Deterlucem doesn't have a clue: Part 1

Having watched Joshua Feurestein's creationist video, I decided to find rebuttal videos in order to remind myself that there are other people who don't agree with him. And I did. I found a very good video of this not-too-well-known YouTuber by the name of Deterlucem debunking all the ridiculous arguments Joshua made. It's a very informational video and I enjoyed watching it. I practically fell in love with the guy by the end of the video, and I thought I would end up subscribing to him...

...But he has other videos and through watching those, I got to find out what else he really believes in, and it's not pleasant either. You see, in the aftermath of the Isla Vista killings, the hashtag #Yesallwomen quickly caught popularity on Twitter as women responded to the misogyny* that motivated Elliot Rodger to murder 6 people in cold blood. Through this hashtag, women are sharing their stories of being victimized and mistreated by a sexist culture that values their looks and bodies over their own autonomy, the same culture that ingrained an attitude of entitlement into Elliot Rodger. Now what does that have to do with Deterlucem? Well, he just doesn't seem to like this whole idea of #yesallwomen because he believes that it's basically those dastardly feminists claiming that they speak for all women, and he made a video where he aims to debunk 13 tweets from the #Yesallwomen that he got from this article.

Here is his video. By no means do I blame you if you can't make it through.

Before I start deconstructing his arguments, I just wanted to state one thing. Am I the only one who finds the idea of debunking these tweets rather absurd? I mean, many of these tweets are derived from women's personal experiences so I didn't know at first how he would go about debunking them. Statistics? His own experience? Now, I know how, and he doesn't have very convincing arguments (except maybe to straight men).

First, there are these two claims that Deterlucem keeps repeating through the whole video, and we should get these two out of the way first. One, that he believes that the title of #Yesallwomen stems from feminists' believing that they speak for all women, and two, that the women who write these tweets are blaming all men for harassment and rape, when not all men do it. Well, the title is actually a response to men constantly crying "not all men!" when in fact, all women have suffered as a result of sexism. They're not claiming that all women agree with them. And saying that not all men are responsible doesn't really help the problem. It only minimizes the issue that so many women are constantly being harassed, assaulted, and raped in the first place. They're not blaming Deterlucem and any individual man for this. I can't believe Deterlucem doesn't undertand this.

1. Emily: Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body, Every. Single. One.
What he thinks: Deterlucem is just completely baffled by this tweet. He doesn't understand what kind of sexual entitlement she's talking about here. He wonders whether she's addressing men who just want a relationship to become physical or if she's implying that women never feel entitled to a man's body.

What I say: Sexual entitlement can manifest itself in a variety of ways. This can range from street harassment to employees coercing other employees into doing sexual favors, from a man you barely know thinking it's okay to touch you just because of what you're wearing to your boyfriend (or girlfriend) who constantly pushes your boundaries so they can get you to have sex with them. In all these cases, someone feels sexually entitled because they believe that their sexual gratification is more important than your right to have your body to yourself.  Of course, it's natural that someone may want a relationship to become physical but there's a distinction between what Deterlucem thinks Emily is calling out and this:

That is what sexual entitlement looks like. It's not just asking for sex. It's treating a human being as an object whose boundaries and wishes are pushed aside as mere annoyances. Yes, women can act sexually entitled, and they should also be condemned. And also, Deterlucem, no one cares if you had consensual sex. I mean, it's good that you didn't rape someone but that's the minimum amount of decency we expect from people. These women are not addressing you specifically so stop acting like it.

2. Rylah: "I have a boyfriend" is the easiest way to get a man to leave you alone. Because he respects another man more than you.
What he thinks: Deterlucem again thinks that this tweet is denouncing innocuous boy-girl interaction on the grounds that if the guy leaves the girl alone, it's simply because she's no longer available. Not because the guy respects her boyfriend more than her.

What I say: Has he really considered what Rylah is talking about here? Maybe she's not talking about being at a bar while a guy approaches her just to ask her out. Maybe she's talking about a guy who won't leave her alone even when she states that she is busy or not interested. Maybe she's talking about a guy who keeps trying to get her attention when her body language clearly says that she's not in the mood. Maybe this guy thinks that it's okay to ask her personal information when they barely met. Maybe he thinks that he's automatically worth her time of the day. Maybe she realizes that this guy doesn't really care about anything she has to say. Maybe they're not even at a bar. He might be following her around on the sidewalk while making comments like "Hey beautiful, what's your number?" Maybe at that point, she decides enough's enough and says "I have a boyfriend". At that moment, he's gone like the wind. 'Cause that's the only thing she said that ever mattered to him. Not her own humanity, but the fact that she had a boyfriend. Consider that, Deterlucem.

3.  Leah Pickett: Because every woman I know has experienced some form of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault, myself included.
What he thinks: Deterlucem agrees that this is horrible but later goes on to say that she's not speaking for all women because not all women have been raped so ha!

What I say: Again, the title comes from the fact that all women have suffered sexism, not that these women claim to speak for all women. Get it through your head! And by the way, how does Deterlucem remain unconvinced by this tweet? I would think that the fact that situations like that of Leah exist should convince everyone in the world that rape, sexual assault, and harassment is a pervasive evil in women's lives. When one in 6 American women have been raped and 31% of female workers have been sexually harassed, one seriously has to doubt how far removed they really are from this issue. True, not all women have suffered this, but how can we pretend that any woman is safe?

4. Deanna Raybourn: I've spent 19 yrs teaching my daughter how not to be raped. How long have you spent teaching your son not to rape?
What he thinks: Deterlucem feels offended. He responds "Why not teach your daughter not to rape?" and states it's offensive to ask that parents teach their male children not to rape because it assumes that by default, they'll grow to be rapists. He does understand that teaching consent to both genders is good, but is otherwise baffled by how one would teach their son not to rape.

 What I say: I actually kind of agree with Deterlucem. We should teach our daughters not to rape. We should teach the importance of consent to both our sons and daughters. We should empathize respecting your sexual partner, developing empathy for both men and women, understanding each other's boundaries, avoiding coercing others into sexual activity, and the value of an equitable relationship. And that's exactly how we would teach our sons not to rape. Also, I don't think Deanna is suggesting that men are by default rapists. The issue is that today's youth have a very distorted sense of consent and young men often fail to see how serious sexual assault is to the point that they laugh at it. And I know that "not all men!" but these young men are someone's sons also, and I doubt their parents ever talked to them about the issue of rape. Think about the teenage boys who were convicted of raping a 16-year old girl in Steubenville. They did an absolutely awful thing but I don't think they're complete monsters. Their parents never taught them about the value of meaningful consent and respecting women as human beings. Those parents never would have imagined that their sons would have done such a thing. If they had taught their boys, maybe we'd see a different future.

My point is that while we'd like to hope that our sons will grow up to be caring and considerate human beings, we cannot be sure that they won't end up violating a woman or man's integrity. Especially considering that 1 in 10 teens have coerced someone into doing some form of sexual activity. At that point, it should be clear that it's not just a few bad people who are coercing, assaulting, or raping other people, that it's a sign that something is very, very wrong with the way we view sexual activity. We need to stop devoting so much time and energy teaching women all these rape prevention lessons that don't solve the problem but help men who rape get away unpunished, and start focusing on teaching all our children to respect one another.

5. Buisiness Sam: b/c not returning someone's feelings, or as society calls it putting them in the "friend zone", should not make me feel guilty.
What he thinks: "Well yes, it bloody well should!" Deterlucem believes (quite indignantly) that "friendzoning" is when a person leads someone on who has romantic feelings for them and never acknowledges it, treating them as if they were mere friends.

What I say: Ah yes, the friend zone. I totes know about the friend zone. Yes, I agree that it's terrible when someone doesn't return your feelings and they lead you on, and that's how Deterlucem defines it . But is that what's really going on most of the time when men complain about the friend zone?I bet that for over 90% of these assholes who gripe about the "friend zoning bitch", what really happened is that the girl didn't know about his feelings in the first place, and when she found out, she just didn't feel the same way. "Friend zoning" is rarely used anymore to mean being led on and having your heart broken. Guys mainly use it nowadays to demonize women who simply don't return the feelings back. It's misogynistic as hell because it puts the woman at fault. Why not call it unrequited love? And why assume Business Sam is leading a guy on, Deterlucem? Maybe she just doesn't return his feelings and will not take being faulted of "friend zoning" just for not complying to what he wants.

6. Jennifer Laughran: In college, we'd regularly find girls who had been roofie'd and left passed out in the parking lot next to our dorm. REGULARLY.
What he thinks: Deterlucem thinks this is terrible also, but says that these women should probably learn from this experience and just follow safety rules so ha!

 What I say: Apparently, the whole point of these tweets hasn't quite made its way into Deterlucem's brain because nothing he said about this tweet was anything other the rehashing of the same old tired precautions that we expect women to follow all the time. I mean, advice like watching your drink and going with someone to a bar does work to an extent, but even so, women still do get raped by men, and an unsympathetic, accusative attitude is very often the norm when it comes to these women. Why should women have to go through life constantly fearing for their bodily and sexual integrity? Why is it that most people's automatic approach is to blame the victim as if she hasn't already blamed herself a thousand times already. Nothing Deterlucem said here did anything but to perpetuate rape culture and victim-blaming, and that is made obvious when he says that the only way these incidents will stop "is if women learn to protect themselves too". Did men not commit these rapes? Deterlucem just forgot about the instigators of these rapes in the first place.

(I don't know if you see this, but at the end of his little "rebuttal", Deterlucem turns to the camera with a brief yet smug and satisfied look on his face, as if he's done something impressive. Considering what he just said beforehand, it's quite offensive and makes me want to tear his smile off his face.)

I'll think I'll end it here for today, and continue the rest of rebuttals in another post, but we should consider what we've learned so far from this dude. While he does possess some sort of sympathy for these women who have suffered from rape, assault, and sexual harassment, it seems that the crucial thing he lacks is empathy for these women. Why else would he bother making a 25 minute video debunking these tweets? To me, it's pretty clear that this guy does not take these issues seriously and is just interested in shutting down feminism and any discussion of sexism.

To be continued here.

What am I doing?

Right now, I have this desire to revamp my blog. Only I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Maybe I should just start blogging regularly and actually get an audience? I really don't know.

First off, I've changed my blog design to what it is right now, and I like how it looks right now, so that's as far as I'm going with design for the moment. I think that once I get readers or whatever, I'll improve it.

 Second, I have these old blog posts which I wrote years ago, and I don't really like them. I don't disagree with what I wrote; it's just the writing style that I'm kind of embarrassed by now. Did I really write "BTW" in one of them? What was I thinking? I was considering editing them for grammar and clarity, but I believe I'll just leave them as they are for historical reference and such.

So to anyone who stumbles upon my blog, I start writing quality stuff after January 24, 2012. All the other posts before that are kind of embarrassing and childish. Read them at your leisure. I don't really write like that anymore

Third, I'll try to write post regularly. As long as I find some interesting stuff that I have a well-formed opinion about, I will try to write about it. This should be much easier because in the past, I've written almost exclusively about LGBT rights, and now I'm expanding my focus to feminism, politics, social justice issue, skepticism, and all these other fascinating issues that should make my blog one that can appeal to a variety of readers. As seen with my evolution post, I definitely will not just be focusing on just LGBT rights.

So hopefully, this blog becomes a much more serious pursuit of my time. Hope you'll read it!

That's not what Evolution is!

One of the things about Facebook that can easily bring me down is when my friends like or share political/controversial issue posts because then, I get to see what they really believe in, and sometimes it's quite unpleasant. That happened to me a few weeks ago when a friend shared a video of this young Earth creationist guy named Joshua Feurstein who claims he can destroy evolution in 3 minutes.

Here is the video. I don't blame you if you want to slap him.


 First, I want to confess something. I was a young Earth creationist. Yep, I used to believe that God poofed the world into existence over the course of 6 days 6,000 years ago. I believed that the Bible was practically a history book. All that was back when I was a fundamentalist Christian. So that means that had I watched this video 4 years ago, I would have believed EVERYTHING that this guy said. Now, I've gotten much better, and my mind is a lot more rational, so now when I first watched this video, I couldn't get past the first 30 seconds without wanting to scream.

Watching this video was quite sad considering how self-assured this Joshua is. He seems to truly believe that his rhetorical arguments can destroy decades of scientific research on the well-proven phenomenon that is evolution. It's really quite pathetic when you analyze his arguments for what they really are. Nothing that he says is original or thought provoking. It's basically a messy conglomeration of Kent Hovind talking points, fundamental misunderstandings of scientific terminology, and plainly ignorant assertions. But my creationist friend who shared this video thinks that Joshua is an excellent debater, and apparently so do the people who liked her post. This tells me that no matter how invariably absurd creationist arguments are, some devoted believer is going to share them like they've found undisputed proof that thousands of biologists, naturalists, and physicists don't know what they're talking about (maybe it's the other way around?). Now, I feel an obligation to debunk everything Joshua is spewing.
 
And before we begin, we must define evolution because without knowing what it is, I cannot easily defend it. I believe that the reason so many people do not believe in evolution is because they do not know what it is, and therefore, they don't understand it. Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological species over successive generations. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has modified itself from single-celled organisms billions of years ago to the mind boggling diversity of life we see today.

Joshua starts by claiming that evolution is not a science because it cannot fit within "the parameters of parentheses" (what?) of science because it's "never been observed". Well, it's not like a phenomenon has to be directly observed in order to be considered plausible. In astronomy, black holes are not directly observable because they absorb all incoming light, but astronomers have inferred that they exist due to observing the powerful beams of x-ray light and matter that they emit.

But that's rather beside the point, evolution has been observed--countless times. It may not be a video of dinosaurs evolving into birds that Joshua and other creationists seem to demand, but smaller examples of micro-evolution have been observed. For example, let's look at the peppered moths from Britain. Before the industrial revolution, most peppered moths were white with black speckles which camouflaged them well against the lichen-covered trees. But during the 19th century, the resulting pollution of the industrial revolution killed those lichens which exposed the dark tree bark underneath. Now, light peppered moths were easily predated by birds, and  dark moths, which were a genetic rarity before, could hide much better against the tree bark than the light moths. As a result, the moth population became increasingly darker as the dark moths survived and produced more offspring. By the end of the 19th century, 98% of the moth population was dark. Now what does this mean? It shows that over time, over many generations, the moth population underwent a change in the frequency of inherited characteristics (their color). In other words, evolution occurred. Admittedly, it's not the grand scale evolution that creationists often attack, but it's a good starting point from which to understand evolution. Joshua cannot deny that evolution has been observed when, as I detailed here, it has. And that's just one example. You can find countless more on any search engine.

After this, Joshua states (in a very whiny tone) that evolution is just a "theory". This was where I wanted to scream. Again and again, people like Joshua misunderstand what a theory is. In colloquial use, a theory is an unproved idea that someone has about something. In scientific use, a theory is "a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing". Theories are very useful for explaining existing phenomena, which is why we also have a theory of gravity. Do creationists argue that gravity hasn't been proven? So we call evolution a theory not because scientists haven't proven it, but rather because scientists have proven it. I seriously feel that a different word has to be used for the colloquial use of theory because it's dragging the meaning of scientific theory through the mud.

Joshua then expresses his incredulity at the idea that out of "some accidental cosmic bang" came "one cell" from which all life springs. Well, that's not actually evolution. That's a separate process called "Abiogenesis". Whereas evolution explains how life has diversified, abiogenesis explains how life began. From what I know, scientists haven't conclusively proven abiogenesis but even if it didn't happen, and god did poof life into existence, that doesn't mean evolution is false. Mentioning abiogenesis was just irrelevant, and I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, but I'm pretty sure that a single cell coming from the big bang is not an accurate summary of it.

Joshua also can't believe that over years and years, we "mysteriously" developed all our characteristics and traits because we "willed" it. Wait, what? Does he even have the slightest understanding of what evolution is? Only someone completely ignorant of evolution's mechanics would think that it works through "magic". It would take me more than a while to explain how evolution works so here you go. Also, if he doesn't believe in evolution because it's too "mysterious" and "magical", doesn't that also apply to the Genesis story in the bible? I mean, there's a damn talking snake!  What's not magical about that?

Increasingly displaying his total scientific illiteracy, Joshua cites "the law of thermodynamics" which states that "Chaos cannot create order". Whoa! Hold on! Doesn't he mean the second law of thermodynamics? That's not even what the law says! The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy (disorder) in a closed system does not decrease". Where does he get his interpretation from? I'm pretty sure that even most creationists don't paraphrase the law that badly. If you don't know why he brought this up, basically, many creationists argue that since disorder increases in a closed system, evolution cannot occur since organisms becomingly increasing complex would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. That's a poor arguments for many reasons which I won't detail here, but I will mention that entropy, which Joshua alludes to as "chaos", is very strictly defined within physics, and it's often bastardized by creationists. Here's an introduction to what it is, and from what I've heard so far, I know for a fact Joshua has no clue what it is.

Joshua then points to various physical phenomena ranging from the sun and the moon to the seasons in an attempt to prove that the world "works like a clock" *and this shows that the universe has order, and somehow this means that evolution is false because order cannot come from chaos? I'm seriously confused by what he's trying to say here. He says that these orderly phenomena could not come from an accident because it defies science. I've never heard of any scientific law or discovery that suggests that. When I first heard this argument, I dismissed it as plain stupid, but it's interesting because when I try to analyze it, it makes even less sense! I'm gonna move on because my brain feels wasted now.

Joshua pulls out a straw man argument where he compares evolution to a tornado roaming through a junkyard and assembling a shiny Lamborghini by chance. And that's not how evolution works at all. No evolutionist says that life randomly evolved to be what it is today. What happens is that environmental conditions favor some traits in a species over others, and the organisms with those traits survive and reproduce more often than those lacking the advantageous traits, so the species , over generations, gradually acquires those characteristics. That's how natural selection works which is a crucial part of evolution. Not a random process at all.

One particularly naive statement that Joshua says in the video is that the world is "perfect" and must have been designed for the existence of life.Yeah, I suppose with hurricanes, epidemics, parasites, volcanic eruptions, and sunburns, one couldn't ask for a more perfect world than that. And who says that world was created through an accident? Not scientists!

Joshua makes his last point by appealing to etymology where he breaks down the word "Universe" to uni=one and verse=statement, therefore the universe is one spoken statement. Well, that's not even correct because verse comes from the Latin "Versus" which means turned so I guess the universe is something turned to a whole. Silly.

Joshua finishes by calling people to share his video, like, comment, and the usual. He seems to have this goal of eventually getting creationism to be taught in schools. Hell, no. When it comes to science, American students are seriously lagging behind internationally, along with math and reading. Introducing creationism to schools will only make matters worse by promoting unfounded religious propaganda. The heart of science is critical thinking supported by empirical thinking, and creationism has none of that. You want to know something? My friends who liked and shared Joshua's video have only recently graduated high school. Science education has failed them. How do I know about peppered moths? Because I learned about it in high school, in my biology class. If we want students to be scientifically literate and critical thinking workers, we should do our best to educate them by teaching evolution and science, and not creationism.