Daniel Dvorkin @medigoth@qoto.org

"How would the average #atheist react if his daughter got #cancer? Will he pray to #science?"

When my now 30-year-old son was a baby, his mother and I had reason to suspect he had a brain tumor. As it turned out, he didn’t: what he had was a benign fluid cyst that looked *remarkably* like a certain kind of tumor on x-rays and MRIs. It took the most specialized of specialists, the Air Force’s only pediatric neuro-radio-oncologist, to figure it out. That was a terrifying couple of weeks.

I did all kinds of stuff during that time. I studied the subject, taking advantage of the medical library at the base hospital where I worked. I talked with military and civilian specialists about treatment and prognosis. I discussed options and plans with his mother. I braced myself for the horrifying conversation I expected to have with my parents when I told them what was happening to their only grandchild.

You know what I didn’t do? Pray.

See, I worked in the ER. I saw a lot of prayer. Patients praying for relief of pain. Their families praying for their survival. And chaplains praying for the souls of the dead. Because the patients’ and families’ prayers never made any difference at all.

But most of our patients survived, and left the hospital reasonably healthy and whole. It wasn’t prayer that accomplished that outcome. It was our knowledge and skill. The hard work of the medics and nurses and physicians—not just taking care of patients, but for our whole careers. Late nights and early mornings, endless hours of study and practice.

Many of my colleagues prayed too. They wanted God to guide their hands, and they believed that praying would help make that happen. I’m fine with that: whatever works for you. Me, I’ll put my trust in what I can see and touch. A whole lot of people are walking around today because that trust was warranted. I have no idea if God was there when I was working on them … but I know *I* was.

So fuck you for turning other people’s very real pain and fear and death into an excuse to evangelize. If you ever need care, I’ll give it, because I’m a better person than you. God won’t save you, but I will. Chew on that for a while: I hope it tastes like ashes in your filthy mouth.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-average-atheist-react-if-his-daughter-got-cancer-Will-he-pray-to-science/answer/Daniel-Dvorkin-3

"#Feminists continue to tell me that #feminism advocates #equality and not #hatred of men. Sometimes, I'm not so sure but, no matter how much actual man-hatred I see by self-proclaimed feminists, they assure me that it's about equality only."

"'There is no cause so noble it will not attract fuckheads.' Yes, man-hating feminists exist. Most women I interact with in daily life are feminists, including my fiancee, my mother, and a number of close friends, and I’m absolutely sure none of them hate me. Like any political or social movement, feminism is best defined by what the *majority* of the people claiming that label say and do."

"Then let the majority raise their voice against the minority. If they do not, the accept that opinion" [sic]

"They do. I’ve been witness to many such arguments. The problem is that, well, fuckheads are fuckheads, and tend to go on with their fuckheadedness regardless of what anyone else says. Look at all the men telling other men not to do stupid shit, and what those other men do with that advice."

Probably this is one of those conversations with no good outcome, but what the hell, I figure it's worth a try.

"You're thinking 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Now to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being the only way to know for sure is to open the cylinder, you've gotta ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya ... physicist?"

"Come and take it, #SCHRÖDINGER."

@freeschool right, I was talking about the concept of deep time, as described in the Wiki article. The reason for running them together as one word is simply that there's no way to tag phrases as far as I know.

The origin of the post was a conversation I was having elsenet about why modern #humans show evidence of #maternal #inheritance from #Neanderthals via #mitochondrial #DNA, but no evidence of #paternal inheritance via the Y #chromosome.

Their explanation was basically "our ancestors killed all the men and took all the women." Which is possible, of course: there are certainly plenty of examples of that in recorded human #history. But I have hard time believing it's the *only* thing that happened between two species (or subspecies: the line is fuzzy) that interacted with each over over tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.

Another and IMO more likely explanation is that #hybrid #fertility is sex-linked. e.g. the rare #fertile #mules are always female. If the same applied in this case, that would explain why the #Neanderthal Y chromosome disappeared in mixed #human populations.

There are definitely applications to modern behavior. 🙂 But really, I'd mainly just like people to get away from always assuming the bloodiest possible explanation for observed #biological phenomena, whether in humans or any other animal.

About the assumptions we make in #DeepTime.

It is a mistake to think of #nature as warm and cuddly. Many, perhaps most, #violent encounters between #humans and #wildlife are the result of the former treating the latter as #Disney characters.

One reason "#birds are #dinosaurs" made immediate sense to me was a vivid childhood memory: when I was about ten, I thought some #goslings were cute and wanted to pet them. #Mother #Goose had other ideas. Yeah, don't do that.

It is *equally* a mistake to assume nature is All #Killing, All The Time. Fighting takes a lot of energy, and wild animals—including our own distant ancestors—are in constant peril of #starvation. Even a minor #injury can lead to #infection and #death.

Violence is a tool of survival, to be sure, whether in #predation, self-defense, or squabbles over #territory and #mating. Unnecessary violence is a quick road to #extinction. Most animals would rather do something else, when they can.

So before you fall back on "red in tooth and claw" as a default, look for other explanations. They're usually more interesting anyway.

@sinabhfuil Herbert may very well have felt that it was a ripoff, but there's no actual reason to believe it. It's not like either Herbert or Lucas invented the idea of space opera! And the development of the idea that eventually became Star Wars is pretty well-documented. If Lucas ripped off anyone in the early stages, it was Edgar Rice Burroughs: https://medium.com/@Oozer3993/everything-known-about-the-journal-of-the-whills-outline-d8db1f1410ea

@sinabhfuil It's not. I don't know where the article writer got that idea, but there's no reason to believe it.

For once, a story about a new kind of #spacecraft #propulsion that's *not* vaporware depending on hypothetical #physics breakthroughs! Unsurprisingly, that also means it's a lot less exciting than the stuff that gets hyped as being able to take us to the #stars. Evolutionary, not revolutionary. But still pretty neat.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a60654632/next-generation-ion-thruster-nasa/

Nice overview. TL;DR: feathers are awesome. :)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-feathers-are-one-of-evolutions-cleverest-inventions

#birds #feathers #dinosaurs

It's so cute when #creationists try to sound sciencey. Like little kids misusing big words to try to impress the grown-ups.

I just coined "#Xycophancy" to describe the thought processes of #Musk stans and I'm very proud of myself.

@fatsam Rainbows, apparently. I mean, I kind of get it. Leprechauns can be vicious bastards.

@JamesBazan Uff-da. But you're not wrong.

Their entire worldview is antebellum, so this tracks. 😐

@JamesBazan Their entire worldview is antebellum, so this tracks. 😐

@cda 😆

"You think you have it bad? Lemme tell ya ..."

Stop. Nothing good comes after that.

Behold, a ... I got nothin'.