The Gish Gallop (named after creationist Duane Gish) is a tactic that involves using a barrage of truths, half-truths, and outright lies to bury the opponent in a debate by forcing them to answer all of your issues and thus waste their time. Since refutations always take longer than putting out an assertion, you can be assured that it’s nigh-impossible to do. Even if they’re somehow successful, they will have almost no time to get their own points in, allowing you to continue the avalanche.

This has not only been used in academic debate, but also in the political arena, as seen when Mitt Romney employed it during the first presidential debate against Barack Obama. The Gish Gallop occurs to a degree in less formal settings too; talk shows, Twitter, and other conversations. As of the writing of this article, I don’t believe anything has been written about how to defend against it. After some time and research, the following are some keys to controlling and breaking the Gallop.

1. Keep the topic scope limited where possible. The more wiggle room allowed for any kind of Gallop, the more likely it will spiral out of control. If the bounds of the conversation can be tightened, do it. This will help prevent the Galloper from bringing up less relevant subjects and thus have less ammo. If they stray, then a simple “that’s not what we’re discussing” will eliminate that point.
2. Use the interruption strategy when possible. As seen in later debates (including Biden vs. Ryan), the Obama campaign wisely decided that disrupting the Gallop before it could start was their best chance, and it worked. If the Galloper starts with faulty premises or an argument, say so right away – but be quick about it (eg “That’s just not true.”). They will undoubtedly whine about it; one proper retort is “There’s no reason to waste everyone’s time with that line when it’s proven untrue.” If you cannot verbally retort, a bemused shaking of the head “No” will at least signal your dissatisfaction; more egregious lies will warrant something brief muttered just loud enough to hear. While this may not seem effective (and rude), it’s better to keep from wasting time and to value truth.
3. While it is not an optimal tactic, refuting your opponent point-by-point is still an option. In time-limited debates, this is (as pointed out above) nearly impossible. If your oppponent uses PRATT (Previously Refuted A Thousand Times) arguments, summarily dismiss the ones you can as quickly as you can. If some arguments share common false premises or conclusions and you can refute two or more simultaneously and quickly, it might be worth the time.
4. Finally, there is one last tactic that I have not seen used in debate: pick out three lies, refute them, and then use this as a platform to destroy the Gallopers credibility. This happens often in courts, where a person’s credibility can be called into question if they are shown to have faulty testimony.

I know, I know…more experienced debaters are looking at these and laughing, no doubt. Here are some possible objections to each tactic:

Topic Scope Control: You may not have the ability to control this, or the Galloper does not care about the topic bounds. There’s not much you can do for the former situation, which is why I mentioned controlling it “where possible”. Calling out the Galloper on the latter behavior (if it’s advantageous to you) should control this.

Interruption: Sure, it may seem rude (even if you interrupt in the nicest way possible), but real rudeness is letting someone build a case that hinges on a faulty premise and wastes everyone’s time. Of course, in many formats, this isn’t possible to use, such as formal debate. If the opponent decides to call you on this, you’ll need to justify why you’re doing it concisely (e.g. “Pardon my interruptions, but if we were building a tower and used marshmallows for the foundation, we’d waste a lot of time later putting on supports. Isn’t it better to correct the foundation earlier rather than later, to save us all time?”)

Point-By-Point Refutations: This might work well in an internet forum or similar setting where you can have time to research everything, edit, and so on, but a live debate is a whole other animal, and as noted, usually not possible. The Gish Gallop functions by throwing out multiple assertions in the shortest period of time, while refutations take considerably longer. In these cases, Unless several assertions can be dismissed in a small amount of time, it’s best to avoid this.

Credibility Attack: There is the danger that your opponent will try to frame you as an ad hominem user, even though this fallacy does not apply here (you truthfully pointed out your opponent’s lies and correctly called their integrity into question). They may also continue with their script that if you don’t address everything they bring up, they win (in their own mind). However, your objective is generally not to win over your opponent, but rather, to perform for the audience. If you plant and nurture the seed that your opponent can’t be trusted to tell the truth, you win. This strategy works best if you can show that your opponent knew that their point was a lie in advance of using it anyway (eg, they have had the scientific definition of theory given to them in the past, but still use the “evolution is just a theory” line). This will obviously fail if they don’t lie or you can’t show it effectively, and of course, you must take care to have a solid case of your own.

Further Reading:

• Rational Wiki – Gish Gallop

Twitter user @AChristianWord has been touting an article that claims there are ten reasons (read: strawmen) people turn to atheism (or more specifically, “internet atheism”, whatever that is). In the spirit of giving you MOAR, I’ve raised the stakes and delivered double that number for reasons that people turn to (or should turn to) “internet theism”.

1. Do you love to ask questions you don’t want the answers to? If you do, then internet apologia is for you! It’s vitally important that you never accept any answer, no matter what – in fact, you can find out how to deal with those impetuous enough to respond to you here. You don’t have to worry about the questions actually making sense or truthful – that’s for suckers! You don’t want answers to questions; you want to pretend that the answers don’t exist and that the questions are inescapable barbs. This way, you can repeatedly ask them to maintain that wonderful glow of smug self satisfaction.
2. On a related note: Do you hate being corrected? FUCK THOSE GUYS. As an apologist for your religion, you don’t have to take shit from people obviously smarter and better read than you ever again. God’s right, they’re wrong, debate over! NB: What your god says or wants is, of course, completely up to you. Think of it as being a win-win scenario.
3. Have you always had a shameful secret fetish of accusing people of loving infamous dictators? As an apologist, you can satisfy those dirty urges everyday without any real consequences. Don’t worry, hardly anyone will have the sense to let you know about your dead horse beating, er, activities. QUICK! Twitter hasn’t been inundated with the “atheism = Stalin” meme enough. 40,000 more tweets a day should do it! [1]
4. Did you ever feel in the least bit upset that Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, or some other atheist of note is or was guilty of the high crime of existence? You’ll make a great apologist! Imagine their scowling visage raining down pure contempt for you and let the hate flow. Ricky Gervais is taunting you right now! Do something about it, you wimp!
5. Got tired of being an asshole to people on XBox Live or Playstation Network? You know what you must do.
6. Pissed off that some people don’t want to pack up the SUV to desperately try to impress others at your church? Get back at them with apologetics! Why should you be the only one to take this nonsense seriously enough to get out of bed for it? Why should you be the only one to endure the crushing boredom, screaming kids, and horrible music? Vengeance is only a Twitter account away.
7. Do you want to claim you love critical thinking and skepticism and apply it selectively to things you don’t like? Yep, you’re getting it! Never be afraid to posit completely untestable scenarios as you sink every conversation about god (or lack thereof) into nihilistic nonsense, then claim victory. After all, evolution is clearly a fairy tale, but burning bushes and talking snakes are completely factual. If faced with facts, put the conversation in a virtual choke hold by claiming nothing can be proven to be true (except your god). Guaranteed to work every time!
8. Are you terrifically bitter because your only purpose in life is to hate people that don’t think like you and won’t do what you say? Wouldn’t it be awesome to cloak your stupidity with fake piety…and be lauded by others for it? Don’t you want a divine excuse for being an asshole? Apologetics has it covered!
9. Do you enjoy conflating the definitions of words until language is nigh-meaningless? You will adore apologetics! “Faith” will become “knowledge” and “virtue”. “Atheist” will mean “filthy, no good, evil, immoral asshole”.
10. Clearly your knowledge of biology, geology, cosmology, ethics, philosophy, and everything else is superior to everyone from watching two minutes worth of a William Lane Craig debate. Get out there and show ‘em!
11. You’ve always wondered just how much projection you can get away with. It’s not you who makes flying leaps of logic to embrace your religion, it’s those damned non-believers! You don’t have a religion, they do! Everything came from nothing by your god is fine, but everything coming from nothing by itself is bad!
12. You’re still enraged that people wouldn’t take your pretend time games seriously past age 8. Now you’ll show them. You’ll show them all.
13. Even your fellow churchgoers are sick of your constant blathering about religion. TO THE INTERNETS!
14. Someone got you a Bibleman action figure, and you’ve never forgiven them. How dare they not get you Twilight Sparkle!? The only logical response is to take your rage and frustration out on atheists!
15. Training for the Olympics of Mental Contortionism and need some practice? If you can turn Yahweh of the OT into the hippie Jesus of today or any other insane rationalization religion requires, you can take the gold when you have to explain why Kratos from God of War is actually one of the Care Bears.
16. Wish the higher-ups would recognize you for the devoted servant of Yahweh/Allah you really are? Wasn’t able to get a job at Fox News, even as a mail room intern? Build your street cred by being an internet apologist!
17. Ever wanted a hobby where it’s the norm to deliberately misrepresent “the other side” because you clearly know more about their viewpoints than they do (again, ignore any protestations to the contrary)? Do I really need to recite the refrain again?
18. After your parents were murdered in a back alley by a evolved mutant copy of The God Delusion, your mystical powers of apologetics manifested. After years of training, you’re ready to dispense justice.
19. There is no reason nineteen. Move along.
20. You obviously get into apologetics because atheism is a religion, and religion is bad! Er, except yours, of course. Again, Twitter needs to know, so 30,000 tweets an hour should do the job.

And there you have it. Twenty totally true and indisputable reasons why people get into internet apologetics.

[1] A clear variation of Nazi Tourette’s, ala this:

@KashifShahzada took a big scoop out of the PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) argument bucket and posted these to Twitter:

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 1. Its dogmatic. Rejects existence beyond what is within grasp of five senses. #Islam

October 3, 2012 12:05 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Yawn, more whining that atheists don’t buy into the supernatural because they’re “dogmatic”. What this really is doing is attempting to duck out on that stubborn old burden of proof by trying to cast non-believers in a negative light and summarily dismissing them. You want us to believe? Show the evidence.

Don’t worry, we’re not going to bother to wait, since both sides know the believers cannot and will not do it.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 2. Offers no moral code to refer to for your life. No rights and wrongs to develop character

October 3, 2012 12:06 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Atheism is also missing a killer sound track, instant ways to earn millions, and the power to clean the toughest stains out of your most delicate garments (though if you order now, you’ll get a second atheism, ABSOLUTELY FREE). Believers, get it through your head: atheism is not a “moral platform”, and no, non-believers don’t get their morals from you. Morality came before religion showed up.

Fun fact: The basic definition of theist doesn’t say whether or not there’s a moral code there either (nor killer soundtracks and the like) – only that the person has a belief in a god. Where’s the outrage there?

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 3. With no belief in accountability in afterlife, your deeds concerned with the immediate.

October 3, 2012 12:07 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Which is why we strive to have accountability in there here and now. A lot like theists do – which is why Muslims love beheadings and stonings as punishments in this life. (oops, was that a counter-strawman? GFY.)

If we knew there some “ultimate justice” in the afterlife, then the law and the courts become largely pointless – yet believers regularly make use of them. Odd, that.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 4. You will look stupid when you'll talk like: "I don't see it, therefore its not there!"

October 3, 2012 12:07 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

I wonder who’s actually saying this. Pretty sure the number is approaching zero.

I can’t see at the quantum level, but I don’t go saying it doesn’t exist, and about no one else does either.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 5. You will have no motivation to do good, when you believe goodness won't be rewarded by God

October 3, 2012 12:08 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

And yet (organically) secularized and largely atheist countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, and others top the Human Development Index scores, putting the lie to the whole “herp derp atheists don’ have no morals” bit.

Meanwhile Muslims are busy stoning women who slip a bit too much face and saying that beheading people is okay if they’re apostates. Why be good when you can just get a shot of forgiveness any ol’ time? Just pray to god, and there you go! Sin absolved, no guilt required. Murder all you want! Steal anything! It’s alright, Yahweh/Allah/whatever said it’s okay.

Don’t like my “simplistic mischaracterization” of your religion? COME GET SOME.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 6. You will be sharing the belief of mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their like

October 3, 2012 12:08 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

All of these people were secret Muslims and killed in the name of Islam.

What? “That’s not true!!” you cry? EXACTLY MY POINT. Quit retreading this stupid bullshit. The number of atheists who are atheist because of these psychopaths’ issues is next to zero, and there’s no “atheism manifesto” that demands this sort of behavior.

Oh yes: Even if we pretend otherwise and accept this moronic claim, the atheist kill count is still way below the religious kill count. So Kash, why are you religious again? Please, don’t use any “no true religionist” argument.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 7. No contribution to humanity. No schools, no hospitals, no orphanages ever made by Atheism

October 3, 2012 12:10 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Wait, wait, wait…first the claim is that atheists are guilty by association with Stalin, etc, but naturally never get credit by association. I geddit!

You know that internet thing you’re on? With all the computers? Alan Turing (gay atheist) helped develop said computers. Bill Gates (atheist) did that whole “Windows” and “Internet Explorer” (like it or hate it, many people use it) bit. Do I need to go on? No?

More to the point, why does this matter? How does this in any way prove the truth of the issue?

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 8. Science is not the monopoly of Atheism. Numerous scientists who followed a religion.

October 3, 2012 12:11 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Who is saying it is, and more importantly, who cares? Is it that science keeps showing creationists and others the folly of their beliefs and that’s something you morons will not stand for?

And yes, if you’re beginning to suspect that Kashif only has red herrings instead of actual reasons, you’re not alone.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 9. It isn't the normal & commonplace belief. You'll be the odd man out. No social acceptance.

October 3, 2012 12:12 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Except that more and more it is becoming “normal” as religion is in decline. Sorry you hate your fellow human beings for being different. You might want to see a therapist about that.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 10. You'll be common with Serial Killers like Jeffery Dahmer who saw Atheism as his motivation

October 3, 2012 12:13 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

…but beheading people for apostasy and stoning and beating women on your religion’s excuse is a-okay!

Again, see the “Stalin, et. al.” bit. I feel like I’ve seen these tactics somewhere…

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 11. Does not give you a structure and disciplined life style for self betterment

October 3, 2012 12:14 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

See above about killer soundtracks. Kash has not a damn clue what atheism is. Like most apologists who need to make the “My religion good! Atheism BAD!” argument, he can’t help but mischaracterize it.

A dozen reasons why #Atheism is a bad choice 12. It will never satisfy your heart, mind and spirit.

October 3, 2012 12:15 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KashifShahzada

Kashif Shahzada

Plagiarizing Hitchens here a bit: “Beliefs that explain everything, explain nothing.”

Where do these apologists get the notion that atheists only try to use atheism to live their life? Ever considered a hobby or two, Kash?

After endless convolutions about agnostic this and atheist that, I figured out that all I had to do to show that no faith, belief or justification for any god, devil, sprite, fairy, or what not was to take a few lessons from their respective mythologies, and eat them all. That’s right, I ate all those silly deities and demons. There’s no need to believe in them any longer. Everyone can be a gnostic atheist now without guilt or shame.

But you can’t possibly have done that!

Sure I could. In fact, I did. I just took a few ideas from the godbots, like turning their god into food and eating said food. It was easy.

That’s not how it works!

I’m already a Doctor of Disbelief and a ordinated Dude, as well as a Universal Life Church minister. That gives me plenty of theological cred; more than I ever needed, in fact. In addition, I have the ability to eat. That’s all I needed. Who are you to say that’s not how it works?

My god is all powerful! There’s no way you could just eat him!

I beg to differ. Christians do it all the time. All I had to do was invoke my summoning and transubstantiation powers which I can prove to myself works 100% of the time to put all gods, past, present, and future, into the form of a basket of chicken strips. From there, it was an easy matter of chowing down.

But…you have no proof or evidence that you can do this!

You’re an unbeliever in my powers, so it’s not like you’ll ever understand them. I would show you evidence but it’s clear you have a bias against my super god-eating powers. You have to have faith. You can’t prove that I can’t do it. What’s the proof and evidence that shows anti-deity dining is accurate and correct? Whenever I ask you folks this, you always chicken out and change the subject or say it doesn’t make sense. Why do you think you have absolute knowledge? You’re really an agnostic about god-eating which means that you actually believe that I did it. I have books and writings that I wrote that prove all of it but since you don’t believe, your interpretations and evaluations are invalid. Anti-deity diners are all immoral because how could you not be a Hitler or Stalin if you don’t believe in my ability to eat gods?

Even if you somehow ate all those gods, you didn’t undo their work!

Sure I did. Eating a god undoes what they did and replaces it with completely natural causes. Everyone knows that, unless you’re dumb. That’s how the god game works.

Well, I just magic’ed my god(s) back into existence.

Nope. I already know you don’t have that ability or anything else that would restore them, or create new ones. It’s permanent and no more can come. I know because I’m the only True God Eater™ in existence. This blog says so, and cannot be refuted. I know in my heart that it’s true, ergo it is.

This is…this is incredibly stupid and unsophisticated.

I understand that you’re angry and jealous that you didn’t get my awesome powers, but don’t worry. There are plenty of chicken strips to be had, and I’m sure they’re just as tasty. I feel no need to make this overcomplicated. Accept that they’re gone and move on with your life.

Now believers, do you see how it works? Do you see that you want real evidence too? That if the likes of me can claim that they ate your god without needing to give any real evidence that you can’t whine about evidence, since you’ll never give any that stands up under scrutiny? Do you start to get a feeling for the frustrations of the unbeliever?

Many hours have been spent by many secularists, nonbelievers, and the like saying and proving that the USA is not indeed a “Christian nation”, that the founders were at best, deists, and showing that many of them opposed Christianity. While their refutations and the like are generally on the mark, the idea still holds sway. It’s easy to dismiss this as the religious not accepting rational arguments, but when this pernicious lie (like many) maintains traction, those pushing against it should be asking if they’re communicating the idea effectively enough. The answer is that they’re not.

To understand why, we need to know a little bit about frames and framing. These are concepts from George Lakoff, and are explained in his books Don’t Think of an Elephant! and The Political Mind (note: as of this writing, I’ve only started into the latter book). To some degree, frames can be thought as “tropes” from the popular (and addicting) site TV Tropes. For example, consider “Cinderella Story”. If this instantly makes you think of a tale involving someone who is in a disadvantageous situation (actual or perceived low status, resources, skills, etc.), oppressed by rivals, who manages to escape their situation, that’s the frame at work.

The complication of frames is that trying to counteract one is almost never done by refuting them with facts, logic, and reason. You can’t simply say “this is NOT a Cinderella story” for a few reasons. Lakoff reminds us in Elephant that we can’t say “don’t think of this frame” and expect it to work; to negate something, we must think of it. This has the effect of making us think of the frame it involves, and then do the work of tearing it down, which is much harder than say, advancing a different frame.

How does this apply to “Christian nation”? This phrase in itself is a frame, and its meaning and implications need to be understood. For most of the populace, “Christian” has powerful associations with “good” or “moral” (note: I’m not endorsing it as such). Much of the American narrative has been about being “the Good Guy”, so us being a “Christian nation” seems to go right along with that – nonbelievers and people of other faiths be damned. The people that peddle the “Christian nation” know what they’re doing; they don’t care if it’s not factual. Reinforce the frame enough, and it becomes good enough for a majority – which is what we’re seeing now in the US.

Most secularists unknowingly fall right into the frame trap that’s been set without ever knowing it. Saying and debating that “this is NOT a Christian nation” is not enough – in fact, it reinforces the problem. The people that are on the end of these statements and fact-checks take it as an attack, and usually react accordingly – that is, completely defensively. To say the US is not a “Christian nation” brings up images of an “evil America”, something that the narrative of “the Good Guy nation” won’t tolerate. Finally, pointing out the hypocrisy of most advocates of the “Christian nation” frame hate, distrust, and fear government and often want it to leave them alone, yet want said government to push their dogma for them is intellectually and morally satisfying, but not so useful for changing minds…on it’s own, anyhow.

If “not a Christian nation” isn’t effective, what can we turn to? How do we effectively counteract the “Christian nation” frame? Again, we don’t do it by showing that Thomas Jefferson said this, Thomas Paine did that, the Constitution says this, and so on. These are no doubt important, but without the frame to “contain” and unite them, they will not be effective. “Secular nation” is acceptable to non-believers, but “secular” has taken on a negative meaning with most. So what now?

I don’t have a battle-tested answer as of yet, but I do have a few ideas. One of the lasting frames about America is one of “freedom” and “free country”. To appeal to the freedom to worship as one pleases (or not at all), “Freedom of Faith Nation” might be a start. (Unskillfully) Arguing against this frame automatically implies that the detractor doesn’t like freedom – something diametrically opposed to the common association of the USA to freedom.

What else might work? We could take advantage of the common fear of the government as mentioned earlier (though this might reinforce said fear). We need a frame that elicits thoughts of having to stand in dreary lines for hours to fill out forms to practice sacraments only to be told, again, that we’re in the wrong line, have the wrong papers, or otherwise have to undertake the agonizing task of doing it all over. “Socialist Religion”, “Statist Religion”, “Religious Welfare” or “Government-subsidized Religion” are some options to start from. Note: We should avoid using imagery where “Christian soldiers” threaten people to convert at gunpoint; I have a suspicion that many of these types wouldn’t mind that. Keep the focus on what they’d have to suffer.

Are these fully formed frames yet? Not entirely. These are merely seeds, and I’m interested to hear what others think.

You’ve likely heard of the “crabs in a barrel” tale before; it’s that whenever a crab tries to climb out of a barrel, the others will, without fail, attempt to pull down the one trying to pull itself out. It’s a tale about how it can be hard to pull oneself out of a situation because of the environmental and social factors that surround you.

When Atheism+ first came out, I thought it was a good idea. Maybe not for me; I’m not too much of a first adopter, and figure humanism’s good enough. Within a few days, others got their hands on it. The results haven’t been pretty: a torrent of anti-Atheism+ material has come out, mostly along the following lines:

1. Atheism+ over-extends the definition of atheism too much (and this is why we have secular humanism anyhow)
2. Atheism+ is too exclusionary (for any number of reasons)
3. I don’t like the people involved in Atheism+ (because of the Free Thought Blog’s connection)
4. Atheism+ is making atheism a religion (lol-fucking-whut)
5. Atheism+ is causing division and schisms in the atheism community

I’m not really trying to defend Atheism+ here, not am I trying to say its detractors don’t have merit (some objections make less sense than others). I’m mostly a bystander in the whole issue, so if people really are getting blocked and banned for disagreements as claimed, then A+ deserves the flak it gets.

Some thoughts on these five complaints:

1. Somewhat agreeing with this, but not all that concerned. I’ve already written on a better identification system here.
2. Much of this are the Five Geek Social Fallacies rearing their ugly heads, and the proper response is “so what?” We’re not all going to get along, and we don’t all need to be in the same camp.
3. If you don’t like the people, come clean with that, but don’t hate on A+ just because of the people.
4. As it’s been put elsewhere: “Render unto me a fucking break”. Does any organization with membership standards equal a religion nowadays? (PROTIP: No.) This is the lamest objection to A+ and it needs to die a swift death.
5. Again, so? How can you create “schisms” in a massively disorganized and non-centralized group of people anyway? Division and in-fighting have happened before (remember the Brights?); it will happen again.

However, I still just…can’t find myself caring. Does Atheism+ really damage or threaten atheism? Not that I’ve seen. If people want to wall themselves off or stick badges on themselves, hey, great. Trying to make them “come back” harkens back to the crabs. What we should really grade A+ on is their results. If it actually does produce a measured effect on the levels of sexism and so on, then there we go. If it’s all talk about “hey let’s make the world a happy place”, then it’s useless. If it’s only a method to make people feel superior, then it’s less than useless. That is what we can really judge on.

So there’s this Atheism+ thing going on, with rather lively discussion on all sides. There’s plenty of saltiness [1] about the creators, the label, and their cats apparently. I’m fine with people who want to adopt it, even if it may not be for me (for what it’s worth, I’m not okay with it if those adopting it want to use it as a moralizing club to bludgeon others with). I’m of the opinion that atheism isn’t enough and that we need more of a rallying point to affect political and social change, but that’s a topic for another time.

I’m a bit of a Subaru fan and they have a little program to show if it’s your first, second, third, etc. Subaru, as well as some add-ons that let you show off some interests. You can see the program here.

The idea of Atheism+ (at least as I’ve grasped it) is to identify as an atheist, and a social justice activist. That’s fine and great, and I think a “Thinker Badge” of sorts would define that a bit better. Instead of the “My Xth Subaru” starter, have a symbol of your choice to start. Then simply add things on: Atheist, Humanist, Feminist, and so on.

I don’t mean to reduce Atheism+ (or any other variant) to this; it’s simply an idea for those with more graphical design skill than myself to use on forums, blogs, and the like, with both horizontal and vertical variants. The other alternative is a Geek Code variant, though this tends to be less direct and well…dorky.

The advantages of this approach:

• No need for yet another label / division.
• People can easily display the causes they support and allow easy identification thereof.
• No need to divide based on left or right wing causes.
• Allows everyone to self-identify without hopping on any bandwagons.

[1] Using the fighting game community’s definition of anger, frustration, and agitation here.

To an ad for a HP TouchPad 32GB clearly marked as $200:

how much u asking for this tavlet? how much warrenty left?

Why bother reading even the link that states the price? That’s just too much work!

Same person, after response (note, picture was included, and it’s not like Google is broken):

can u send me ur xontct number so i can reach to see the device?

I’m pretty sure this is one of those impossible to solve puzzles that were developed to cause the Borg to explode. Replied with “What?” and received nothing since.

Another response that keeps it real BY KEEPING THE CAPS LOCK ON:

THAT TABLET CAN CONECT ON INTERNET LIKE  IPAD 3G  ,,,,  LIKE IAM PAYING EVERY MONTH AND I CAN CONECT TO INTERNET  EVERYWHERE

Somehow I managed to quell my overpowering urge to respond with “Get off my internet”.