Webathon

Do You Care About Non-Hysterical Reactions to Current Events? Then Support Reason!

From gun grabs to helicopter parents, freakouts over gender to insane reactions to terrorism, Reason is your place for smart, thoughtful journalism.

|

It's Reason's annual webathon and we're looking to pull in $250,000 between now and December 8. Your tax-deductible donations help make Reason magazine, Reason TV, and Reason.com possible. We're published by a nonprofit and need to raise every dollar of revenue we spend every year. We're not just a source for cutting-edge news and conversation from a principled libertarian perspective, we're your voice in every debate over politics, culture, and ideas. (Go here for giving levels and more info.)

And unlike just about every other media crew out there, we're trying to bring more than fast-twitch reactions to the news of the day.

Just a couple of months ago, after a mass shooting in Oregon, the country somewhat understandably freaked out—serious, traumatic events will do that. Within a few hours, President Barack Obama was immediately proposing various sorts of vague restrictions on the rights of people to own guns and tons of folks, especially elected officials and media types, were calling for a "gun-free America" to finally stop the violence.

At Reason, we took a different route—the same one we do after all sorts of difficult events. Rather than immediately grabbing for the "do something" lever, we pulled in breaking news, culled the best information, and offered up ongoing analyses and policy recommendations based both on new developments in that particular story and a longer-view understanding of how gun rights have actually led to significant decreases in gun-related deaths and violent crime over time.

And Reason TV's Austin Bragg put out this video that laid bare the impracticality behind the push for a gun-free America:

We try to bring some level of perspective and insight to all sorts of events that have most people—and certainly most politicians and media folks—going ape-shit. Remember when everyone was flipping out about Ebola? Reason's science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, wrote a piece titled "First Ebola Case in U.S. Confirmed. Don't Panic!" The story lays out what turned out to be true: that there was no reason to flip your wig. While CNN, The New York Times, and Republicans and Democrats were yammering on and on about zombie apocalypses and stopping flights from "diseased" countries, Ron kept adding more and more information until the Ebola fever broke, literally and figuratively. In fact, Ron has written a new book called The End of Doom, which passionately but rationally lays out the overwhelming case for "environmental renewal in the 21st century."

Do you remember when Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner? The right wing flipped out like Rex Reed at the end of movie version of Myra Breckinridge, amirite? No bathroom in the country is safe now, don't you know, from weirdos just waiting to watch your daughters shower or take a tinkle! Though nobody was forcing them to, an endless series of right-wing pundits stammered that they would. never. call. him. Caitlyn. Never. At Reason, we took the change in stride, as one more example of self-fashioning that should be celebrated, even if Jenner's driving skills should not.

When it comes to the trend in helicopter parenting—more like surveillance drone parenting, actually—we've been pushing back on the ridiculous notion that kids are in more danger than ever for more than 20 years. Back then, we warned against noxious, freedom-killing, and soul-crushing attempts by Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, and others to "child-proof the world." Now, Lenore Skenazy is preaching the gospel of "free-range parenting" and calling much-needed attention to a world in which parents get arrested for letting their kids walk to school, play alone in their own yards, or otherwise engage in what was once known as growing up.

I could go on—about the erosion of due process on college campuses thanks to phony statistics, say, or the supposedly godawful environmental effects of plastic bags—but I think you get the point: Among Reason's many virtues is our willingness to, you know, actually take a measured look at the most important issues of the day, ask questions, and factor in all sorts of information, perspective, and experience rather than immediately crying out for the next great super-fix for whatever ails us at the moment.

When the 9/11 attacks happened and the right and the left alike called for the suspension of all sorts of basic rights, we said no. When the economy tanked (in large part due to government interventions) and first George Bush and then Barack Obama pushed TARP, we said no. And when Barack Obama was beating the drums for war against Syria (and Libya, and Iraq again), we said no.

This isn't to say that Reason is the preferred magazine of Vulcans everywhere. More than most, we buy into David Hume's notion that our critical faculty—our reason, as it were—is bounded by our humanity and our emotions. At best, we've got imperfect knowledge that is provisional and subject to massive and wholesale revision over time. Which is precisely one of the reasons we bring something different to our discussion and investigation of politics, culture, and ideas. We know that what we know isn't all it seems to be. And we're not being coy here, like Donald Rumsfeld, whose bullshitting about known unknowns etcetera we skewered for the ass-covering flapdoodle that is was.

Where your typical right winger or left winger feels pretty certain of how to run your life, we're willing to admit that, as the great Penn Jillette once put it a great Reason interview, we don't know all the answers. Certainly not the answers about how you should live your life.

So if you like the idea of non-hysterical, non-reactionary journalism and you've got some spare change floating around, please consider giving to Reason's annual webathon. We can't do what we do without your support.

And truth be told, we wouldn't want to.

Go here for giving levels and associated swag.

And check out that Penn Jillette interview about how libertarianism for him is all about admitting the limits of his (and your!) knowledge:

NEXT: How Trigger Warnings Protect Religious Dogma in the Classroom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For a website called Reason you sure do make a lot of appeals to emotion. Why not just give the people what they want? Hysterical sideboob in the form of lobster girl!

    1. Seconded.

    2. How many families need to be broken up do to those borders!?

    3. Drink!

    4. CRISIS AVERTED

      Whew, I thought I was going to have to cancel my subscription.

      1. She looks an awful lot like someone I know.

        1. Oh, those lobsters all look alike.

    5. That lobster girl picture is unbelievably tasteless and offensive. You know she’s going to eat The poor thing, right? And yet you all salivate over this sick tableau every time it’s posted. Typical carnivores.

  2. Actually I think Reason could use a little more hysteria.

    /withholds check.

    1. If only as a palette cleanser for the past year of “libertarian moment” optimism. I’ll never get the taste of aspartame mixed with bitter tears out of my mouth.

  3. Spock? That’s straight up pandering.

    1. That’s a grab from “The Naked Time” episode. BOOM. You just got nerded.

  4. I remember a q&a session with Penn where he slammed an atheist who wanted to convert the religious.

    1. That’s not Penn in that interview. That guy weighs like a hundred pounds more than Penn.

      1. If Penn identifies as a thin man, he’s a thin man.

  5. How cute, Gillespie thinks his post on Cruz this afternoon was not an hysterical reaction.

    1. Something, something…newsletter.

    2. They also seem to think that all the posts on Trumpity Trump aren’t hysterical, dishonest pant shitting fits.

    3. Nick went back and UPDATED the article and
      STILL missed Cruz’s point.

    4. Spot on. But I heard it was the Jacket’s fault.

  6. Reason is your place for smart, thoughtful journalism.

    I am so Smart.

    I am so Smart.

    I am so Smart.

    S. M. R. T.

    I mean S.M.A.R.T

  7. Do You Care About Non-Hysterical Reactions to Current Events?

    Sure.

    Then Support Reason!

    Does not follow.

    Reason is your place for smart, thoughtful journalism.

    Citation needed.

    1. Reason is your place for smart, thoughtful journalism.

      Yeah, I was gonna say, “unless the topic is related to police”, in which case “Reason is your place for half-baked hit pieces that we’d all mock senseless if on another topic and from, say, The Nation – and intolerably smug comments”.

  8. I’ve objection to calling Caitlyn Jenner “Caitlyn”. People can change their names to whatever they want.

    I do draw the line at referring to men as women or vice-versa, though. Words have meanings.

    1. Which is exactly why Caitlyn Jenner wants to be referred to as a woman.

      1. Did you fail biology? 🙂

        1. Possibly. Fortunately I sailed through Philosophy, where we learned that biology isn’t destiny.

          1. It is an objective fact that biology is almost always “destiny”. There are a handful of situations where it isn’t, and the answer to the question “am I a woman” isn’t one of them.

      2. Sure, but Jenner’s desires are just her* problem, not a mandate on anyone else.

        (* I figure it’s polite to use the desired pronoun.

        But that’s not the same as saying that Jenner is now “a woman”, as a member of the category.

        One can hold that “her” is the correct, polite pronoun to use for people who identify as “female” without, necessarily holding that that identification – combined with or in isolation from surgical and hormonal or other treatments – makes them women.

        The two ain’t the same, and the idea that they are is faulty.

        I have no inherent essentialist fear of “calling MEN!!! women!!!!”, nor a belief that even physical gender is the same as “XX vs XY” [because we have XXY, for one…].

        But I likewise have no reason to just accept “a woman is anyone who wants to be called a woman”.

        This is a complicated issue with lots of emotional involvement and complexity all around, and I’m sick of being told – by people on both sides – that “it’s OBVIOUSLY the way I want and NOBODY who isn’t evil can question that!”)

        1. I’m slightly confused as to your argument, Sig. While you argue against a biological essentialism, pointing to the existence of XXY, etc., you also state that you don’t necessarily accept that “a woman is anyone who wants to be called a woman”. So, in your opinion, what makes a woman a woman? As you state, chromosomes aren’t always the best determiner, and I would agree. If you showed the average Joe a picture of someone with Turner’s Syndrome , I bet you would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t refer to them as female, despite the fact that they have only 1 X chromosome. However, you also seem to not accept the argument that gender is performative, that is gender is how one acts. So, perhaps you are saying that like color, that masculinity and femininity are qualia? If so, I find that a fascinating stance. Again, while we might define “blue” as a spectrum of light from 450 to 495 nanometres, proponents of qualia* would argue that definition says nothing about what “blueness” is. If masculinity and femininity are qualia, then we can imagine a version of Locke’s inverted spectrum thought experiment. What if you woke up one day and the rest of the world had decided feminine traits were masculine and vice versa? Would the whole world be wrong? Would it matter?

          *I am a qualia agnostic.

          1. This is an excellent treatise on the subject. Seriously.

            I’m saving my popcorn for what the Ultimate Arbiter says on the matter down the road.

          2. Thanks, HM. That’s an interesting topic I’ll have to do some more looking into. I’ve been on an archetype/forms kick lately, this seems somewhat related and might tie together with some of the topics from Personal Knowledge.

            1. You’re welcome, Sparky. For my part, I’m not fully convinced that masculinity and femininity are qualia, myself. But, as a theory, it has explanatory power in areas that the performative and biological essentialist definitions of gender do not. *shrugs* Who knows?

              1. One way I’ve been trying to think about things lately is “what do other animals think”. For example, do cats have gods? Can cows tell time? And now, how do dogs tell male from female?

                Humans are just animals with bigger brains. I know this makes us believe we can know things about the universe that other animals can’t, I think other animals can determine things that humans can’t. I think human children are also good determinants of how humans really think of things. At what point do children know the difference between male and female?

                1. At what point do children know the difference between male and female?

                  From what I remember about 1st language acquisition, babies can distinguish between male and female voices starting around 7 months.

                  I’m of the opinion that with the exception of higher primates, how animals conceptualize the world would be mostly incomprehensible to us. Without experience of the sophisticated sense of smell a dog has, I don’t think we would ever truly understand the experience of how a bitch smells.

                  1. Seven months seems like a reliable enough indicator that gender is not something that is solely enforced by societal standards.

                  2. “I’m of the opinion that with the exception of higher primates, how animals conceptualize the world would be mostly incomprehensible to us.””

                    This is weird. Last night i was having trouble sleeping and an odd thought popped into my head…

                    …that we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars and developed amazingly sophisticated technology to peer into the farthest reaches of the universe and inside the atom…

                    …yet we’ve still never figured out how to “talk” – even on the most primitive sub-lingual level – to animals on Earth. (*yeah, i know they did some sign language w/ apes)

                    meaning – take things like Dogs or Dolphins, which are fairly responsible to humans and at least pay attention to our behaviors or sounds and can be ‘trained’… most of what we’ve done is simply try to get THEM to conform to OUR signal-sending methods.

                    by contrast, we’ve done almost zilch over 1000 years to actually pay attention to shit *they* do and understand what they ‘signal’… if not in any cross-species way, even amongst themselves. The only thing i can recall as being sort of ‘significant’ was someone determining that honey-bees do little dances to communicate information to the rest of the hive… but as for our own ability to decode WTF those things mean? Zippo

                    1. by contrast, we’ve done almost zilch over 1000 years to actually pay attention to shit *they* do and understand what they ‘signal’… if not in any cross-species way, even amongst themselves. The only thing i can recall as being sort of ‘significant’ was someone determining that honey-bees do little dances to communicate information to the rest of the hive… but as for our own ability to decode WTF those things mean? Zippo

                      Amen to that. But it’s safe to attribute that to the fact that humans are egocentric assholes. We wouldn’t be where we are unless we were.

                    2. “We wouldn’t be where we are unless we were.”

                      IN YOUR FACE, HONEYBEES!! YOUR MOVES SUCK AND GMO IS GOING TO EXTINCT YOU ANYWAY PPTTTT

                    3. *” which are fairly responsible responsive to humans “

                    4. Well, I don’t subscribe to the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; however, in the case of cross species-communication, I do believe that as animals whose brains have been hyper-specialized towards as particular and unique form of communication, the centrality to language to our cognition acts as a “gilded cage” preventing, or at least inhibiting, the conceptualization necessary to understand the world from a pre-linguistic viewpoint.

                    5. “the centrality to language to our cognition acts as a “gilded cage” preventing, or at least inhibiting, the conceptualization necessary to understand the world from a pre-linguistic viewpoint.”

                      Yeah, i have some vague memory of this sort of thing i might have picked up in some “philosophy of the mind” course. Or maybe it was some rambling that WS Burroughs did in some essay.

                      I get that there’s some fundamental obstacles in ‘translating’ anything from a linguistic to a pre-linguistic paradigm… but my point was more about the general *disinterest* in the issue from a technological/research standpoint.

                      Maybe its just a practical thing, in that the apparent utility is completely lacking. ie. what could we possibly learn by ‘talking to birds’? (or learning how they communicate amongst one another)

                      “talk to animals? What for? So we can explain how delicious they are?”

                      My ‘couldn’t sleep’-mental-musing was more thinking about all the people who spend time and resources ‘searching for extra-terrestrial life’, when they can’t even explain their woes to a horse.

                    6. Maybe its just a practical thing, in that the apparent utility is completely lacking. ie. what could we possibly learn by ‘talking to birds’?

                      Well, it would answer several unanswered questions in linguistics, cognitive science, etc. concerning the origins of speech and language, the relationship between language and cognition and brain structure, whether Chomskian generative grammar holds true for non-human languages, etc.

                      Plus, this.

                    7. My ‘couldn’t sleep’-mental-musing was more thinking about all the people who spend time and resources ‘searching for extra-terrestrial life’, when they can’t even explain their woes to a horse.

                      Well, SETI researchers argue that any civilization that can sail the stars would be able to communicate through the “natural” languages of mathematics and logic.

                    8. “any civilization that can sail the stars would be able to communicate through the “natural” languages of mathematics and logic..”

                      01010101010101010 1010101010101011010110111100010001 0011001111000110010101 010101010101″Hello, Sailor!”10101101010 01010 110101001000100100 010010010101

                    9. So a few weeks or months ago when I linked an article on language meditating cognition and you dismissed it out of hand, it’s because the predominating theory is exactly opposite that model?

                      (You may already have clarified, but in the interest of studying pre-lingual modes of cognition I had gotten very drunk that night.)

                    10. when I linked an article on language meditating cognition and you dismissed it out of hand

                      Watsonian Behaviorists don’t argue that language mediatescognition, but that language is cognition. That is, cognition is an illusion and doesn’t really exist in any meaningful way.

                    11. Also, I wouldn’t say that cognition mediating language is the predominate theory; John McWhorter certainly disagrees, but that many linguists accept a weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis due to the evidence that the linguistic features of a language do seem to affect cognition in certain and very specific contexts (e.g., verbs and prepositions concerning motion).

                    12. Have you got a good primer to recommend on the subject? I find it fascinating but to date my one book on the mind was one of Dennett’s years and years ago, which I’ve lost and mostly forgotten, and my one book on linguistics was *ahem* Lakoff.

                      Lakoff also turned me into an insufferable prog for a few years after high school.

                    13. Believe it or not, Khan Academy has some good videos on the subject. In addition to Dennett, I would read (or watch) Pinker. When Geoff Nathan is around, be sure to ask him as he’s the Cognitive Ling. guy; I’m an Applied Ling specializing in the psychometrics of second language acquisition guy.

                    14. Khan Academy made me terrible at calc rather than merely terrible at algebra, so I can believe it. Thanks, I’ll check those out.

                    15. “This is weird. Last night i was having trouble sleeping and an odd thought popped into my head…

                      …that we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars and developed amazingly sophisticated technology to peer into the farthest reaches of the universe and inside the atom…”

                      THIS IS WHY YOU CAN’T SLEEP!

                    16. The Night is When They Reprogram Me

          3. The fact that there exist hard-to-classify cases does not mean that nothing can be definitely classified.

            For example, it is an open question whether viruses qualify as “living” or “non-living”. It is not an open question about a dog or a lump of granite. The former is living, the latter is not.

            Some human beings are born with hormonal or chromosomal defects that give them a mix of male and female biological characteristics. Saying if they are “male” or “female” is difficult. It is not difficult to say whether a human being with normal XY chromosomes, functional male sex organs, and no primary or secondary female sexual characteristics — e.g., Caitlyn Jenner — is male or female The answer is “male”.

            1. It is not difficult to say whether a human being with normal XY chromosomes, functional male sex organs, and no primary or secondary female sexual characteristics — e.g., Caitlyn Jenner — is male or female The answer is “male”.

              Ok, but that is a different argument than what Sig made upthread. However, the question remains as to if masculinity and femininity are qualia. Human cultures were able to conceptualize “male” and “female” before they had achieved understanding of what chromosomes were or even before scientific thinking. So how did they define what makes males “male”? If the answer is “well, they knew a man when they saw one”, then you’re accepting that masculinity is a quale. That is an ineffable, non-material, gut-feeling understanding.

              1. Human cultures were able to conceptualize “male” and “female” before they had achieved understanding of what chromosomes were or even before scientific thinking.

                You can leave out the word “thinking”. Even lobsters can distinguish male from female despite having brains 0.0001% as large as ours.

                We have concepts of “male” and “female” that predate genetics just like we have concepts of “hot”, “cold”, “solid”, and “liquid” that predate thermodynamics or chemistry. They are material realities of the world we live in; we and our ancestors have been (barring birth defects) either “male” or “female” for hundreds of millions of years.

                If humans were the *only* animals that noticed gender differences one could build a case that gender is a social construct or a matter of personal “identity”. As it stands, though, people are essentially arguing that while gender is biologically determined for all the hundreds of millions of gendered species on Earth, in humanity it is determined by thought alone.

                1. We have concepts of “male” and “female” that predate genetics just like we have concepts of “hot”, “cold”, “solid”, and “liquid” that predate thermodynamics or chemistry. They are material realities of the world we live in…

                  Not so fast. “Hot” and “cold” mean nothing objectively. They are relative to our perception of a particular stimulus. (And those perceptions are easily mixed-up. Haven’t you touched a piece of ice so cold that it burned?) There is nothing real about “hotness” or “coldness”; if there were, then we could definitively define hot and cold. Is 300 degrees C hot? To us, sure, but to a tube worm , it’s down right balmy. If hot and cold possessed material reality, then you wouldn’t see such variation in perception of the experience. You can’t say that “hot” is anything that is above a certain temperature, so, again, the best you can say is that “hotness” and “coldness” are qualia. A raw, gut-level feel. Don’t believe me? Imagine defining “hotness” to something that has never experienced it…say an alien or an AI. What would you say?

                  1. Not so fast. “Hot” and “cold” mean nothing objectively.

                    If you mean that any given temperature is not “hot” or “cold” in any universal sense then sure, but that’s not the context we’re talking about. To a human being, “hot” and “cold” absolutely do have objective meanings in that temperatures above or below our own trigger our thermoreceptors differently. We have this sense because if we are exposed to temperatures outside a fairly narrow range, we die. We (like other animals) have a concept of gender because without it our whole species would die — reproduction is obviously difficult if you can’t even figure out who to have sex with!

                    1. If you mean that any given temperature is not “hot” or “cold” in any universal sense then sure, but that’s not the context we’re talking about.

                      Hey, you’re the one who claimed they had “material reality”.

                      To a human being, “hot” and “cold” absolutely do have objective meanings in that temperatures above or below our own trigger our thermoreceptors differently

                      You are correct that within a certain spectrum, hot and cold are part of the collective human experience; yet, you go to far to claim they have objective meaning. Ask a Floridian and a Minnesotan to each define the starting point for “cold”. That doesn’t mean hot and cold have practical meaning and that we should stop using these terms, but one should recognize that there can be regional and individual variation in the understanding of those terms. Again, I argue that qualia can be a useful “out” for this dilemma. Unlike gender, we can’t have a performative (hot is what you do) or an essentialist (hot is 100 C) understanding; however, using Dennett’s four properties of qualia, we can avoid sacrificing hotness upon the altar of relativity by noting as quale it is ineffable, intrinsic, incomparable, and experiential. So just as hotness is, in itself the experience of hot; masculinity is the experience of maleness. Therefore, to define a man, one need not point to chromosomes or genitals. This has the potential to solve both the XXY problem and the Jenner problem.

                    2. Hey, you’re the one who claimed they had “material reality”.

                      Yes… and they do. I don’t quite get what you’re misunderstanding, here. It is like I’m saying “the existence of animals is a material reality” and you’re responding by saying “there’s no life on Mars”. Um, yes, but there’s life here and that means life exists. Hot and cold are objective realities of human biology.

                      Ask a Floridian and a Minnesotan to each define the starting point for “cold”.

                      Why? Two physically identical people will die at the same temperature extremes regardless of which state they live in.

                      So far as I can tell, you’re trying to argue that opinions matter, and that the proof of this is… that opinions exist, and differ. But reality does not give the tiniest of fucks what our opinions are. The biological reality of your body is hot, cold, male, or female regardless of what you might wish it to be.

                    3. So far as I can tell, you’re trying to argue that opinions matter,

                      No, I am not. And it’s also clear that you have no clue as to the difference between materialism and idealism. By stating that “hot” and “cold” have material reality, you are claiming that they are physical matter, which is absurd. You’re the one trying to impose your opinion of what “hot” and “cold” are upon reality. If you can’t understand that, how can you participate in a conversation about whether or not masculinity and femininity are qualia?

                    4. Ask a Floridian and a Minnesotan to each define the starting point for “cold”.

                      Why? Two physically identical people will die at the same temperature extremes regardless of which state they live in.

                      Irrelevant. The point in contention wasn’t at what point would a person die but the psychoneurology of thermoception. Again, for all this talk about the objective reality of hot and cold, you have yet to provide an empirical definition of the phenomena. What is “hot”? What is “cold”? What is “red”? What is “blue”? Because, in this argument at least, I define “hot” as a quale, my answer is that “you’ll know ‘hot’ when you feel it”. That is, just as you can’t adequately describe the experience of seeing color to a blind man; you can’t really describe the experience of “hot” to someone who hasn’t experienced it. Could you?

                    5. I guess ASHRAE should give up on Standard 55 “Thermal Enviromental Conditions for Human Occupancy” which is an attempt to empirically define what “hot” and “cold” are.

                    6. Convention, then? And an unwillingness to entertain another person’s delusions simply because it becomes politically expedient? (I’m fairly agnostic and tend toward going along to get along.)

                      I realize these concerns don’t fall under the “words have meanings” tangent this thread splintered off into, but I’m curious whether it has bearing. For example, I’ve noticed a repugnant habit among younger writers to use plural in lieu of gendered pronouns. I suppose I should applaud it as a cheeky sidestep to the sexist language debate, but it’s also a hallmark of lazy writing and reads wrong. If it catches on and I’m left standing athwart progress in keeping with convention, am I necessarily a throwback for eschewing nicety and keeping to the old rules? I see a bit of that, albeit awash in a great deal of moralizing, in the transgender pronoun debate. I’ll note that nobody outside its aspirants has yet embraced the innumerable “alternative” pronouns.

                    7. For example, I’ve noticed a repugnant habit among younger writers to use plural in lieu of gendered pronouns. I suppose I should applaud it as a cheeky sidestep to the sexist language debate, but it’s also a hallmark of lazy writing and reads wrong.

                      If it correctly refers to a universal, I don’t think it reads wrong.

                      “Teachers instruct their students” is no big sin, imo.

                    8. Oh, not at all what I meant. Truly incorrect usage like “Sometimes a customer pisses me off even when they’re being nice,” and that sort of thing.

                    9. And I realize tweaking the noun to render it plural would correct the sentence just as well as assigning it an arbitrary gendered pronoun, but the habit I’m seeing more often is simply to use plural pronouns, either to avoid the clumsy “he or she” convention or to avoid gendering it altogether.

                    10. I think there should be a general rule which states, “Until a trans-sexual personally slaps you, its not a problem”

                    11. Until a trans-sexual personally slaps you…

                      With what?

                    12. “”With what?“”

                      “Aye, there’s the rub”

                      if its something other than a hand, then you’re presumably in one of those “Crying Game” situations where you entirely deserve whatever you’ve gotten yourself into.

                    13. That’s just an error in agreement in number that’s all too common in everyday speech; I don’t think it’s primarily ideologically based.

                    14. Maybe, growing up the son of an English teacher and spending an awful lot of time reading and writing, it just grates on me. Or maybe both.

                    15. I hear you. I’m not much of a prescriptivist, but that’s one of my bugaboos as well.

                    16. “Or maybe both.”

                      Is there a rule up with which you won’t put?

                    17. “We (like other animals) have a concept of gender because without it our whole species would die — reproduction is obviously difficult if you can’t even figure out who to have sex with!”

                      I don’t think it’s pedantry to mention that ‘having sex’ is not always about reproduction, even among animals other than humans.

                    18. I don’t think it’s pedantry to mention that ‘having sex’ is not always about reproduction, even among animals other than humans.

                      Bringing up a fact that is both universally known and irrelevant to the discussion is a perfect example of pedantry, actually. Also, you should learn that saying “X is difficult without Y” is in no way the same as saying “X is the only purpose of Y”.

                    19. Thank YOU, Mr. pedant.
                      I was trying to point out, to those who might be thinking, that a bit of ambiguity in both the sex act and the choice of partners has not prevented reproduction.
                      Which is the reason I mentioned it was not pedantry; it is NOT irrelevant except to those who, well…

                    20. Oh, and Dan?
                      “Also, you should learn that saying “X is difficult without Y” is in no way the same as saying “X is the only purpose of Y”.”

                      WOOOSH!
                      You should learn to read.

                    21. But reproduction is the primary purpose of sex from an evolutionary standpoint,, without which it would not exist, secondary functions notwithstanding.

              2. They figured out makes were the ones with dicks.

          4. I still believe that Jenner is further evidence that anything touched by a Kardashian becomes completely screwed up.

          5. “What if you woke up one day and the rest of the world had decided feminine traits were masculine and vice versa?”

            Through a vote? Damn tyranny of the majority.

            Other than that, I guess Super-Man would switch to Super-It? Bat-Man would change his name to Bat-It and so on.

            1. “His mama call him Bruce, I’ll call him Bruce”

      1. I feel sexually exploited. I gave no consent to that hug.

        1. The way you clicked, you asked for it.

          1. DON’T YOU CLICKSHAME ME, BITCH!

    2. People can change their names to whatever they want.

      Then you should have no problem calling Caitlyn Caitlyn.

      I do draw the line at referring to men as women or vice-versa, though.

      OK. That’s got nothing to do with calling a person by their name, whatever it might be.

      1. Then you should have no problem calling Caitlyn Caitlyn.

        I’m sorry — was there some part of my statement “I have no objection to calling Caitlyn Jenner ‘Caitlyn'” that you found confusing or unclear? Because you seem to have come away thinking I *do* have an objection to calling him “Caitlyn”.

        1. Maybe it was the first sentence. You know, this one:

          “I’ve objection to calling Caitlyn Jenner “Caitlyn”. “

          1. Typo; in context “no objection” is the only way it makes any sense.

            1. Apparently, for Dan at least, it’s better to get hysterical than it is to reread your comment and realize you may have made a mistake.

              Maybe, one day, he’ll call out for an EDIT BUTTON!!! like everyone else does.

              1. I did indeed make a typo (how embarrassing.

                As for the rest of your reply, it does not surprise me that a person who does not know what the words “male” and “female” mean is also unfamiliar with the definition of “hysterical”. 🙂

                1. I don’t know what the words “male” and “female” mean? How did you come to that conclusion?

    3. “Words have meanings”.

      Wow, dude. I never thought about it that way before.

  9. This is the first time I’ve ever watched a Reason TV feature.

  10. When the 9/11 attacks happened and the right and the left alike called for the suspension of all sorts of basic rights, we said no.

    Because you can’t spell treason without reason. In fact, it’s pretty much most of the word.

    1. That’s it to a T!

      Har har.

  11. You know who else appealed to reason?

    1. Us, for Lobster Girl pics?

    2. Millions of people whom don’t know any better?

        1. depends. was it a white or black sheep?

        2. Was the sheep armed?

    3. Immanuel Kant?

    4. We can’t know this yet, she isn’t old enough to have such thoughts.

    5. Alan Greenspan’s Objectivist Dominatrix?

    6. Ayn Rand, you silly people.

      Not every answer is “Hitler”.

  12. When does Reason start sending out monocles as the donation gifts? Mine is all scratched up.

  13. What I’ve learned from Reason recently is that Nicolas Cage’s net worth will shock me and that an 87-year-old trainer’s secret to losing weight has something to do with three fried eggs.

    1. And you got to learn about that one weird trick!

      1. Wait…the one that power companies hate, or the car manufacturers?

  14. Also, I see there was a nice nuclear energy article today.

    FYI: LFTR is a far off technology, but you can do the same thing with uranium-235 in molten liquid fluoride.. and much more easily.

    Watch the first few minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Rg9V7JXic

    1. Molten salt, not liquid flouride. Just like sodium cooled fast reactors are not MSR’s (and a bad idea in general).

      And I’ve come around on burning U/Pu. Why require continual chemical reprocessing (and the proliferation risks) or significantly larger fuel volumes when you could just burn what we already have?

      1. Sorry, meant fluoride as the salt.

        And, if you remove the absolute requirement for breeding, the design of the core is greatly simplified. Simplicity is the only way this technology will see the light of day anytime soon.

        1. Flouride is an element. Salt requires flouride and something else like Li.

          1. Fluoride is an ion. I’m pretty sure he knows what a salt is.

          2. The element is called fluorine. Fluorides are salts: sodium fluoride,, calcium fluoride, …

        2. And I’m not opposed to breeders/converters, but the key technology is the MSR and not the Thorium fuel cycle. That’s what guys like Sorenson miss.

        3. Thanks for the link. 11:16 is EXACTLY what I was arguing a few weeks ago.

      2. Fluorides are salts. The element is called fluorine.

    2. That was interesting. I watched the whole thing.

      Is Canada a lot friendlier to nuclear power as he seemed to suggest? Have recent political shifts affected this, do you think?

      1. Not if David Suzuki has his way:

        http://energyquest4nanticoke.ca/suzuki.htm

  15. I like non-hysterical reactions to current events as much as the next guy, but I also like gratuitous nudity.

    I’m just sayin’.

    1. I might donate to Reason if they reduced Ken’s character limit to 100. I’d love to see him have to reply to himself so many times that he reaches the thread cap and then people could insert silly comments into his novels.

      1. I think you’re referring to Notorious…

        1. OK, both of them.

          1. Meh, John makes his own silly comments. Usually without realizing it.

            1. And John doesn’t usually talk to himself. He just incites people to argue with him.

      2. You read my comments because you love them, and you respond to them because you want more.

        1. Rape fantasies are downblog, Ken.

          1. I don’t fantasize about raping Sparky.

            But one time a crazy chick fuzzy handcuffed me to her bedpost while I was asleep.

            It was back in the ’90s, though. Everybody was getting fuzzy handcuffed to the bedpost while they were asleep.

            1. Crazy chicks were crazier and hotter in the 90s. Because there was no Twitter.

              1. Feminists have bullied women into hiding their actual sexual preferences so much–I suspect plenty of them won’t admit to liking or doing much of anything.

                We’re almost to the point where we need another Kinsey survey. Back then, people were surprised to discover the very existence of the great American BJ. Nowadays, feminists may be surprised to discover that they haven’t managed to stamp it out of existence with their bullying yet.

  16. Forget lobster girl. Google ‘Shaun Tia.’ Ginger perfection.

    1. Never forget.

      1. +1 nevar!

  17. Lenore Skenazy advocates a very conservative style of parenting.

    1. I guess it depends on what you mean by “conservative”?

      It’s a change from what maybe most parents are doing today, but it’s also a throwback to the past.

      Maybe the right word is “reactionary”? She advocates a very reactionary style of parenting?

      Only people usually call something “reactionary” if they don’t like it–they typically mean it as something that’s not only old fashioned but also undesirably so.

      We might need a new word to describe they style of parenting she advocates. We could use her term, “free range”, but I propose “Skenazyesque” because it’s hard to say and spell.

        1. That isn’t hard to say or spell–and it doesn’t sound clinical.

          It’s a Skenazyesque Liberum Tractus protocol.

  18. I like this Nick Gillespie character. He seems in touch with the Youth today. He uses their slang and jive. He’s one outrageous dude, and totally up in my face.

    1. He’s very popular. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads – they all adore him. They think he’s a righteous dude.

    2. He’s boss and groovy. He writes totally bitchin’ articles.

    3. I always pictured him as being something like this.

      1. He’s half Joe Camel and a third Fonzarelli

        1. +1 Leather Tuscadero. /slams wall to turn lights on/off.

            1. I forget. Which one did Fonzie date Pinky or Leather? I think it was Pinky.

  19. World’s Oldest Millenial

  20. Lets jsut roll with it dude.

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

    1. Awww! Anonbot had a typo*!

      /*if it’s happened before, I never saw it.

      1. It’s happened often enough people jsut mock it.

  21. Do You Care About Non-Hysterical Reactions to Current Events?

    Like Donald Trump, f’r instance?

  22. They aren’t hysterical, they just hate that Lyndon Johnson so much.

    1. Police in Small Alabama Town – Racist?

      This concept will blow a lot of minds.

      1. Explosive in that it is extensively documented, not in that it happened.

      2. Dothan isn’t a small town. It’s bigger than Pensacola, FL or Galveston, TX.

        1. Hot Damn! *city folks*

        2. It’s funny what some people think is a small town. I live in a small town, 1300 people or so. Over 5000 and you are getting close to medium sized.

    2. Holy chromoly, the comments!

      I think this guy encapsulates it well:

      “anonymous

      December 1, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Please leave these comments up so that people can see what kind of people this story shakes out of the trees.
      Please don’t delete them.”

      1. Yeah, saw those too. Pretty nasty.

        Lamar

        December 1, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        I want the public to know the author of this article is a known “black lover” , IT IS PROVEN THAT HE HAS DATED BLACK FEMALES. This explains his hatred towards us.

        country mom

        December 1, 2015 at 2:14 pm

        Totally agree Mrs Carroll’s son is defending the little negroes because he dates black chicks. the bible teaches the races should not be mixed and those who do shall suffer damnation. I cannot support a white man who does this. I am unliking the site on facebuk!

        country mom

        December 1, 2015 at 2:17 pm

        I want to clarify i am not racist i just do not think blacks should be allowed to date whites as the bible teaches it a sin

        Thanks for clarifying!

        1. I sometimes think comments everywhere are something of a rhetorical Ping-Pong match between =

          – Trolls impersonating Racist Morons
          and
          – Actual Racist-Morons.

        2. Yeh. Horrific.

      2. And these are grade-A lunatic ravings:

        SA you are full of it the identity of south Alabama is at risk here. I caution you to study the following advice and call out your neighbour for his sinful ways.

        The race of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph now the kindred AngloSaxonCeltic Christian peoples of the United States, the British Company of Nations, and Western Europe cannot commit to other races the supreme place which God has assigned to that race alone. The exalted position of the Bible’s Covenant Race carries with it worldwide moral and spiritual responsibilities, which no other race has the Godgiven ability to perform. This Divine commission demands of us the spirit of humility and love. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?”

        Let none boast of superiority for we are called of God to be His Servant Race. God speaks to His beloved people through the Prophet Isaiah. Note that the message concerns a future time when they no longer understand their past and their relation to the Old and New Covenants. Consider also at this point that the prophet’s message is addressed to the whole house of redeemed Israel, and not to the Jews. The Jews rejected Christ the Redeemer and His Gospel; they have never done the witnessing that God commissioned Israel to do; they are not a company of kindred nations; in fact, they neither do the work nor bear the marks of Israel.

        1. Continued:

          Here are a few statements from Isaiah to clarify the status of modern white Christian Israel nations:

          “Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent?” (42:19.)

          “But now thus saith the Lord that created you, O Jacob, and him that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by my name; thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour.” (43:1-3.)

          “Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears ?. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.” (43:8,10-11.)

          We anglo saxons are, indeed, a peculiar people. Chosen above all and segregated for service to the whole world.

          1. ‘We anglo saxons are, indeed, a peculiar people.’

            Quote from Paul Gascoigne.

      3. First comment =

        “james

        December 1, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        I don’t know about all the other things in this story but blacks do have on average 1 standard deviation (15 point) lower IQ than whites. Whites average 100 and blacks average 85. It’s irrefutable. It requires a 100 to successfully graduate HS. Undergrad average is 115 and graduate average is 125. This is why blacks are graduating HS but perform at 8th grade levels.

        yeah, that really changed my mind about the story.

        1. He doesn’t mention Asians, I wonder why.

      4. The Henry County Report encourages civil, engaged conversation

        lol

        1. Kicking back with some time I decided to explore Henry County. The Wiggins family seemed prominent. I’m sure George had the women swooning:

          http://www.algw.org/henry/famconnect/wiggins_d.htm

  23. No posting yet about Kayla-Simone McKelvey?

    http://patch.com/new-jersey/we…..ticipant-0

    Or what about Jabari Dean?

    http://www.therightperspective…..st-whites/

    1. I still can’t believe they haven’t done a ‘Where are they now?’ for Lou Reed.

    2. Jabari Dean was in yesterday’s PM links. I was unaware of the Kean College threat, probably because I was unaware of Kean College.

      1. Jabari Dean was in yesterday’s PM links

        Well, it was just fun and games. Hopefully, everyone was delighted by his antics.

  24. HYSTERICAL !!!!

    I LOVE HYSTERICAL !!!!

    I also like cheese.

    CHEESE FOR EVERYONE !!!!!!

    Except you. I LOVE YOU !!!

    You die last, unless you die first.

    CHEESE !!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KffrWrShGho

  25. OT, but always useful – top quotes from Alice in Wonderland:

    http://www.bbc.com/culture/sto…..o-remember

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.