Jo Bartosch: "Barbie Kardashian" and the Grisley Reality of Self-ID

The progressive left happily accepts absurd falsehoods--and shriekily badgers the rest of society into going along with the farce. 

But you'd think they'd draw the line at things like sexually mutilating children and putting male sexual psychopaths into women's prisons.

But nope.

Jenny Holland: The Twitter Files Reveal an Elite at War With the Truth

I think this is just about as right as it could be.

I'd emphasize that the madness did not originate with Trump and was not a reaction to him--Holland only says it does to some extent. It was already in place / under way when Trump came on the political scene. He threw some fuel on the fire, I agree--who could not? But most of the reaction was to his opposition to the mad worldview of our "elites." The progressive left loses its mind at the least hint of opposition. Its reaction to Trump is exaggerated largely because they can't hurt him--they can't take his livelihood away, and he doesn't give a rat's ass what they think of him. Trump's damned Trumpiness was part of their loss of shit--but not half. Not a quarter. 

Well. Maybe a quarter...

And, of course, I say again: he was always a desperate gamble. And since he lost the election he's done nothing but hurt us, e.g. losing the Senate.

Next on his agenda, apparently: losing the 2024 Presidential election.

3 Soros Prosecutors Under Fire in VA

Despicable people.

BLM is a Scam

...in case you didn't know..

Candace Owen's "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" gets shouted down by the left at Central Connecticut State U.

Media Literacy Education: Another Politicization Vector in Education

Pretty much any new educational initiative that isn't specifically focused on, say, wood shop, is going to have been introduced at least largely as a means for the left to further politicize education--and even if it wasn't so intended, it'll be exploited to do so.

link

link

link

link (on "SEL")

Cancel Culture and the American Soviet Mentality

link

Ukraine Tearing Up Russian Armor

Git 'em.

Political Correctness Watch: "The EEB Language Project" Lists "Harmful Terms"

EEB = Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

   The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad words (and phrases) include 'male,' 'female,' 'man,' 'woman,' 'mother,' 'father,' 'citizen science' (because harmful to non-citizens, bigot), 'gender' (because...well, it says can be confused with 'sex'), 'survival of the fittest' (because eugenics! "ableism"! social Darwinism!...huh?) and my favorites: 'blind' and 'double-blind'.

   Ten years ago, smart money would say this was a joke...

   ...but today? I guess it means that the sciences are just as stupid as the humanities and social "sciences"...

Addendum: Dawkins tells 'em to get bent.

The "Strongest Evidence Yet" for the Zoonotic Hypothesis?

I can't get behind the paywall right now, but here it is.

   I have to admit, I don't take these people seriously anymore. Their hysterical three-year campaign to stifle the--obviously more prima facie likely--lab-leak hypothesis has steadily eroded my ability to be objective about this.

   I don't care where it came from. But:

(a) I want to know the truth

but, perhaps even more importantly:

(b) we have to push back against Lysenkoism.

   The answer to this particular question is interesting and consequential. But it pales in comparison to the problem of the general politicization of science--not to mention all our other institutions--by the PC left. The Lysenkoization of science has profound implications not merely for the answer to this question, but for the answering of all scientific questions. Political correctness is the subordination of the epistemic to the political. And that means replacing conclusions supported by the evidence with conclusions preferred by leftist ideologues.

   From the beginning, the blue team has tried to make the zoonotic hypothesis, basically, true (or "true") by fiat--or, rather, on the political grounds that--somehow--LLH was racist.* Hence it was declared (as one internet interlocutor said to me) "tin-foil hat territory." Supporting the zoonotic hypothesis became a matter of political principle. So what we ended up with is what we so often end up with today: all the relevant elites and institutions lined up, striving mightily to make a case for the left-preferred answer...and anyone who questioned the madness declared crazy, racist, anti-science... Because actually considering the evidence in a politically neutral way is...totally unscientific...

   And the pattern is familiar, of course, from the debates about transgender mythology, climate change, and "systemic" racism in all its alleged varieties.

   So anyway, the zoonotic hypothesis could, of course, turn out to be true anyway. And I haven't seen any reliable reporting on the new evidence yet.

   But I have to say, I still think the LLH gets presumption.

* I refuse to play the stupid yera racist game. So I tend to pass on the many chances we have to outmaneuver the PCs at their own game. But I do think it's important to point out how impressionistic, improvisational, ad hoc that game is. When, at first, it looked like the Wuhan virus really might have come from the wet market, the left was already spinning up its racism! drives...because it's racist to think that wet markets are gross. If this had all gone slightly differently, the left would be insisting that the zoonotic hypothesis was racist. And certainly if the competing hypothesis were It started in China and It started in Belgium--or Russia!--the China one would be, like, totally racist...

The January Cochrane Review Re: Masks

Here's the bottom line: still no proof that masks work to limit the spread of the Wuhan batflu of d000m.

Bill Schneider: "Grievance Politics, Rather Than Problem-Solving, Now at the Heart of the Republican Party"

   So delusional one hardly knows where to begin...

   Preventing the brainwashing and sexual mutilation of children is solving a problem--a problem created entirely by the progressive left.

   It's even more hilarious that anyone would describe pushing back against DEI as Schneider does in the title--DEI, like "anti-"racism, is grievance politics par excellence. And it has become little more than a mechanism for institutionalizing the insane political religion of the left and promoting the ideological capture of universities. Again: stopping such madness is clearly solving a problem. 

   As for opposing our involvement in Ukraine: though I tend to disagree, that can't in any way be characterized as some kind of grievance-mongering.

   Finally: if Biden had merely not accomplished anything, he'd be ten times the President he actually is. The problem is that he's accomplished a fair bit--but none of it good. (Unless you count Ukraine. Which I might.)

   What's crazy to me is that, despite the fact that the Democratic party has completely lost its mind, almost none of the Democrats I know have abandoned it.

   Of course it's not the cleanest case, given that Trump showed up on the scene about the time that the Dems were completely losing it--and gave them a little extra nudge over the cliff... And, though he's about 1/10th as bad as the left wishes he were, I still understand that he makes it more difficult for people to jump ship.

   Though, call me crazy, I don't think that mean tweets outweigh the brainwashing and sexual mutilation of children and the Orwellianization of all our major institutions...

Ian Haworth: "How Trans Activism Became the New Religion of the Left"

Woketarianism is the religion. Transgenerism, like "anti-"racism is just one of its principle dogmas.

The Left Always Seeks To Suppress Disagreement: NYT "Trans" Dust-Up Edition

What it really comes down to is that they want to eliminate all disagreement with and questioning of their position. 

And that's because it is incoherent and can't stand up to even moderate scrutiny.

Turley: Manhattan D.A.'s Trump Prosecution is Bullshit

That's my summary.

Douthat: What It Means To Be Woke

   When criticism finally starts zeroing in on some crazy aspect of progressivism, one of progressive's go-to arguments is: that doesn't exist. Political correctness, cancel culture, Antifa--and, briefly, CRT--the ploy has been tried with them all. Another ploy: the term you're using is meaningless--or at least you don't know what it means. E.g. 'CRT' again...and 'woke.' 

   Generally the request for definition is a rhetorical ploy, of course. Whatever definition you give will be deemed incorrect. And it's not a serious question. So best not to play--just call them on their dishonest question. 

   Things like Woketarianism tend not to have pithy, perfectly precise definitions. That's not uncommon and not a problem. 

   Woketarinism is, perhaps, a little harder to define that most because it really is a sprawling, incoherent movement made up of individually often incoherent parts. It's a grab-bag of anti-liberal ideas all generally aiming to tear down the liberal order. So it's a lot.

   But if the difficulty of producing a definition were a problem, it would be more of a problem for the proponents of the view than for its opponents.

   And: 'woke' is their word. We just started using it because there was no better term laying around. Well, actually, there is: political correctness... But I guess we're not going back to that one.

   'Political correctness' was their term, too. But their view is crazy, so the term eventually took on negative connotations to match the reality. So they dumped it. Oh yeah: and then later said it had never existed... Now the same thing is happening to 'woke'...so eventually that will be dumped. And so on. A basically synonymous term is 'social justice.' That's rhetorically/tactically better, since it gets 'justice' in there. But previously they simply deemed their own position "correct," and that didn't help...so perhaps people will eventually see through 'social justice', too.

   Anyway: Douthat gets the position generally right, but leaves out the tangle of pseudophilosophy at its core--the postpostmodern mishmash of poststructuralism, postmodernism, critical theory, queer theory, radical feminism, etc.

"Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders; It's Time We Did, Too"

This is nonsense all the way through.

To take just one prominent example: becoming a eunuch--i.e. being castrated--is not a gender.

For the billionth time: the whole house of transgender cards is built on the sex/gender distinction...and they can't even get it right.

Or, rather: it's one of their strategic ambiguities. Like 'socially constructed'.

Unsurprisingly the ad misericordiam / ad baculum one-two punch gender ideologues love so much shows up: you must believe this outlandish theory because what about the children??? They're a mess! And they juuust might kill themselves if you "misgender" them! Or refuse to believe that people can change sex...or gender...or whatever it is they're talking about...by fiat. And you wouldn't want to be responsible for that...would you...?

Judge Kyle Duncan: My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School

Our universities are producing totalitarian morons.

Matt Welch: Journalists Abandoning Objectivity for "Moral Clarity" Really Just Want to Call People Immoral

Well, they probably most want to call them racist...

Anyway, yeah.

This whole "moral clarity" fad is stupid as hell, as is the anti-objectivity fad.

As is the truth not objectivity fad.

Saying that we want truth rather objectivity is rather like saying that I want money rather than a good career. In each case the latter is normally the best means to the former. Numbnut.

Moral clarity isn't analogous to objectivity. they're different kinds of things. One's a kind of outcome, one's a method.

And I suppose "moral clarity" would be nice. But, again, what the lefties pushing that really want is a thin pseudophilosophical cover story for spewing their ideology at every turn. Which includes, of course: calling people racist. 

Moral clarity is only genuinely valuable when you first have justified moral views. But by clarity they really mean certainty. But in this case, that's just a euphemism for dogmatism.

Anyway, how do we go about getting justified moral beliefs?

Anybody? Anybody?

Starts with an 'o'...

The F-4 Phantom Is Badass

link

But no, it is not beautiful.

Though it's weird to make that point by comparing it to the F-35. Aka Fat Amy. Hardly the plane renowned for its beauty.

J. K. Rowling: There's Something Dangerous About The Transgender Movement

It starts with an outright denial of obvious fact and ends with the brainwashing and sexual mutilation of children. So yeah.

GMU Econ Statement of Commitment to Academic Freedom and to Intellectual Merit

God bless Mason Econ.

J. Peder Zane: Why The Russiagate Scandal Outranks the Rest

I honestly don't understand where it ranks in the history of American political scandals.

But it was awful.

And that's before mentioning the ongoing coverup by the MSM et al.

Trump Indictment Coming?

These people are rabid with TDS.

I'm no lawyer, and I haven't been following this closely, so I could easily be wrong...very easily...

But this certainly seems, prima facie, like real banana-republic-type stuff.

I don't see any way to deny that the blue team has weaponized our institutions--including government and the legal system--against us.

Justice should be done...but this seems like a very selective application of the principle.

[Yup. Real banana-republic-type stuff, it seems.]

[But, hey, weaponization of the coercive power of the state against political opponents, mean tweets...it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, amirite?]

"Beyond Objectivity"

I just got done reading this "report." It is so goddamned awful that I hardly know what to say about it.

tl;dr:

Objectivity is white and male and dumb and we don't want to use the word anymore. Journalism aims at truth--which is different than facts. And different than accuracy. And we don't really know what we're saying here, but we do know that diversity is the really the very most important thing there ever was... Another thing that's important is social media, though.

The Stupidest Article You'll Read This Week: Masha Gessen, "Why Are Some Journalists Afraid of 'Moral Clarity'?"

Funny how all the unquestionable moral facts about which we can have "moral clarity," according to Gessen, are those propositions accepted by the left. She quotes some Lowrey fellow:

For Lowery, moral clarity is, he wrote, “first and foremost, about objective facts. Nazis are bad—objective fact. Black lives matter—objective fact. Climate change is real—objective fact. President Trump is a liar—objective fact.” In his Times Op-Ed, Lowery added that moral clarity involves naming what we observe without resorting to euphemisms, which includes labelling the President a racist. Moral clarity can also describe the journalist’s own position in relationship to the subject matter. “So often the questions that get the best/most insightful answers are posed from a place of moral clarity,” Lowery tweeted. “Questioning someone powerful from a place of ‘neutrality’ often, in practice, results in journalism that is inappropriately soft in its framing.”

So...Nazis are bad alright. Who disputes that, exactly? Black lives matter--ambiguous. True proposition taken as such. But the intention is to refer to the BLM organization and its views--which views are generally misleading or outright false. After that, things go downhill fast. Climate change...well...the climate changes...but, then, that's not what he means. And what he means is probably not an objective fact at all. President Trump is a liar? Well, he has lied. And his opponents have lied about him at least as much. And he lied less than Joe Biden. And less than the NYT lied about him. So--is he a liar? By the standards of American politics and public life, I mean? I've often argued that he's more of a bullshitter than a liar. And, as Dave Chappell has put it: at last he's an honest liar. He may bullshit a lot, but he's also laying a lot of important truths on you that no one else in D.C. will say. 

   When lefty journalists like Gessen say they want "moral clarity" instead of objectivity, what they really mean is: We don't want to have to tell you what people to our right actually think, don't want to tell you their side of the story, don't want to have to take their arguments seriously nor even state them. We just want to be able to state our ideological dogmas. And then, apparently: say "objective fact" after them... 

   And Gessen isn't really talking about "moral clarity," anyway. She's talking about ideological dogmatism. She's obviously filled to the brim with certainty...but most of it seems to be wrong. Dogmatism is the order of the day on the left. The vanguard of the progressive left is nothing if not convicted. They think they are right about everything, and everyone to their right is evil and wrong about everything. They have no time for the suggestion that they might be wrong about anything. The ideas of fallibilism and fallibility have never, apparently, entered their blue-dyed little heads. 

   Dogmatists are dangerous. Radicals are dangerous. Idiots are dangerous. Idiotic radical dogmatists...they are off the scale dangerous.

   Gessen and her ilk are dangerous--and of a type known to be dangerous. They are the last people you ever want to be in positions of power, running the show.

   I don't have the time or the heart to slog through the rest of that vat of nonsense Gessen has assembled.

   

Mary Harrington: "The Fairy-Tale Allure of Conspiracies"

Not sure whether the truth is allegorical...but it's certainly clear that a lot of what gets dismissed as "conspiracy theory" actually hits pretty close to the truth.

Biden Accuses Republicans of Wanting to Defund Police

Unbelievable.

A particularly infuriating lie.