I read about one third of the way through before realizing it was Yet Another Pseudo-Intellectual (YAPI) argument that basically “carefully defines its terms” (by redefining them away from conventional meanings), then argues with a straw man. Oh, and that carefully overlooks its own counter-arguments as people who ostensibly share the writer’s stance are so carefully overlooked it practically calls attention to the absence.

You’ve introduced nothing new nor interesting to the debate about religion. You’re Hitchens without the style. You’ve got the hypocrisy of Harris, but without the personal charm. You bring nothing to the table but hollow platitudes and the typical intellectual dishonesty of the YAPI crowd.

None.

When I was very early in my career, fresh grad, first job, I wanted to be the “model Asian” that I’d been indoctrinated into by the society around me, and I was very much all about 水无常形，因器而变 (shuǐ wú cháng xíng, yīn qì ér biàn or “water has no constant shape; it changes according to the vessel”). So when I saw someone getting what I know now to be bullied in a meeting, my assumption was that this was the way things should be done; that was business. I changed my behaviour according to my vessel.

Thankfully I had someone with a stronger backbone than me in that meeting; someone also Asian (in his case Korean), but one who was further along the path of not putting up with that shit than I was at the time. He stood up in the meeting, walked over to the woman being bullied, and in a quiet voice (that thundered in my own ears) said, “This is a business not a playground. We are either professionals here, or you’re down a head count of two.”

See, while I was living according to one proverb, he was living according to a better one for the circumstance: 宁为玉碎，不为瓦全 (nìng wéi yù suì, bù wéi wǎ quán or “better to be a broken piece of jade than an intact piece of pottery”). In his mind there was nothing more shameful than standing by peacefully while a gross injustice was being done.

I really wish I’d had the courage to do that instead of him.

About the only thing the tariffs have done for me is put the final step in the slowly-building boycott of all goods from the USA that I started off in the 1990s. I now have only one product that has an American component in it (my phone uses Android) and once that stops being useful I will have successfully de-Americanized my life.

Fair point.

Well, near the top for sure. There’s some areas of India whose cuisine I could live the rest of my life getting very fat on. 🤣

I can do without the mouldy cheeses, but Emmenthal and Brie (yes, I know the dust is mould too, but you know what I mean) are great!

I just started my Labour Day week-long holiday, so my week’s going great!

No troubles, mate.

Oh, you have NO idea. 😬 And there’s a place literally a two minute walk away from my front door that makes them really well. It takes a force of will for me to walk past them when I go that direction.

I’m a big fan of noodles, but one kind in particular is a “can’t walk away from” variety: 刀削面 (dāo xiāo miàn or “knife shaved noodles”). Where most noodle types around the world (including China) are pulled, cut, or extruded, 刀削面 are shaved from a noodle mass in strips. (This takes a significant amount of skill to do well; 刀削面 made by someone good at it can be pricey.)

So what makes them special?

The way they’re shaved makes them of uneven thickness, usually a bit thick (like, say, lasagna thick) on one side but shaved down to a knife’s-edge thickness on the other. This gives them a unique texture and mouthfeel. Further, the thin edge, when cooked, tends to “ruffle”, making it hold onto spices and sauces better.

Traditionally these are shaved straight into a broth, cooked in seconds, and served as a soup. However they can also be served as “dry noodles” (noodles in sauce instead of a soup broth: Ragù alla Bolognese/spaghetti Bolognese would be classified as “dry noodles” in Chinese nomenclature), stir-fried, or used in any number of other creative noodle dishes.

I can’t resist them. If they’re an option in a restaurant, they are not optional.

Weird. I used to like chocolate fine, but it was never an obsession and now I can’t really say I like it much at all. If it’s VERY dark (like 80%+ cacao) then maybe, but most chocolate leaves me pretty cold these days.

Cake, on the other hand, if it’s the right kind? Yeah. I’m not able to turn it down. What’s the right kind?

• Obst Kuchen
• Käse-Sahne Torte
• Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte
• …

You may be spotting a pattern in the cakes that turn my head, I think?

I’m with you here, if it’s someone I like.

Atheist¹ here.

I disagree with you. First, not all religions are the Abrahamic variety that is the source of much of the negative rep of religion. For example you’d be very hard-pressed to find much objectionable from the Daoist camp. (You’ll find superstitious belief in the religious-Daoist camp, obviously, but far less so from the philosophical-Daoist camp.)

Second, being anti-religious doesn’t exactly have a great history itself. Communists, for example, have been anti-religious when at their most fervent and committed huge atrocities, both against religious people and against non-religious people. It seems that atheist (or, if you prefer, anti-religionist) camps haven’t exactly been clean-handed themselves. Indeed these anti-religion types (the Communists) are responsible for more death and horror than all religiously-motivated death and horror put together.²

Third, some of the most irrational people I’ve ever seen are the self-proclaimed “rationalists”. Take, for example, the entire LessWrong crowd. Though supposedly worshippers, practically, of pure reason, their output, if you dig a bit on their site, is ever-increasing gibberish with ludicrous conclusions, and the people who come out of that movement do crazy things (like the LessWrong alumni who formed that murder cult).

So I’m afraid I don’t see religion as especially deserving of ire, despite not being religious (and being atheist). Human beings are irrational at their core, and the veneer of rationality that supposed “rationalists” apply on top makes them, in the end, not that different from the religious people they sneer at.

¹ Small-a atheist, not Big-A Atheist: you know, the asshole variety like Dawkins and company.

² Now I’m not saying that anti-religionists have any kind of extra force behind things here. They just happened to be in power when the technology to do mass extinction of human life was possible. Any of the problematic religious groups would cheerfully have done the same had they had the organizational and communications technology to pull it off.

It’s a good call.

There’s a picture I saw of a man who got swarmed by them. A survivor. (These are rare.) As a joke he stuck a cigarette in the hole left in his arm where one of the stings hit.

It melted a hole. In his skin and flesh. That you could stick a cigarette in and have it stand by itself.

I was riveted to the election results for the Carleton riding in Canada’s last election.

Because that’s the riding of Mr. Maple MAGAt Himself: Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative (a.k.a. Maple MAGAt) Party in Canada.

The results are summarized thusly:

I’m curious where you see people glorifying promiscuity. In most pop culture being “the slut” is a negative trait in a character, to the point that there’s an entire genre of entertainment (slasher flicks) in which being “the slut” is a death sentence.

Lets start with Mother Theresa then, shall we?

Poverty is freedom. It is a freedom so that what I possess doesn’t own me, so that what I possess doesn’t hold me down, so that my possessions don’t keep me from sharing or giving of myself.

Yes. She really said that.

Asian giant hornet venom is natural too. So natural it literally melts your flesh on contact.

They’re not screaming in pain and terror. They’re shouting out “THIS LAND IS MY LAND AND ONLY MY LAND I’VE GOT A SHOTGUN AND YOU AIN’T GOT ONE” … or the equivalent in bird speak. They’re threatening to kill anybody who gets near their space, basically.