Sissy hypno?

I have stumbled into a strange YouTube niche: feminization hypnosis. It’s a category of delusional videos in which voices whisper at you, telling you to put on make-up or become trans or encouraging your butt and boobs to grow larger. I listened to a few of them — they’re rather boring and ridiculous. If you want to see them for yourself, go to YouTube and search for “sissy hypno”. Be prepared for a deluge of results, none of them particularly pornographic or persuasive or even interesting. I don’t see how anyone could fall for this nonsense, unless you’re a real idiot.

Like Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire, who thinks it explains the existence of transgender people.

MICHAEL KNOWLES (HOST): And Genevieve can shed some light on this phenomenon that — frankly, as I’ve said on the show, I don’t even want to look into because I have been told and then I’ve read on different fora that talk about this phenomenon that there is a kind of pornography that is, apparently, a driver of the transgender identity that is so perverse that it constitutes a kind of hypnosis where men will say, I was a normal guy, I lived to be 41, 42, and I was basically normal. But then I fell into this kind of pornography and it essentially melted my brain. I had a nervous breakdown. Now I think that I’m a woman. So, rather than have to expose myself to that and then, you know, I have to go to confession, potentially my brain gets melted, I can just talk to Genevieve about it. Genevieve, thank you for coming on the show.

GENEVIEVE GLUCK (GUEST): Thank you so much for having me on the show.

KNOWLES: So, there’s a lot I want to talk about with you. We don’t have nearly enough time, so maybe we’ll just have to have you back and talk about it at greater length. But can you just give, not only the audience, but me a rundown — what is, among all of the types of pornography that lead to transgenderism, what is this hypnosis pornography?

GLUCK: Well, you touched on a good point there. There are many types of pornography that are, sort of, involved with the transgender movement. But hypnosis pornography is a little bit different in that it incorporates your lifestyle. So, typically when we think of pornography, we think of it as something that is passive that you’re, sort of, watching. But this type, it asks you to, sort of, change your behavior, change the way you dress, even to start taking hormones. And it’s sometimes called sissy hypno. So, that’s short for sissification hypnosis pornography. And, you know, I myself, I have personally been somewhat mocked for the suggestion that this is having a powerful impact on men. However, trans activists themselves will say things like it influenced them.

Oh, gosh, unlike Knowles I listened to some, and my brain didn’t melt — I just thought it was rather silly and harmless. Do I have to go to confession now? That would be even sillier than a sissy hypno video.

Although maybe he has a point. Going to church every Sunday and listening to a repetitive drone does work at turning people into Catholics.

These people are certifiable

Once you get sucked down into the gender critical maelstrom, you are doomed. You start off whining about men cheating in women’s sports competitions, and next thing you know, your brain is as rotten as Chris Rufo’s.

There is a battalion of male-to-female transgenders within the American intelligence apparatus. They hate Italians and LibsofTikTok. They fantasize about pseudo-vaginas and butthole lazers. They are in charge of the most sophisticated spying machine in human history.

Battalions of spies hating Italians with their butthole lazers? What? The only sane thing he wrote was about hating LibsofTikTok.

The entire right-wing is infected with some kind of dementia.

Discovery Institute ♥ Joe Rogan & Bret Weinstein

The Discovery Institute is thrilled by Rogan and Weinstein, entirely because these conspiracy theorists criticize “Darwinism”. It’s laughable. Rogan is an ignorant meathead, and Weinstein is a weird outsider who profits from babbling nonsense about science. It’s no surprise that the garbage out crowd is in alignment with religious propagandists.

Here’s the bit the DI adores:

Weinstein says he is “sympathetic” to ID but rejects it, which we knew. He says the current version of Darwinism, however, is “broken” and the evolutionary mainstream “lies” to itself, and to us. He alludes to another Darwinian mechanism operating on top of the standard one of random mutation and natural selection:

I believe there’s a kind of information stored in genomes that is not in triplet codon form, that is much more of a type that would be familiar to a designer, either of machines or a programmer. [I believe] that what we did was, we took the random mutation model and we recognized that it was Darwinian, which it is, and we therefore assumed that it would explain anything that we could see that was clearly the product of Darwinian forces, on the basis of those random mutations. And we skipped the layer in between, in which selection has a different kind of information stored in the genome that is not triplet-codon in nature. [Emphasis added.]

In another words, I think he’s saying, the other information is in a “meta” relationship to the familiar material genome, the genetic information instantiated in DNA and other known physical epigenetic features in the cell.

Dr. Weinstein is a deep thinker, and I hope I’m not misrepresenting him. But this other information, in his view, is also material in nature, not spiritual — which might be the difference between Weinstein’s thinking and, say, that of Platonist ID scientists like Richard Sternberg and Günter Bechly who posit an “immaterial genome,” occupying that meta role.

Weinstein is not a deep thinker. He’s a disgraced ex-biologist and intellectual charlatan who now pals around with Douglas Murray and Andy Ngo and various other far right wing creeps, promoting ridiculous ideas about vaccines, race, and is an AIDS denialist, while promoting ivermectin during the COVID epidemic. He’s a fringe kook, but the DI is so stupid they can’t tell.

I have no idea what this “kind of information stored in genomes that is not in triplet codon form” that he is referring to is, and I don’t think he knows either. He’s making up strings of words. The DI is right about one thing: it is on a par with “immaterial genome”. It’s all nonspecific nonsense that dumb ol’ Joe Rogan will nod along to.

Weinstein has another tell that exposes his irrelevance.

[In my opinion,] the mainstream Darwinists are telling a kind of lie about how much we know and what remains to be understood. So by reporting that yes, Darwinism is true, and we know how it works, and people who aren’t compelled by the story are illiterate or ignorant or whatever, they are pretending to know more than they do. So all that being said, let me say, I think modern Darwinism is broken. Yes, I do think I know more or less how to fix it.
…
There are several different things that are wrong with [Darwinism]. The key one that I think is causing folks in intelligent design circles to begin to catch up is that the story we tell, about how it is that mutation results in morphological change, is incorrect.
…
I am sympathetic to the intelligent design folks, though I do not believe they’re on the right track. I’m open to a universe with intelligence behind it, but I’ve seen no evidence of that universe myself. I’m open to it. If it happens, I will look at it.

Darwinism. Darwinism, Darwinism, Darwinism. Yes, there are things wrong with Darwinism: it’s a 19th century hypothesis composed by a guy who knew nothing about DNA, genes, molecules, or mutation. Show me anyone who proudly announces that he has discovered problems with Darwinism, and I’ll show you a popinjay whose understanding of science ended in 1900.

What is the story we tell about how mutation results in morphological change? I would love to hear it.

And then…

You’ve had Stephen Meyer on. He’s a scientist who’s quite good, and he’s spotted that the mechanism in question [the standard Darwinian one] isn’t powerful enough to explain the phenomena that we swear it explains. And so he’s catching up, but that’s really on the Darwinists for not admitting what they can’t yet explain and pursuing it, which is what they should be doing.

Holy crap. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist. He got an undergrad degree in physics and earth science, decided he knew everything there is to know about biology, and went on to get a master’s and Ph.D. in philosophy. He held jobs in a couple of private Christian colleges before becoming a professional propagandist at the Discovery Institute. And now Weinstein thinks he’s a “quite good” scientist? That tells you all you need to know about Weinstein.

Well, that and vague, handwavey glop about mysterious sources of genetic information, vaccine quackery, racist apologetics, and ill-informed complaints about “Darwinism”. This is a guy whose whole career now is bent on getting on the Joe Rogan show to foment non-controversies.

I am quite enjoying the chaos on the right

Sometimes I do regret leaving Twitter — I have to get all the gossipy infighting second hand.

For instance, you may recall the depths to which Nick Fuentes sank after the Supreme Court gutted Roe v. Wade:

Your body, my choice. Forever.

What, you may wonder has happened to little Nicky ever since?

I will now have to uproot my life and relocate. While I can handle whatever comes to my front door, it is irresponsible to expect my neighbors with young families to share that burden.
In the mean I will have to contract 24 hour security to protect myself and my property.


If anybody would like to contribute to defray the cost ($13,000/week) of private security and rebuilding my studio, here is a donation link.
I can only accept cryptocurrency because I am banned from banking services and CC processing. Thank you.

His choice, he needs to learn to live with it. It’s a fitting fate for a hateful racist and misogynist.

In addition, that freaky obsessive Laura Loomer is jealously trying to defend her ‘boyfriend,’ Trump, from that wicked interloper, Elon Musk.

The elephant in the room is that @elonmusk, who is not MAGA and never has been, is a total fucking drag on the Trump transition. @realDonaldTrump
He’s a stage 5 clinger who over stayed his welcome at Mar a Lago in an effort to become Trump’s side piece and be the point man for all his accomplices in big Tech to slither into Mar a Lago.

I will give her this…it takes one to know one.

Elon Musk: Loomer is trolling for attention. Ignore.
Laura Loomer: Telling the truth isn’t trolling.
Read the room! @elonmusk
You bought your way into MAGA 5 minutes ago after Trump almost had his head blown off in Butler. Remember when you voted for Biden and propped up @GovRonDeSantis and you said Trump was too old?
We all know you only donated your money so you could influence immigration policy and protect your buddy Xi JinPing.

Delicious. It all reminds me of junior high school. And this is how the American presidency operates?

My wife will be so happy to learn that I’m gay now

After all, the heterosexual men are terrible in bed.

“I’m not going to have gay sex,” Luke Moody said of sex that gives his wife an orgasm but not a pregnancy.

That stupid man-child. That poor woman. He thinks that any non-procreative sex is “gay”.

“As soon as we’re together, it’s like no birth control, no nothing, because I’m not going to have gay sex. Gay sex is more than just another man and a man, it’s just the idea of looking at sex as such a materialistic thing and just like, ‘Oh well, we just have an orgasm, and that’s fun or whatever.’”

MAGA is a particularly delusional cult.

They let just anyone in

The Royal Society is one of the oldest, most respected, and most exclusive scientific societies in the world. Imagine my surprise to learn that Elon Musk is a member.

This brings us, then, to the case of Elon Musk, who was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2018 on the basis of his technological achievements, notably in space travel and electrical vehicle development. Unfortunately, since that time, his interests have extended to using social media for political propaganda, while at the same time battling what he sees as “woke mind virus” and attacks on free speech. Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion on issues such as climate change and medicine, over the past year or two, he’s started promoting alternative ideas.

They thought Elon Musk was inventing new technology with his mighty brain, rather than simply buying large teams of engineers with his mighty bank account? Tsk.

That account comes from a former FRS who has resigned at this tainting of the society. She is asking that he be stricken from the rolls, and lists multiple reasons why he brings shame on a distinguished scientific organization.

Scientific misconduct
Ethics & management of Neuralink
Promoting vaccine hesitation
Downplaying the climate emergency
Spreading deep fakes and misinformation on X

The Royal Society has done nothing; I guess once enrolled, forever enrolled, and no amount of anti-science ignorance or the promotion of atrocities will change that (that’s to be expected, given the history of the British Empire.) The society did contact a lawyer to make sure it was OK to keep a known professional troll in their ranks.

I gather that at this point the Royal Society Council opted to consult a top lawyer to determine whether Musk’s behaviour breached their Code of Conduct. The problem with this course of action is that if you are uncertain about doing something that seems morally right but may have consequences, then it is easy to find a lawyer who will advise against doing it. That’s just how lawyers work. They’re paid to rescue people from ethical impulses that may get them into trouble. And, sure enough, the lawyer determined that Musk hadn’t breached the Code of Conduct. If you want to see if you agree, you can find the Code of Conduct here.

The Society has promised to look more deeply at the Musk case, but don’t expect much.

I’ve been told that in the light of the evolving situation, the Royal Society Council will look again at the case of Elon Musk. In conversations I have had with them, they emphasise that they must adhere to their own procedures, which are specified in the Statutes, and which involve a whole series of stages of legal scrutiny, committee evaluation, discussion with the Fellow in question, and ultimately a vote from the Fellowship, before a Fellow or Foreign Member could be expelled. While I agree that if you have a set of rules you should stick to them, I find the fact that nobody has been expelled for over 150 years telling. It does suggest that the Statutes are worded so that it is virtually impossible to do anything about Fellows who breach the Code of Conduct. In effect the Statutes serve a purpose of protecting the Royal Society from ever having to take action against one of its Fellows.

Sounds like most other human cliques.

Transphobia rots your brain

CSICon is currently taking place in Las Vegas, with a great speaker lineup: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Michael Mann, Massimo Pigliucci, Steve Novella, etc. For some reason, they also included Jerry Coyne, who has become a right-wing crank over the years, and who is quite annoyed that Novella discussed the myth of the gender binary — and chose to talk about Sex and Race: Handling the Ideological Hot Potatoes. His abstract for the talk says he was arguing that race is a valid category because you can distinguish “race” genetically, which tells me that he doesn’t understand the argument. Individuals are unique and carry the record of their ancestry, but that ignores the fact that people use race as a catch-all for lumping people into stereotypes, which are not valid.

But I haven’t heard his talk, nor am I interested in hearing it. He did give a kind of “rebuttal” to Novella’s talk, though, summarized in one simple list. The list is a collection of his misconceptions and says far more about him than any argument us “woke” people would actually make. Further, it is embarrassingly stupid — irrelevant, confused, and not even wrong. It reminds me of the kinds of arguments creationists make that just reveal that they understand nothing about evolution.

Here’s Coyne’s list In Defense of the Binary Nature of Sex, which does nothing of the kind.

IN DEFENSE OF THE BINARY NATURE OF SEX
Argument is completely limited to humans; is the binary of reproductive systems also “delusional” in other animals (e.g., foxes, ducks) or in plants?
No evidence of any “brain modules” for gender identity.
Do people who are temporally binary, with gender fluctuating over time, change sex each time they change gender?
Fluctuations in referrals for gender dysphoria over time (20-fold in last ten years in UK)
Are “pure” members of one sex (with the corresponding genitals, chromosomes, gametes and chromosomes), but who feel they’re not of their natal sex, actually of the other sex?
People have incorrect feelings about their nature all the time (yes, in their brains), but this doesn’t mean that their self-image should be taken as biological reality.
And what do we do with people who sincerely feel that they’re other animals? Are they Indeed animals likes horses and cats?

Let’s take them on one at a time, shall we?

Argument is completely limited to humans; is the binary of reproductive systems also “delusional” in other animals (e.g., foxes, ducks) or in plants?

Who says the argument is completely limited to humans? It’s not. It’s just that we are far better at distinguishing subtle variations in our own species. Sexual development and differentiation in animals uses the same complex cascade of molecular interactions as it does in humans. There are differences in sexual morphology and behavior in individual animals that will leap out at you if you actually scrutinize them carefully. Even in spiders, which are only distantly related to humans. They exhibit different degrees of social behavior, aggression, cooperation, and yes, sexual activity. I’ve had spiders who exhibit no interest in sex at all; I raise them to adulthood, and can’t persuade them to reproduce even as their siblings readily mate at every opportunity. Every coupling is different. This is in a species that cannot communicate to us and every interpretation of their activity is subjective. What kind of biologist would look at the range of sexual interactions in any species and decide that they must be shoehorned into just two types?

As for plants — they don’t exhibit much in the way of behavior, expression, or culture, but they do have a complex range of sexes. How do you tell if a carrot is uncomfortable with its expected biological role?

No evidence of any “brain modules” for gender identity.

Jerry Coyne knows nothing about neuroscience. We know there are differences in the brain that are correlates of differences in behavior and thinking; I’m pretty sure Coyne wouldn’t be claiming that brains are like featureless potatoes with patterns of activity that arise without differences in morphology or connectivity of pharmacology. Modules are abstractions that are used to model the functionality of different parts of the brain.

Many complex networks are composed of “modules” that form an interconnected network. We sought to elucidate the nature of the brain’s modular function by testing the autonomy of the brain’s modules and the potential mechanisms underlying their interactions. By studying the brain as a large-scale complex network and measuring activity across the network during 77 cognitive tasks, we demonstrate that, despite connectivity between modules, each module appears to execute a discrete cognitive function relatively autonomously from the other modules. Moreover, brain regions with diverse connectivity across the modules appear to play a role in enabling modules to interact while remaining mostly autonomous. This generates the counterintuitive idea that regions with diverse connectivity across modules are necessary for modular biological networks.

The brain is a network with spatial and functional segregation of elements that we can call “modules”; trans people will have modules that differ from cis people, and people who prefer coffee to tea have their own kinds of modules. All Coyne is doing here is denying the existence of differences between brains, which I would hope most people would recognize is ignorant and absurd.

(Note that there are differences in interpretation in the neuroscience community; we can argue about modules vs. modes, but good grief, denying that there are neurological differences is like trying to claim that population structure doesn’t exist.)

Do people who are temporally binary, with gender fluctuating over time, change sex each time they change gender?

Sure, why not? Why can’t both sex and gender be fluid? Coyne just wants to force-fit everything into only one of two possible categories, but biology is more complex than that. His narrow-mindedness is not evidence of much of anything.

Fluctuations in referrals for gender dysphoria over time (20-fold in last ten years in UK)

Jesus christ, really? Culture and evironment affect everything, that varying rates of referrals is a product of the way that societies fluctuate in their tolerance of sex and gender differences. That he doesn’t recognize this is just a sign that he has a painfully simple-minded notion of how sex functions as more than just a mechanism for reproduction.

Are “pure” members of one sex (with the corresponding genitals, chromosomes, gametes and chromosomes), but who feel they’re not of their natal sex, actually of the other sex?

I’m glad I didn’t hear his talk, because I wonder if he also talked about “pure” members of one race. There’s no such thing as being “purely” a member of one complex multidimensional and weakly defined category. We are all part of a continuum along many dimensions. This point makes no sense unless you’re thoroughly soaking in the preconception that there can be only two sexes and everyone must fit into one or another in all particulars.

People have incorrect feelings about their nature all the time (yes, in their brains), but this doesn’t mean that their self-image should be taken as biological reality.

I am grossly materialistic. Self-image is part of one’s biology. If it’s in our brains, how can it not be a reflection of biological reality? I’m sorry if plasticity isn’t in Jerry Coyne’s vocabulary. I’m pretty confident that dualism isn’t part of his worldview.

And what do we do with people who sincerely feel that they’re other animals? Are they Indeed animals likes horses and cats?

I kew that was coming. And what about the people who sincerely feel that they are attack helicopters?

No, people can’t change species. They’re still people. Being a person, though, encompasses a wide range of possibilities. Trans people fully understand their biological realities and don’t imagine that genitalia are magical products of desire.

As for what we do with people who have ideas that are less rigid than Coyne’s dumb-ass cis-normativity…do we have to do anything, or can we just let them live in peace?

The FDA hates sunshine and exercise?

Remember this: Trump wants to put RFK Jr. in charge of America’s public health policy.

FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, | have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.

There’s a bunch of both dangerous (opposed by the FDA) and innocuous (not opposed, and sometimes endorsed, by the FDA) things in that list, and a not-so-subtle paranoid conspiracy theory behind it all, but what I find particularly worrisome is the threat at the end. If you aren’t in favor of raw milk, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and random psychedelics, pack your bags, you’re going on Donald Trump’s list of undesirables.

At least I hate the Sacklers and Martin Shkreli as much as anyone, and I’m on the side of sunshine and exercise. In fact, I just had my morning vitamins and am going to go on a walk.

Only a fool would be fooled by Jared Taylor

Jared Taylor is a notorious racist and extremist, recognized as a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Only an extremely naive person could read any of his articles, which are generally pleasantly written and express less obvious hate than an extremely patronizing condescension. For example, did you know that he actually likes black people? Sure does. He says so.

Like some other writers for this website, I have a reputation for writing rude things about blacks. I have written rude things about whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims, but being rude about blacks is one of our era’s unforgivable sins. Of course, what I write about blacks is true, but as Mark Twain pointed out, nothing astonishes people more than to tell them the truth. Deep down, everyone knows the truth about blacks, but a vital requirement for respectability is to pretend you don’t.

The fact is, there are things to like about blacks—and I like them. They mostly have to do with lack of inhibition, a kind of cheerful spontaneity you don’t often find in whites. I have a half-Asian friend—a connoisseur of stereotypes—who thinks blacks and whites differ in that respect even more than they do in average IQ. As he puts it, whites act like Asians who have had a few drinks and blacks act like whites who have had a few drinks.

That’s enough. You can read the rest of his article, where he mentions how they complimented his hat and speak an interesting dialect and are so trusting and child-like if you want, but you’ll recognize the game — he thinks that diminishing people into shallow stereotypes is flattering them.

I trust that readers here are not idiots and wouldn’t for an instant regard Jared Taylor’s condescension as anything but demeaning. Which means, obviously, that Amy Wax is not a reader here. Amy Wax is a professor at UPenn who has been regularly making racist comments to her students, insulting the Asian and Black students at her university, who have been lobbying for years to see her fired. She is such a dumb bigot that she invited Jared Taylor to speak to her classes…for some unfathomable purpose. Was she looking for training in treating her minority students more repulsively?

She has already applied that talent for condescension to Asian students, in addition to black students.

I confess I find Asian support for these [liberal] policies mystifying, as I fail to see how they are in Asians’ interest. We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering, etc.

Just like Jared Taylor, she’s a master at deploying stereotypes like backhanded compliments.

She hasn’t been fired yet, but she has been slapped down a bit.

Wax — who has called into question the academic ability of Black students, invited white nationalist Jared Taylor to her classroom, and said the country would be better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration — will be suspended for one year at half pay with benefits intact. She also will face a public reprimand issued by university leadership, the loss of her named chair and summer pay, and a requirement to note in her public appearances that she is not speaking for or as a member of the Penn Carey Law school or Penn.

But she will not be fired or lose her tenure.

It’s good to have tenure, isn’t it? You can even survive a blistering attack like this one, from the administration.

Wax’s conduct, according to [former U President] Magill’s letter, “included a history of sweeping, blithe, and derogatory generalizations about groups by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status.” She also, according to the letter, breached “the requirement that student grades be kept private by publicly speaking about the grades of law students by race and continuing to do so even after cautioned by the dean that it was a violation of University policy.”

Wax also, both in and out of the classroom, repeatedly and in public made “discriminatory and disparaging statements targeted at specific racial, ethnic, and other groups with which many students identify,” the letter said.

For that, her punishment is half-pay for a year and a loss of summer salary — I bet her half-pay is more than my full pay, and I don’t get summer salary, either, and unlike Awful Amy, I can’t make it up through my connections to the Hoover Institute, or by hitting the lucrative right-wing lecture circuit.

Just wait, she’s going to be declared a martyr by the “free speech” poltroons. Not bad for someone unable to recognize how vile Jared Taylor is.

Incest is a touchy subject for Ken Ham

Ken Ham was motivated to respond to YouTuber because, apparently, her message was inconsistent.

Our social media team recently asked me to respond to a young lady who has a YouTube channel that featured a video criticizing young-earth creationists and our (in her view) ridiculous beliefs. Now, we see many (many) such videos (there are whole channels dedicated to mocking us!) and don’t always respond, but I decided to respond to this one to point out the inconsistency in her thinking.

See if you can catch her inconsistency in the clip at the beginning of my response:

What horrible, outrageous thing did Gutsick Gibbon say? Ham pulls out a very short excerpt, about 20 seconds long, that is the basis for his 4½ minute complaint. Here’s all she is given a chance to say.

Young earth creationists are religious folk who typically come from evangelical backgrounds…basically anyone who believes that the Earth was created in more or less present state by god…approximately 6000 years ago.
If you never heard of this before, you might be saying “oh my god, what about the inbreeding?”

That’s it. That’s all Answers in Genesis can tolerate putting on their website. That first bit is totally accurate; Ken Ham might have been literally quoted saying something similar, that he is an evangelical Christian who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago by his god.

But then she says “oh my god,” which he bleeps out. He’s going to repeat that even shorter clip multiple times.

There is no inconsistency. She correctly defines Ham’s own religious belief, and happens to use a common English phrase. Ham’s objection is that, he claims, evolution and materialism are religious beliefs, too, which is irrelevant. If I were to point out that a PB&J sandwich that he is holding is a sandwich, it doesn’t refute my statement to say that my taco is also a sandwich — because Gutsick Gibbon isn’t making a case here that science is not a religion (it isn’t, but again, she’s not saying that.)

What really irks Ken Ham is that mention of the inbreeding problem. This has long been a point of irritation for him; in both the creation “museum” and fake boat gift shops, he sells stuff bragging about the fact that Adam & Eve’s kids had sex with each other, and that it wasn’t a problem because they were perfect genetic beings. He doesn’t like incest mentioned because he thinks he has an irrefutable answer to it. Never mind that he also likes to claim that they were heterozygous at every locus and that Noah’s family carried every possible allelic variant, or that what he’s arguing for is a kind of moral relativism, where sex with your brother or sister is OK if you’re not going to propagate defective children (I’ve always wanted to ask him if it’s fine to have sex with a sibling if you use contraceptives, then?)

What is inconsistent is that he then uses this offense against his faith to rant about how atheists don’t have any morality and they believe they’re just animals and animals can do anything they want. She’s ridiculous, says the man who thinks that having a silly theme park makes him qualified to judge other’s lives.

He also doesn’t link to Gutsick Gibbon’s YouTube channel, where his followers might be able to discover that she had more to say than the only 20 seconds Ken Ham was brave enough to include.