click for full size
Left: Ricky Gervais on the cover of the September / October 2011 United Kingdom Edition of the New Humanist. Will the US version have the same genital fortitude with their version?
Quite an appropriate image, cf. Atheist Flagellants And Puritans and subsequent babblings. I think Gervais has a pretty good handle on the idiocy that is overtaking the godless world.
The New, New Atheists are fetishising suffering for the sins of the world.
Trouble is, most all of them are pudgy and pink and well-fed and have no real problems, so they begin fabricating them. Case in point, atheist misogyny and the new cult of elevator worship.
Might I suggest, a la Lenny Bruce, instead of crucifixes (or electric chairs), these new, new atheists adopt the wearing of little Elevatorgate tokens around their necks –
.
Though something more austere and less threatening than that of course. And perhaps also organise annual pilgrimages to Ireland where they can solemnly intone Holy Mother Becky’s sacred ode A Woman at TAM, much like a rosary. Or something else appropriately ceremonial. Can’t let weeping scabs heal.
.
.
Update: You can actually buy those pendants here –
http://www.aeroforceone.com/shop.cfm/pk/category/ac/detail/cid/302666/prodid/1293295
– and no doubt find bargain used ones on Ebay.
grey lining 
August 26, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I’d buy one!
August 26, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“Trouble is, mostall of them are pudgy and pink and well-fed and have no real problems, so they begin fabricating them.”
I’m tellin’ ya–that white privilege is a stained garment in and of itself…
August 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Rolling Stone mag. already turned that picture down…Told Gervais if he wanted the cover, he’d have to submit another pic….
August 26, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Sad isn’t it? Whatever happened to the publish-and-be-damned attitude? When Rolling Stone backs down, it’s pretty grim.
August 26, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Rolling stone backed down a long time ago
August 27, 2011 at 2:57 am
Purchasing a copy today, and having the cover framed and up on my wall.
August 26, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Seriously… who reads Rolling Stone anymore…. talk about irrelevant.
August 28, 2011 at 7:00 am
Not many people read print media any longer — period. But print media circulation says nothing about how many logo on to, and read, the online edition. So, other than the seemingly clear fact that YOU don’t like it, how do you know it’s “irrelevant”?
August 28, 2011 at 11:55 am
Raimondo, John is “trolling” you.
August 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Haha – Am I trolling? I thought someone told me a troll is someone who says something he “doesn’t believe” in order to get a reaction. I do believe almost no one reads Rolling Stone… but I could be wrong.
August 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm
So tragic when you see folks so smiley dependent… That was a joke John.
Rolling Stone still delivers some content. Such as the hammering Matt Taibbi has been giving Goldman Sachs over the last year or so. Which makes it seem stupid that they would waver at the Gervais pic.
August 29, 2011 at 7:29 am
I wrote “logo on”…? O my…
August 27, 2011 at 2:24 am
and people are confused when I say I want to go back to England.
August 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm
That’s pretty funny Franc. I’d wear one to an atheist convention.
August 26, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“Trouble is, all of them are pudgy and pink and well-fed and have no real problems, so they begin fabricating them.”
You nailed it right there. That is the crux of the problem. I believe this ends the whole inquisition!
August 27, 2011 at 9:40 am
Actually, Gervais is a bit pudgy and pink and well-fed too, so THAT argument doesn’t seem very convincing…
August 27, 2011 at 11:38 am
Uhuh. I said all new, new atheists are pudgy and pink, not all the pudgy and pink are new, new atheists. If you have difficulty with that subtlety, ask a muslim about terrorism (cf. the Coulter quote which has been decried by “liberals”, reiterated countless times by native middle east commentators even on Al Jazeera).
August 28, 2011 at 7:06 am
Don’t get defensive, Franc. I think it’s better if criticism of ideas and attitudes is confined to just ideas and attitudes, and does not stray into ad-hominem-attack-territory — against pudginess, ugliness and such, none of which per se are pertinent to the disagreement in question.
As for the Coulter/muslim/terrorism quote, you’ll have to say more about it, because I have no idea what you’re referring to.
August 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Ok, the Coulter quote, from memory is roughly “though not all muslims may be terrorists, all terrorists are muslims”. She was roasted by the “liberal” commentariat for that and probably assisted in the idiotic word “islamophobia” being born. Trouble is, her quote was reiterated by many people actually in the middle east around the same time. Don’t take this as a defense of Coulter – she’s a pretty precise mirror image of PZ Myers if you think about it: a female “conservative”, theistic imbecile as opposed to a male “liberal”, “godless” one.
As for ad hominem, my point is valid – people that are hungry and don’t have homes don’t whine about things like this. Statistically they are also unlikely to be pudgy and pink. It is not an ad himinem a la Naked Emperor – I did not say they have tiny penises and insecure sexuality.
And yes you are a gentleman. You say “not at all attractive” where I say “ugly”. I however am more clear.
August 28, 2011 at 12:25 pm
And also, I don’t consider Coulter to be an actual conservative any more than Myers to be an actual liberal. Both are bastard hybrids.
August 29, 2011 at 7:51 am
Time was when some conservatives did make sense (just to mention one, Fiorello La Guardia was a Republican). And when some loosely-defined “liberals” truly did kick ass. These days it all seems to have devolved into one huge freak show, where each participant strives to sound battier and even more incoherent than the rest.
As for the Coulter quote, she just can’t help being a bitch, so pity her. Clearly not ALL terrorists are muslims; there are plenty of the white, christian, homegrown kind. But I’m afraid that it’s fairly accurate to say that, currently at least, MOST terrorists can be safely described as belonging to some strain of Islam. Anyone who denies that feels like a demagogue to me, no matter how “liberal” they consider themselves to be.
Regarding the “pudgy/pink” debacle — eh — I do understand your point, I think, but it’s a tough call to make.
August 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Gervais isn’t complaining about his life
August 27, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Or wallowing like a slave inventing imaginary hurts with which to charge her superiors. Hello Becky!
August 29, 2011 at 7:58 am
Just for everyone’s information — is PZ “losing it” as a scientist too?
See this for more details:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/more-on-the-worlds-earliest-fossils-theyre-real
August 29, 2011 at 11:14 am
Myers lost his credibility within the mainstream science community some time ago too. See –
https://greylining.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/pz-myers-the-naked-emperor-more-naked-every-day/
Oddly enough, Coyne, the author of your link, is one of the favourite authors of Science 2.0’s founder. Conspiracy? If you are a Pharyngudrone. It’s just a case of like minds. Rational ones.
August 29, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I get a sense that Coyne is a decent and mostly peaceful man, and that his silence on the Watson debacle is a polite one, so as not to ruffle feathers. Still, the puzzlement he expresses in that post is palpable, though delicately articulated.
August 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Basically, Myers has been a buffoon once too often everywhere, not just with us. He has really worn out his welcome across the board in all communities. And deservedly so – entirely self-inflicted. All he really has left is his troop of baboons, and CFI that are still stupid enough to promote him (and Watson).
August 29, 2011 at 2:59 pm
CFI became more of a joke than ever over the past few years or so, to the point where if now they ever manage to get something correct, it is often buy accident, not design.
August 29, 2011 at 3:29 pm
This is more or less as I have seen it from afar –
https://greylining.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/cficsiskepchick-theory-of-courtiers/
It’s as though they are willingly self-destructing.