflects on the male part. Not to mention that 'takes advantage of being found attractive' is not really the same thing as 'enjoys being stared at by idiots'. If Mr. Harris had complained about girls trying to get free stuff or discounts for that kind of thing? That might be slightly more believable***. Since I can just about believe that girls at Comicon might actually want comics... Oh, sorry, they don't really have any interest in comics. Being stared at? That's what they like. I forgot. But, like I said, seven hundred thousand people, there are probably a few girls who do enjoy that kind of thing. But even then, if someone like that is at Comicon, they probably are still interested in comics. Do you really think that these girls would pay for admission, would want to spend all day around guys who, according to you, disgust them, and would spend their entire day talking about something they have neither knowledge of nor interest in, just so that these disgusting pathetic losers could lech on them? I don't know if Harris knows this, but if even I'm aware of it, it's probably common knowledge: Women don't tend to enjoy strangers ogling their secondary sexual characteristics. They have a habit of not taking it as entirely complimentary. And you think that these girls are actually paying for the service?

That's taking the most beneficial line. Here's a crazy idea for you: women who dress up to look 'hot' or 'sexy' don't necessarily want you to stare at them. Especially not in a society that constantly mocks them for not looking their best like good little eye-candy for the male viewers****. That's why you don't tend to be able to identify asexuals by our careless combining of vomit green shirts with hot pink latex trousers. People can want to look nice for any number of reasons, and not all of them have to do with wanting to have your drool all over them. I'd say that most of them probably do just think that the character looks cool, but, well, the majority probably genuinely like the character. Crazy as it might sound, 'reading comic books' isn't actually a uniquely male thing. And a lot of the girls who really like comic books? Well, call me crazy, but I think there's a good chance they might be at comic conventions. So, having dealt with that stupid idea, back to more stupid ideas.

And also, if ANY of these guys that you hang on tried to talk to you out of that Con? You wouldnt give them the f–king time of day. Shut up you damned liar, no you would not. Lying, Liar Face.

OK then. Insulting and arguing with people who aren't there. Because it worked so well for Mr Eastwood, didn't it*****. Classy insults, there, too. Here's the thing. If they're really that desperate for attention, why on earth would they only accept it in cons? Why would they not be just as appreciative of it outside of cons? More, even, since they haven't had to get all in costume to do it. Even if we take what you're saying uncritically, it's still bloody stupid, and even self-contradictory. In his rush to make these women evil, he's completely abandoned the secondary concern of making these people rational, realistic human beings.

Yer not Comics.

No, they're women. The difference? You can put comics in binders.

Your just the thing that all the Comic Book, AND mainstream press flock to at Cons. And the real reason for the Con, and the damned costumes yer parading around in? That would be Comic Book Artists, and Comic Book Writers who make all that sh-t up.

And here's the crux. He, as part of the comic book artists and writers group that invented these costumes, is then complaining about people dressing up as these characters. What? And he's complaining that these people are taking away the attention that he so rightfully deserves. OK, I don't want to say that he's just jealous. But it kinda looks that way, doesn't it? If people were interested in you? The press would pay attention to you. Also, the obvious. The problem is, you cannot say that these costumes are perfectly fine when they were made by the writer, putting a fake woman into a costume she has no control over in order to titillate the reader. But when a woman decides of her own free will to wear that costume? Well then, she's obviously a shameless whore who only wants attention. You can't have it both ways. But other people can (and have) made that particular point a lot better than I can, and I think it's a pretty obvious one. Let's get away from this part, now.

So now I'm finished, yes? Well, unfortunately, I am naturally fair. By which I mean that I enjoy kicking people when they're down. So, let's look at how he tried to defend himself, shall we? These are the two defences I, personally, know about. I know, for example, that in his second defence he mentions twitter, and I have no idea what he said there. So yes, there might be something missing from this. But the defences he's given that I've seen, I will deal with. Firstly:

So I guess I broke the Internet in half today . Lots of interesting commentary, to say the very least. Didn’t realize that many people would care about one guys opinion.

I thought you were legion? No? Oh, OK then. Really, why should it matter how many people hold a view? Surely it's a mark of respect to engage with someone's views on their merits, not just dismiss them because it's only one guy holding them? No? We should dismiss opinions just because only one person's holding them? So how many people need to hold a view before it becomes worth our time? Why, yes, I am being somewhat factitious. Back to Harris.

Also extremely savaged and humbled by the vicious response that went so far beyond any reason whatsoever, with personal attacks on my family, my sexual history, and accusations of advances being rebuffed cosplayers, which has never ever happened.

I can't imagine why someone would think you'd had a bad experience in the past. That's clearly giving you way too much credit. Obviously you're getting this from the extensive experience of just watching people outside of your booth, not some kind of actual experience. Stupid of us. On another note, there is a terrible tendency amongst humans, that when you insult people, they get angry. I know. Crazy, isn't it?

My candor and my delivery of most things can be and usually is quite blunt.

Your candour is blunt. You... actually, to hell with it. Moving on.

Can’t help who I am, but what I’m not, and never have been is a misogynist or sexist or any number of things I was called.

OK, somewhat arguable, but whether or not you can help what you are, you can certainly help what you say. It is possible for you to not be sexist. And even if it weren't, it's possible not to draw attention to this unfortunate deficiency. And if you do, you certainly don't then get to deflect it because you 'can't help who you are'. And from that speech? Yes, you are bloody well sexist. I don't really think you're worth a big virtue ethics debate, but even if such a thing is possible, a non sexist who says sexist things isn't really any better than a sexist who does. Actually, you could argue that they're worse. And do you really think, Mr. Harris, that there is a single human being in today's world (or at any time, for that matter) who actually thinks that they are sexist and misogynist? Ernest Bax didn't think he was sexist, he just thought that it was an obvious fact that most women had difficulty outthinking a squirrel, in the same way that it's obvious that the sky is blue. In his mind, it was no more 'sexist' to point this out than it is ageist to say that a two-year-old is likely to have difficulty with advanced algebra. Calling yourself non-sexist is pretty much meaningless here.

I have the utmost respect for all the women in my life from my mother, my sister, motherinlaw, my wife and wonderful 2 daughters.

But some of my best friends are black... that doesn't sound convincing for some reason. Weird. And for the record, I don't get along very well with most of the female members of my family (and obviously I don't have a wife), and it turns out that I'm the one who seems to have more respect women as actual human beings. Weird how that one works out, ain't it. Two other things: all those people are related to you. Congrats, you love your family. This proves what, exactly? You were actually a lot better off when you said that you knew 'a few' girls to whom this didn't apply. Seriously, if that didn't work to balance out everything else you said, what on earth made you think that six family members would do it? The way you've phrased that, it sounds like those are the only women in your life. The way you've phrased it also leads me to think you may actually have more than two daughters, but I'm pretty sure that's a grammar issue. And if you do have a lot of women you know and respect, can I just say that it seems slightly off to me that you should have 'the utmost respect' for all of them? I mean, it seems fine, but expand it to say 'I have the utmost respect for everyone in my life'. Well then 'utmost respect' doesn't mean much, does it? Personally, there are quite a few people in my life who I don't have so much respect for as I do for others. I have more respect for people who helped me out when I needed it, or who made me see the world in a new way, than for those for whom those things are not true. There are people in my life whom I quite simply have not known well enough for long enough to acquire as much respect for as I have for others. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I have no respect for anyone I don't know. It's that there are people who I truly, genuinely, respect more than I respect some other people. If someone truly has the utmost respect for all the women in his life, either he really doesn't have many women in his life (surprisingly plausible now I think about it), or he doesn't make that distinction, and all women are basically the same to him. You could invent cold fusion, surf across Mexico on a tame dinosaur, and be proclaimed by a choir of angels as the Second Coming. Mr. Harris would not respect you for that. The one thing he respects you for - and by implication, the thing about you that is most important and deserving of respect - is that you are a woman. In normal circumstances, I'd say that that was me reading too much into what he said, and that he probably didn't actually mean that - he's just talking in a way I can read too much into. Six lines from the most innocent man alive is enough to condemn the guy, so, y'know, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Given his prior statements, though? I'm actually not so sure.

This is my final word on the subject so move on. I won’t address it again.

Yay! He won't be writing any more. Nope, no more writing for me to deal with, no more attempts to defend... wait, no, that wasn't true. Honestly, it's getting kind of sad now. Picking on Tony Harris is starting to feel a bit unfair at this point. Fortunately, I have a sadistic streak. So let's see what more stupidity we can find!

So heres my follow up commentary. Tried to “engage” my detractors on Twitter. Big mistake. Not gonna backpeddle. Not one step.

Mixed metaphor! And "engage" doesn't need the quotation marks. More significantly, like I said, I don't know what happened on twitter, my Internet is a bit slow at the moment, I'm not commenting on whatever it was.

I tried to be clear at the beginning by saying I know there are legit Cosplayers who know the material and love it. So if you wanna gloss over that and accuse my statements as being all inclusive of Cosplay, then blow me.

The problem is, you implied that 'legit' cosplayers were in a minority amongst women. You said there were 'a few' who were 'pretty cool'. Then you said that they were the exception to the rule. The thing about 'exceptions' to rules is that they are rare. They are implied to be in the minority. The fact is that you did make a general statement, and you dismissed the people who don't fit your rule as the freakish exceptions. And notice how he says 'all inclusive of Cosplay'? No gender words? Watch that, because this is absolutely beautiful.

See, this is why I posted this HERE, on MY page. You dont like it? Leave.

Don't like? Don't read. Everything I say is immune from all criticism ever. I should be allowed to speak of my hatred for all you perverted sexuals whose squirrel brains are so full of sex it's hard to tell you apart from most baboons. I should be able to say that there's an evil Zionist conspiracy trying to take over the world, and that they're the source of AIDS. Hell, I should be allowed to write stories about paedophilia, and publish them here. I mean, it's my page. You don't like it? Leave. I am immune to all criticism.

Also, my criticism of what you said, Tony Harris is on MY page. I think pretty much everyone who criticised you was doing it on their own pages. You don't like it? Leave.

Dont threaten to stop buying my work, because Im sure most of you who threw that gauntlet down, never did to begin with. Good riddance.

Yes, noone who criticised you for those statements was at all invested in comics, that's why they got so angry. They were looking at your page because of their complete lack of concern for your work. Okay, okay, he said most. I shouldn't overstate his words, because Heaven knows, I already have enough to work with.  So I'll just say that I'm not sure I share his confidence and move on.

Hey all you self righteous f-ck-faces out there who are spewing even MORE hatred at me, than you accused me of spewing. pfffft. Really, thats how you come at me? Once you have moved on to hate on someone else….Good Riddance.

Like I said, people tend to get angry when you insult them. And, indeed, when you make them look bad. See, here's the thing. These people are expressing legitimate hatred of what you did, and by extension you, based on the fact that you are the kind of person who would say such a thing. Y'know, like the way many people would express significant hatred for Nick Griffin, based on him being the kind of person who would say some of the things he said******. You are expressing hatred of an entire group, and basing that on no evidence whatsoever - let alone on a text publicly available on the Internet that even one member of that group admits to writing. And complaining that they're being more hateful than you? Well, other than the fact that they have way, way more reason to be hateful, it kinda draws attention to the fact that you managed to 'spew' infinitely more hatred at this group of women than they were spewing at you, doncha think?

But the one thing I HAVE to address is the use of the word MISOGYNY. So I am a Misogynist? Why? Because I frown upon Posers who are sad, needy fakers who use up all my air at Cons?

Your air? I'm sorry, but your air? What the hell? Are you not getting enough air? Do you regularly suffocate at conventions? No? So what on earth makes air which you are not breathing and have no intention of breathing yours, exactly? And it's not just the fact that you frown on this behaviour - you pretty much took that it was negative as a given. It's that you declared that this group included the majority of female cosplayers. Let me make it simple for you. You are sort of like someone who says 'there are some good women in the world, but the rule is that women are whores', and who then, upon being called sexist, says 'Why am I sexist? Because I object to prostitution?' No, you colossal dullard, that is not the source of the objections to you. On a lighter note, notice how his entire original post was now about sad needy posers. Not quite what I remember, but keep watching.

Sorry, while you Cos”Play” Im actually at work. Thats my office. F–k you.

What.

What?

WHAT?

Qp;eln;afjkljh;ohal;irjfgjanht;lkafsjadsfljioeqpiurioqnvgnoqljurqiru[tu[pia[pori[poijinvi;lrjfiajioeur. Ahoiuqrioutohklnvlkrjfaoiutq[jgkjnz;kjfhoitgupoiq. Lihjfrouqhfnjgnvroqihtfgoaijklfja;kjhtopuqjiojgiht. Sqhoipjuipu. Dun do bheal, tu thoin. Ta me dairire, bi i do thost agus feisigh leat, tu chrionchnu leathcheann. Do chorp ar shiul o an diabhal, ta diabhal ro-mhaith ar do shon, tu plague ar an gcine daona. I wish you were an idiot in the Greek sense of the word, not just the English one, because then I wouldn't have to listen to you. I would never wish death on anyone, but I will say that I wouldn't wish you on the dead, you worthless creature. I'd say you were a baboon who learnt how to type, but that would be an insult to the educated masses of baboons everywhere. Hell, I'm not sure if calling you a plague might have been too much of an insult to germs. If he'd been writing about you, Shakespeare would've been forced to apologise to blocks, stones, and worse than senseless things. Just stop speaking, you utter bloody moron.

OK, I'll admit that that may have been a slight overreaction to what he just said. But it's a cumulative thing. I mean, I don't even have to explain why that if bloody stupid, do I? It is not your bloody convention Harris. You do not have the right to deny people the right to have fun there. You're like a guy who sets up a stall in front of the Parthenon and then complains about the tourists. No, scratch that, compared to you that guy is completely justified. What, you think the people at cons shouldn't be playing and enjoying themselves? Because you're working, everyone else there has to be serious on their holiday? It's not your office, because 'office' implies somewhere you have the faintest bit of right to. You do not have any right whatsoever to the dealer's hall, you are there by someone else's permission - just like everyone else, and the attendees? They don't owe you anything beyond the basic respect that one human shows another - and in your case, I'm not sure you even deserve that (sorry, that was unfair, I know, sorry, its just... GAH). It is not your convention, Mr. Harris, and you have no more right to be there than any other person in the room.

Not my clearest explanation ever, but the red haze makes it hard to type. Let's see if he can say something more sensible.

I actually dont hate women, I dont fear them either. Nor do I mistrust them. I do not portray or Objectify half naked women in my work. I never have.

Nope.

That? Is a lie. I have seen some of Tony Harris' work. The concept that he has never portrayed a single half naked woman in his work is flat out incorrect. In fact, let's do a Google search. For 'Tony Harris coplay'. Then let's look a the third image down (at time of writing) - drawn by Tony Harris himself. Yes. I can plainly see that Mr. Harris has never portrayed any half naked women in his work. The woman's the one at the back, yes? It's just so gosh-darn conservatively drawn that I can't tell.

I have always been VERY vocal about my dislike of that practice, and that my view is and has been that T&A in comics is a Pox. If you wanna come at me with accusations of Misogyny and sexism, youll be wrong. I think there are several Hundred “PRos” I could rattle off that are doing a fine job of perpetuating that crap without ANY help from me.

Yes. There are. And not just in the comics industry. Which is why you should really stop helping them. Here's the thing: When he says that he's always been a vocal critic of T&A in comics, he may be telling the truth. I mean, I haven't found anything to say so, but I don't know the guy very well, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But since what he said - and is now defending - is a hell of a lot worse than T&A in comics, I don't think this would actually increase my respect for the man.

Its not helping to further our industry.

No, it's not. Neither, for that matter, are you. Point?

Hey haters, Im not sad, lonely, stupid, uneducated, gay, nor do I wear Assess for a Hat.

Well, about half right. I'm pretty sure you're uneducated, and you're almost certainly not gay. I'm willing to take your word that you're not lonely, too. In fact, you must be the opposite, if you can afford to alienate so many people. Actually, I think I might be onto something here. Are there too many people around you, Mr. Harris? Do you want them to go away? Are you trying to drive them away? Is that it?

Also, I genuinely don't know what denying wearing 'assess' on your head even means. Your hat doesn't look at things? You don't wear an assessor for a hat? What do you mean, Mr Harris? Tell me!

Im not a Sexist, and have been very vocal about the fact that its a GOOD thing to see so many female fans at shows, and I treat them with the same kindness and respect as I do ANY male fan I meet.

Well you did say that the ones you knew just happened, by complete coincidence, to be the good ones, where you know the bad ones just happen to be the ones you only glimpse outside your booth. Amazing, that. Or are you saying that if you meet a male fan, you treat him horribly and assume he's an attention seeking slut too? Or is this just more of you rewriting what you actually said in your head until it becomes defensible?

And here's another thing. Whatever you may have said about how good it is to see female fans at shows, you've pretty much invalidated to positive aspects of it with what you've said, because by that you've set yourself up as the arbiter of who gets to come to cons, and who doesn't. Who's a 'proper' fan, and who should stay away. It turns what you said into 'It's great to have so many female fans at shows, as long as they're the right kind of fans'. It's not your con, Tony Harris, you do not get to decide who is a 'good enough fan' to attend it, no matter how vocal a proponent of women at conventions you might be. You do not get to judge women you don't even know as 'not true fans'.

I guess the one mistake I made in my original post was that I excluded Men. Let me rectify that… SOME of you MEN, are as bad as SOME of the Women Cosplayers, I talked about earlier.

And the transformation is complete, like the caterpillar becoming a butterfly, the statement has completely shifted. I don't mind telling you, I find it bloody beautiful. It's like one of those magic eye pictures, which seems like it's moving when it's still the same, except it's the opposite - it completely changes without ever seeming to move. Seriously, just try to apply what he said to men. What, they dress up in revealing costumes and get all the sad, loser girls at the cons to hang all over them? This causes their heads to vibrate? They just do an image search for the most mainstream 'sexy' character? Seriously, read his original post, and just try to apply it to men. Oh, and apparently now he was talking about 'some' women. I must have been mistaken when I thought he said that this was the 'rule'. Oh, no, wait, he did say that. Does he maybe not understand what the word 'rule' means? Or does he mean that a very small minority of men are as bad as some of the less ostentatious of the women? Which, of course, makes everything else he said OK. Seriously, just try to change is original statement to include men. What I think his new 'original' statement was is 'some female cosplayers are attention seekers' (And I'd just like to say that the sentiment that cosplayers are attention seekers and not real fans is really not one that's needed, so thanks for that, Tony). Which, y'know, vaguely resembles his original statement, in the same way that an opposition to Israeli settlement-building resembles the ideology of Hamas. If he'd actually said 'some female cosplayers are attention seekers', I'm guessing he wouldn't have gotten so much of a response. It would still have been rather insulting (and would've had some rather nasty implications), but he could've avoided sexism charges by including men, and he would've gone in the 'annoying idiot' category, rather than the 'torches and pitchforks' category.

There. Oh and to all of you guys who are my friends, and pros who I work with, dont go and try and defend me or anything I wrote. Youll just get sh-t on.

Oh don't worry. Anyone who was going to defend what you said is probably going to end up earning a hell of a lot of ire anyway. And if they don't, they deserve to.

Thanks though. And lastly, Bleeding Cool, and Rich Johnston are Sh-thead, scumbags, and this isnt the first time his camp has come after me. F–ck you Rich.

I do not know who these people are, but I feel great affection for them. I feel that whatever crimes they have committed can probably be excused.

That's all I have of what Tony Harris has said on this topic. There might be more, but I think I've savaged him enough for one day.

That was actually really cathartic. I feel a hell of a lot better. I'll have to remember to do this again some time. Anyway, I feel like being aggressively fair to someone now, so let me explain the Catholic Church's view on abortion, or at least the official philosophical underpinnings. It is, surprisingly, not that the pregnancy is part of God's plan. Neither is it the Thomist argument against abortion being extended. These are both reasons the Church holds to oppose abortion, but they're not the main basis of the objection. Neither is it, really, that 'zomg you're killing babies'. It's slightly more subtle than that. The argument goes thusly: We do not know when an embryo becomes a baby. This is obviously true, since if you ask anyone, even someone pro-choice, they probably won't be able to give you an exact age of transition. And even if you manage to find two that can, they won't agree. Now, the argument goes, surely given this fact we should be as cautious as is humanly possible, not because we will kill babies, but because we might accidentally kill a baby, and although it's obvious that, yes, it's absolutely terrible that a woman should lose the right to her body. But surely it's better that she should suffer some temporary inconvenience unnecessarily, than that we should accidentally commit multiple infanticides. Surely anyone would agree that overcaution is by far the better option in this case? And so the Church argues that all abortions must be banned not because we will end up killing babies, but because we might, and because the risk is too great, and the consequences too horrible, to allow. Now, personally, I don't agree with that argument. I remain pro-choice, and I'm not going to go into why, since this post is long enough already. But I will say that, in my opinion it is absolutely the best, most convincing pro-life argument I have ever heard, and I'm not sure I've done it justice. It's certainly a lot more convincing and subtle than what usually gets trotted out by the pro-life crowd.


*I have been accused of having an overabundance of the English habit of understatement.
**See? I can capitalise random words for no reason too, Tony. Look how clever I am.
***Still a really offensive, pretty sexist generalisation, along with all the other problems a statement like that has. But slightly more believable.
****This is known as 'thatcher's blame'. Either because it covers all instances, or because it's what the evil nasty meanies did to Margaret Thatcher (forgetting for the moment that this is basically what the opposition has done to every PM ever - it's, like, their job).
*****That might've been a little mean, yeah. I'm sorry.
******For Americans who don't know who Nick Griffin is: he's sort of like Romney, except we all know how insane he is.



A NOTE: I am aware I left out the sinti, and that I am still doing so. For this, along with any other mistakes that may have been made (which are probably a result of my limited grasp of the language, combined with me not checking properly, being rather more concerned with 'being mad at Tony Harris') I apologise to native speakers for the mild butchering of their language.

It's actually hard to believe that someone would seriously say something this stupid (OA)

Not really much to say about this particular post. I'll just say that I actually tend to focus a bit more on the issue of men getting raped than on the same issue for women, for two reasons: Because it gets too little attention, and because I find it a rather annoying reinforcement of gender stereotypes - men as big and strong, women as weak and delicate. Which in turn leads to the whole thing of  rape victims having being raped seeming to reflect badly on the victim. Just to make it clear, all rape is terrible, and I assign exactly the same level of heinousness to both. Oh, and I'll link you to Survivors UK, since it's a charity that deals with exactly this.  

Originally, this post was going to be a continuation of 'On Democracy'. But several people have said something to me recently which annoys me. Including two teachers, which terrifies me beyond belief. As well, a lot of people seem to assume it’s true when they're talking about the subject. So what is the statement? 'Women can't rape men.' This is a statement so complete in its idiocy and utter in its inaccuracy that it's almost beautiful. Unfortunately, it's only almost beautiful. So now you get to sit through an explanation of everything I can think of that's wrong with this statement. This is going to be a long one.

First, an explanation of how the male body works, since this is apparently a subject on which people are pretty much entirely ignorant. There is no really delicate or tasteful way to say this. Erections aren't to do with desire, or even necessarily with pleasure¹. That's why aces (like me) can have sex, despite the fact that I, for example, given the choice between having sex and being locked in a coffin for an equivalent amount of time, would choose the latter². Without much hesitation. And among aces, I'm by no means unique in that - or even particularly extreme. In fact, a lot of aces find out that they're ace having had sex regularly for some time (or, indeed, because of having had sex regularly for some time). All that's required for an erection is a stimulation of certain nerves. So the biological barrier that people apparently think exists? Doesn't.

Secondly, whilst we're on the topic of indelicacy, the statement reveals a startling lack of creativity. There is more than one way to rape someone. There several sex acts you could force someone to perform even if they were an eunuch, and that's without using the devices humans seem so obsessed with coming up with to make it easier. Vibrators, for example.

Similarly, there are such things as drugs. How different is forcing someone into sex through force, and forcing someone into sex by drugging them? Really? They're both rape. You can rape someone through force, through threat of force, through blackmail, through drugs, through deceit, or in a thousand other ways I haven't thought of. And the terrible thing about many of those is that the victim might actually help with their own rape - because the rapist, in a way, makes them want to be raped. Not, I hasten to add, because they want to be raped, but because they prefer it to the alternative of being beaten senseless and murdered, or whatever else the rapist is threatening. Or because they don't really know what's going on, and don't really understand that they've been raped until later.

Fourth, there seems to be an underlying assumption here that if you enjoyed it, it isn't rape. This is about as valid as the idea that it isn't rape if you yell surprise, except that noone actually believes that one*. Say you rape someone, and it actually ends up improving their lives. They achieve nirvana, and never suffer again. That makes it OK, right? No. You are still a soulless rapist**. It doesn't matter that it ended up being good for them; people have ownership of their own bodies - that's why doctors need permission for lifesaving operations. Completeness leads me to point out here that, technically, it is legal to give consent after the fact - since only the victim is allowed to prosecute someone for rape. But, just because someone enjoyed something, doesn't mean they're not going to be angry that you forced it on them. I enjoy chocolate cake, but if you hold me down and force me to eat it, even if I enjoyed the cake, I'm still going to be rather unhappy about it afterwards.

Which brings me onto my fifth point - that physical pleasure and actual enjoyment don't have to coincide. Buddhism was right all along. If I get physical pleasure from decapitating attractive women***, I might enjoy it, but it’s probably not going to be good for my long term happiness. The same is true of rape - getting physical pleasure from being raped doesn't actually mean you enjoyed it. Actually, when you think about it, that makes it worse, long term. Pain can be dealt with - I'm not belittling it, but humans are surprisingly good at dealing with pain. That's why torture is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. But if you actually enjoyed it? That can lead to lovely results like Stockholm syndrome, self loathing, and the feeling that 'my body betrayed me'. So even if the man having an erection did indicate that he was experiencing physical pleasure, that wouldn't make it not rape.

There, is of course, another way you could look at the statement, which is to assume that men are all sex-obsessed, and that there's no way a man could be raped because they always enjoy sex. This involves ignoring everyone ace or gay, everyone with hypoactive sexual desire disorder, many of those with schizoid personality disorder, and I'm sure a lot of other people. But if we do ignore them, this explains why no man in human history has ever refused an invitation to consequence-free sex. Ever. You could also look at the statement as saying that women are clearly far too weak and pathetic to force a man into anything. Even if that were true, there are these marvelous modern inventions called guns. And drugs. And blackmail. Actual physical strength isn't a barrier. I'm not going to add these to my count of problems, because they rely on the people who say that men can't be raped believing in ridiculous sexist stereotypes, and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt³.

Even then, however, there are actually more problems with that statement than there are words. That's never really a good sign. It's sexist, idiotic, and belittles the suffering of thousands of people. So before you say something like that, do put in a tiny bit of research. There's a statistic (here, for example) that one in six men will be raped in their lives. I'm not sure that that's entirely accurate, but the numbers are still really high. So don't make sweeping generalisations like that about subjects you know nothing about. And when talking about rape, don't assume that it's a man raping a woman. Using he and she is fine, since English doesn't have gender neutral pronouns (although referring to a rapist as it wouldn't really worry me too much⁴), but as soon as you start to think of rape as a man forcing sex on a woman, you've gone wrong.

This post turned out rather serious, but at least I got through it without descending into inarticulate swearing. So, to counterbalance that a bit, here's a fun game for you. See if you can find the Star Trek quote in the above post. It’s from The Next Generation⁵. Next time, unless large numbers of people say something else to me that makes me question whether they have the intelligence of a retarded herring, I'll probably go on with 'On Democracy'.

*For the sake of my sanity, I'm just going to believe that's true.
**Also, that has never actually happened.
***Which, I must point out, is an example from Sandman, not from my deranged imagination.

¹ It is possible that there may be a relationship between the two for some guys. But it's an 'if', rather than an 'iff'.

² This becomes untrue, for the record, in the case of an airtight coffin - I don't like sex, but I do prefer it to death.

³ Though on reflection, I'm not entirely sure why. But I'm still going to.

⁴ Referring to the victim as 'it', on the other hand, unless they happen to be one of the few people for whom that actually is the correct pronoun, is utterly unforgivable dehumanisation, and you should never do it. Ever.
⁵