Discussion (46)¬

  1. JustATeensyBitStrident says:

    Nice one – I missed her!

  2. machigai says:

    No comment.

  3. DT says:

    Don’t you love the Barmaid! Quite fond of Jesus and Mo as well, looking forward to them cuddling up in bed!

  4. Lauren says:

    The hatred is palpable! Oh, wow, it just shows how fragile religious belief really is that it can’t stand up to scrutiny.

  5. Palpable. Something that can be palpated, i.e. touched and felt. What a delightful word. Definitely a hate crime to question the divine authority of scriptures. I understand in some countries it calls for the death penalty. Fortunately, I don’t live in one of them.

  6. Ubi Dubium says:

    I’ve always imagined that the barmaid is Greta Christina. I’ve always mentally read the barmaid’s word balloons in her voice.

  7. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Ubi, wrong voice, I’m afraid. Barmaid wouldn’t turn on a friend to keep in with the bullies.

  8. MsT says:

    “…for no reason” ? I’d say the reason is – control.

  9. Michael says:

    Ubi Dubium said: “I’ve always imagined that the barmaid is Greta Christina.”

    I’ve never considered it before but she and the bar maid are sisters.

  10. Smee says:

    I would laugh at this cartoon; I usually do! Unfortunately Jesus and Mo are reacting to the Barmaids speech in exactly the same way as Greta Christina and her fellow progressives do to anyone who disagrees with their world view!

    Jesus and Mo are obviously “Hate speechers” Like myself who’s views should be silenced by legal sanction! I never ever thought that I would side with Jesus and Mo? What a strange world this is!

  11. Tim in Oz says:

    Author, is it mere coincidence, or related to Richard Dawkins and KPFA?

  12. Tim in Oz says:

    Silly me! I see from the tags – no coincidence!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Jolly old england. alas
    Is a thing that did pass
    Carrion of multicultural
    Fed off by the colonist vulture
    Former nation of shopkeepers, now kisses ass.

  14. Lady Mondegreen says:

    Trans activists use the same “reasoning” — you don’t believe? How HATEFUL of you!

    It’s a handy way to shield one’s axioms from scrutiny.

  15. Smee, you say you are siding with Jesus and Mo because they are reacting like Greta Christina. Yet it is Greta Christina you say has upset you. So why are you siding with Jesus and Mo?
    In this cartoon, it is the barmaid who is being accused of hate speech, and Jesus and Mo who feel there should be legal sanctions against her. Somehow you seem to have this backwards.
    That aside, you have alluded to some harsh treatment by Greta Christina and her fellow progressives, of whom I happen to be one I suppose. Could you be a bit more explicit about which of your views aroused our ire and vitriol?

  16. JohnM says:

    Where is Nasser? Hope everything is OK for him.

    Meanwhile, we need to dob in ‘Barmaid’ to the Wiltshire police, who are soliciting reports of hate crime:
    Shame about the illiteracy, but then it was never a strong point for any theofascist running dogs, was it?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Smee. As an (almost) progressive myself, I dislike being lumped with “regressives” (as per Maajid Nawaz) such as this woman you identify. Please be sure to correctly label these people correctly in future.

  18. Graham ASH-PORTER says:

    The religious behave like spoilt children! Screaming when they can’t get their own way…

  19. Laripu says:

    “Maybe we should call the police?” – when vocal disbelief becomes legally actionable, you have the beginnings of a theocracy.

    It’s an odd state of mind. The use of the inclusive phrase “Happy Holidays” in place of “Merry Christmas” has been characterized as part of a “war on Christmas”. I think it’s the same attitude.

  20. Deimos says:

    In the good old days of yore – the church organised disputations to show the superior nature of the bible against various other holy books i.e. Cathar and Jewish texts. Mo also organised such debates with Christians.

    In our modern enlightened times this wouldn’t be possible as there is way too much hate speech in all the holy books. Not to mention inciting true believers to murder, GBH and of course sexual mutilation of Children.

    I love the idea of “de-platforming” (I assume this means pushing disagreeable people in front of trains) and along with “defenestration” it remains the only fair way to dealing with fanatics.

    I’ve also got a genuine question and I think the j&m forum might have someone who knows. Has anyone ever tried to get any of the mainstream holy books banned as hate speech? Has anyone ever taken it to a UK or EU court ?

  21. jb says:

    DT, were you suggesting a threesome? Interesting thought! I’m trying to work it out visually though. I guess the barmaid would have to be under the covers with her head at the foot of the bed, so her voice would be coming from the right place. But sure, why not…?

  22. dr John de Wipper says:

    Has anyone ever tried to get any of the mainstream holy books banned as hate speech?

    Depends on the exact definition of “holy book”.
    In the Dritte Reich (Third Empire) Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf was certainly holy, (including the ritual of giving a -if possible luxury- copy to every couple of newly-weds.
    In many European countries (certainly the Netherlands) it was, and still is, a crime to sell crime one. As recently as 2014 there was a high-profile court case.

  23. Gray says:

    “Hatred”? Where’s the made up form the outraged love to use so much? Y’know, like “hatefulness” or “haterness”. Oh oh…. how about “hurtful”?! Because hurtful hurtery will always be hurtnessly hurtinary.

  24. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Deimos, I don’t know of any attempts on this side of the Atlantic but recently in the U.S.A. a lawyer tried to get the Koran classified as hate speech and banned, but was kicked out of court. I’ll try to find a link to the story later.

  25. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Deimos, found it. The lawyer wanted the Koran to be re-written to take out the nasties. Pillock!

  26. Deimos says:

    Tanxs AoS.
    It still amazes me that Dawkins & Co. haven’t had the testes to take ALL the major holie texts to court. If nothing else they all count as hate speech against one another. There are so many fanatics in this world, shame we can’t produce an anti fanatic fanatic….
    Perhaps it’s down to the fact that most anti fanatics are far too polite to become that which they despise.
    Que Sera

  27. Someone says:

    To borrow from the Joker:
    A group of religious extremists hold a rally or protest to spew their hatred and intolerance through the guise of righteousness (and “love”), nobody panics.
    One atheist expresses their views and disagreement with religion in a fairly civilized manner, everyone loses their minds.

  28. Suffolk Blue says:

    Deimos – “de-platform” – LOL

  29. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Smee, you are obviously suffering from “toxic masculinity”. If you disagree then this is itself evidence of the toxic masculinity in question. Please report to your nearest re-education camp.

  30. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Helena, that’s naughty 😉

  31. Hate speech laws shouldn’t exist. We need hatemongers to express their opinions freely so we know who they are and we can spot them and confront their idiotic beliefs with reason and significantly better ideas.

    Besides, if all Western countries got rid of the amazingly absurd ‘hate speech’ laws, we would do away with the irony surrounding this topic: that pointing out that a book is full of hateful ideas (e.g. the Quran) is automatically labelled as hatred towards a certain group of individuals.

    To paraphrase Brendan O’Neill: “There is only one type of speech, and it should ALL be free”.

  32. Acolyte, but accurate.

  33. Some Dude says:

    I find the barmaid oddly attractive.

  34. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Darwin, I agree with Helena’s verdict, it’s the circular reasoning that’s naughty.

  35. Anonymous says:

    @Some Dude – I find the barmaid oddly attractive.

    If you’re male and straight, what is odd about finding an intelligent atheist woman attrractive?

  36. Acolyte, ah yes, I see it now. Agreed.

  37. HelenaHandbasket says:

    DH and AS: Don’t you oppress me with your patriarchal so-called “logic”.

  38. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I didn’t say I disapproved, just that it was naughty.
    Nothing wrong with a bit of naughtiness, I’ve always found. 🙂

  39. Acolyte, I’m finally coming up to speed on something you said regarding Barmaid having the voice of Greta Christina: “Ubi, wrong voice, I’m afraid. Barmaid wouldn’t turn on a friend to keep in with the bullies.”
    Has there been another imbroglio featuring Greta Christina of which I am unaware? What’s this about, eh?

  40. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Ah, it’s complicated, Darwin, but goes back to when Ophelia committed the heinous crime of saying that ‘is a transwoman a woman?’ is a highly nuanced question that required more than a yes/no answer and would require her personally to learn more about the whole issue of transgenderism before being able to give a qualified answer. That, of course, saw Ophelia labelled a terf by the smurfs*, and the vilest person in the history of ever.
    Greta had been a friend of Ophelia, and not long before this all kicked off Ophelia had been Greta’s main defender from the same mob when Greta made the mistake of abusing her privilege by buying a pair of shoes (yes, really).
    That, however, didn’t stop Greta from joining the mob against Ophelia for taking the neutral position on a subject she felt unqualified to answer (made trickier by knowing that a ‘yes’ entailed accepting the idea that transwomen can get pregnant and require access to abortion services, have vaginas despite not being surgically transitioned, and other assorted physical impossibilities).
    So, yeah, so ideologically pure that she was happy to throw a friend under the bus for the sake of such obvious nonsense, when a call for a rational debate would have been the correct route.
    That said, rational debate is not the forte of the FTB crowd these days.

    *my own acronym for the screaming moaners undermining rational feminism.

  41. Acolyte, thanks for this explanation. I’ve been out of touch enough to have missed this whole, dare I say it, cat fight.
    In general, my cowardly response to this issue has been to give ’em the answer they want to hear and don’t sweat the details. I have no problem accepting a trans person as whatever gender they identify with, since it seems to me that gender is far more an emotional and mental condition than a physical one. The anatomy characteristics seem to pale in comparison.
    It also seems to me that those who want to quibble about whether a trans person is or is not what they feel they are do so because of a desire to maintain the gender binary that causes so much suffering in this world, or to dictate which bathrooms one might use. I’ll have none of that.

    It is sad that such discussion cause so much anger and resentment, leaving such a nasty association with feminism in general, and I’m sorry to hear that Greta Christina didn’t give Ophelia more support. I’m a fan of both, and I hate to see friends fall out.

    BTW, I’ve learned not to post anything on a Pharyngula thread that even hints at a different point of view than the adopted consensus. They have toned it down a bit since the days of raping with a dead porcupine, but they still have zero tolerance for a nuanced opinion. I’ve been flamed for simply defending the use of comic sans, as if their taste in type face is written in holy scripture. The scorn and derision can really burn.

  42. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I agree that gender is complex and have no issue with people identifying as they will, but I cannot accept physical impossibilities such as the claims made that transwomen have wombs, have periods and can conceive. I also refuse to accept the idea that if I, as a straight man, would not consider a sexual relationship with an untransitioned (ie. penis-bearing) transwoman then I am transphobic, as are lesbians who feel the same and straight women and gay men who wouldn’t sleep with untransitioned transmales.

    It’s a pity that the general opinion that most people have of transgender issues is coloured by the loudest voices, which always happen to come from the extreme end of the community. Bit like religion, really.

  43. Some Dude says:


    Yes, I’m a straight male, but I normally feel attracted to women I’ve seen before. The fact that I’ve never seen the barmaid and still I’m attracted to her only because of her magnetic wit is a bit odd to me.

  44. DC Toronto says:

    Darwin – is it possible that some of the people who “quibble” with a trans persons ability to be or not be whatever they want in reality just don’t give a shit and don’t want to be bothered asking every person they meet what they feel their gender identity is today?
    You didn’t quantify your assertion of “so much suffering in the world” but given that the trans community makes up a fairly small part of society and the use of public washrooms a minor part of their overall life, I suspect you’ve overstated the amount of suffering caused to the average trans person.
    At the end of the day it doesn’t matter to me how others wish to conduct their life … but calling me names because I’m not on the same trans wavelength and don’t know the difference between a zie and a ze and a sie pushes me over the line. It’s not transphobic, it’s trans agnostic. And there is nothing wrong with that.

  45. Rose says:

    Darwin, you are male, aren’t you? That’d explain why you are just fine with male sex offenders going to women’s prison because they say they feel like women. (Prison rape is a thing, you know? Now with unwanted pregnancy and forced birth added) And males competing in women’s sports. And males using women’s showers and changing rooms, which means women get to have no privacy at all.

    You may be fine with females who identify as trans using the same changing room as you, but I doubt that’s true even for most men. I’ve even talked to men who aren’t very keen on females seeing them with their penis in hand at the urinal.

    The very fact that the transactivists react like rabid dogs if someone politely disagrees with their denial of biological facts, should be a hint as to what sort of thing this is – it is like religion. We don’t let religions dictate laws in this country, and the same approach should be taken when it comes to the genderism religion.

  46. postdoggerel says:

    Sex and gender, Sex and gender,
    They go together like a real mind bender
    This I tell you, brother
    You can’t have one without the other
    Sex and gender, Sex and gender
    Thrown together in a food blender
    Ask the local gentry
    And they will say it’s alimentary
    Try, try, try to separate them
    It’s an illusion
    Try, try, try, and you will only come
    To this conclusion
    Sex and gender, Sex and gender,
    Go together like a scrooge and spender
    Dad was told by mother
    You can’t have one, you can’t have none
    You can’t have one without the other


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.