Saturday, September 30, 2017

"Super Awesome Sylvia Was A Role Model For Girls In Science. Then He Realized That He Is A Boy"

That's title that was originally at the Post...but they seem to have adopted the CNN approach: put a more provocative headline on the front page for people to click on...then tone it down on the story.
   It's not so much that the Post prints fiction as fact without batting an's that it does it resolutely. The story is written as if Todd had actually transformed from a girl to a boy, with no hint of acknowledgement that this is an elaborate kabuki grounded in a certain cultural/political ideology. It's as if the Post were regularly writing, with a straight face, stories about Jesus actually talking to people, saving their souls, performing miracles, and so on. The same thing happens in the NYT and the rest of the left-leaning major media, of course. The options here are (a) write what's really happening, (b) write in a neutral mode, from slightly above or to the side, trying not to take a side (as between fact and fiction...but whatever...), or (c) enthusiastically dive into the politically correct kabuki and write as if it were true. The Post (along with the Times et al.) has chosen the latter option.
   This is the creepiest aspect of political correctness--the weird doxastic superposition of states that PCs seem to exist in--what Orwell called doublethink. Or, rather (as with any cultists): it's somewhat difficult to figure out what's really going on in their heads. Do they actually believe the unbelievable? Are they just mouthing the words? Or is it doublethink? Are they, in some sense, both believing and not believing? Or perhaps they're in a kind of unresolved doxastic state that is neither exactly belief nor exactly not?
  The care and precision with which such stories tread close to the facts while scrupulously avoiding them seems to me to be a kind of evidence of consciousness of epistemic guilt. Someone who was merely confused couldn't be so precise about skirting the truth while speaking falsehood.
Read more »

Friday, September 29, 2017

IceCube Helps Demystify Strange Radio Bursts From Deep Space

Less puzzling than it might seem if you weren't really attending to the typography.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Greenwald: "Yet Another Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?"

Well, Glenn Greenwald is largely a shithead...and he sure doesn't like the U.S...but...he's not obviously wrong about this.
   It's starting to seem like Russia Derangement Syndrome to me...and it may be a consequence of TDS.

Author Of "The Case For Colonialism" Gets The Tuvel Treatment

Mexico Earthquake: 326 Missing, 40-50 Missing

This is terrible, of course, though nothing like I feared it might be from those initial videos and pictures.

Sessions Calls For 'Recommitment' to Free Speech On Campus

Whatever else we might say about the Trump administration, it's been fantastic with respect to pushing back against PC totalitarianism on campus.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Roy Moore Wins GOP Senate Primary

Why won't this guy just damn go away?

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Conversation I Just Had...

...with a colleague from another department:

Me: Howzit goin'?
Colleague: I'm worried about one of my classes.
Me: How come?
C: Because I have a white supremacist in it.
Me: d'ya know that this person is a white supremacist?
[Despite knowing that progressives now use 'racist' to mean white and 'white supremacist' to mean racist, I was picturing an actual, y'know, white a dude with a shaved head and swastika tats.]
C: She doesn't believe in white privilege!
Me: [pause] Yeah...the thing about that is...

When I get run out of the university on a rail, it's going to be my own fault.

[I originally made the conversation a bit more artificial than it actually was just because I didn't want to include more details than necessary on the one-in-a-million chance that some crazy how this story got back to people I know...but anyway, I made it a bit more accurate by including the fact that the student is female. So...yeah...I was picturing Rudolf Hess, and it's really some college girl who, for all I know, merely refuses to happily acquiesce to indoctrination...
This probably sounds like a "that happened" story...but--swear to God--it's for real. Believe me...I wish I were making it up.]

Medium: "When You Say 'I Would Never Date A Transperson' It's Transphobic. Here's Why."


No it isn't.
Here's why:...

No, wait.
Thing is, no explanation is needed. It's obvious. There's simply no need to explain it.

   But here's something I think is worth thinking a tiny bit about: IMO this is one of the many reasons why we shouldn't play along with this absurd attempt to pretend that something we all know to be true is false. 'Woman', to take an important case, means adult female human. That's really all there is to this nonsense. So-called "transwomen" are not women. They're...and you might want to sit down for Straight men have no need to explain why they don't want to have sex with men. Nothing changes if the men in question are dressed as women, and/or wearing makeup, and/or have had plastic surgery and/or hormone treatments in order to appear more woman-like. Nothing changes if they falsely call themselves women.
   By going along with silly attempts to redefine 'woman' and 'man,' and/or with ridiculous theories of womanhood and manhood, and/or misuses of sex-specific pronouns, we (inter alia) support more substantial efforts to advance a certain kind of political agenda. The argument on the other end of the link doesn't even get off the ground without the relevant linguistic shenanigans. By pretending that some men are women, we help generate a kind of pseudo-puzzle: why won't you straight guys have sex with a certain category of woman??? I're straight...they're women...why are you ruling it out without even having met...etc.... Now, the answer to that isn't complicated. But there needn't be an answer. The problem is in the question, not the answer to it.
Read more »

F-15K Slam Eagle

Like the Strike Eagle..but slammier

North Korea Says Trump Declared War Via A Tweet

This is basically the sort of headline that was flashing through my panicky mind in the early morning hours of November 9th.
And, lo, it has come to pass

Former Student, 23, Cleared Of Rape Charges After Drunk Friend Alleged That She Woke Up On Top Of Him

The only thing I have to say about this is: it's yet another reason why you shouldn't get so drunk that you don't know what you're doing. 
   One bit of rape crisis feminist dogma is that it is always impermissible to reference a woman's drunkenness in cases like it also be impermissible to reference a guy's drunkenness? Not that I care about that sort of thing...but just wondering. At any rate: it wasn't smart to get that drunk. Which is not to say that it's his fault that he was falsely accused of rape, obviously. Nevertheless: given the current climate of hysteria, lunatic redefinitions of sexual assault, lowered standards of proof, and PC theories that "valorize" (to use an annoying old PC/pomo term) victims...guys really need to stay somewhere shy of shit-face drunk. Though, honestly, it's not clear that it would have helped at all in this case.

Aaron R. Hanlon: What The PC Left Is Doing Wrong In Language Debates

This is pretty good, I think.
I don't agree with everything in it (so what?)
From the new New Republic. I never go there anymore. It's like seeing the animated corpse of a friend.

Monday, September 25, 2017

"Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech"

If I hear one more lefty say "hate speech is not free speech" I'm going to lose my shit.
Did everybody skip seventh grade civics class but me?
"Hate speech" is not even a legal category
"Hate speech" is Constitutionally protected.
There is no First Amendment exception for "hate speech."
Using, for example, racial slurs makes you (under ordinary conditions) an asshole; but being an asshole is not illegal.
If you're looking for a country where the government can punish people for being mean and saying rude words, you're in the wrong place.

Why Has The Crime Rate Become A Political Football?

Leftier types seem to have been trying hard to resist the conclusion that violent crime--and especially murders--is/are going up. The Brennan Center seems to have been cheating to explain away the increase. But the trend--or blip--is real, and not just an anomaly in a few cities. 
   What's up with that? My guess is that the left is terrified that the Ferguson Effect is real--and their main argument has been to argue that there's no real / significant increase in crime. I absolutely won't be surprised in any way if the Ferguson effect is real...and I have no sympathy for those who want to mask it for political reasons. But I'll actually be even less surprised if it turns out to be something else...or a combination of things, with the Ferguson effect being just one of them.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

I Hate Your Blog

You Don't Have To Be A Crazy Leftist To Oppose The Crazy Right

(Also: vice versa.)

It's a really simple thought.

"Is Sex A Dirty Word?": Or: Why You Shouldn't Botch The Sex-Gender Distinction

I didn't agree with all of this, FWIW, but it's pretty good.
   Blurring the sex/gender distinction now seems to be a feature rather than a bug on the PC/SJ left. If you stick to the distinction, then there's nothing much to talk about with respect to transgenderism: e.g. Caitlyn Jenner is a feminine man. End of story. Roll credits. Move along. Nothing to see here. Trying to make him out to be a woman requires that you blur the distinction in order to try to make a change in gender out to be a change in sex.
   But botching the distinction isn't always a political tactic--lots of people just don't know what the difference is supposed to be, and use the terms interchangeably. Basically, 'gender' sounds like a slightly more highbrow term for sex, and that's the way many people use it.

Is The Pope Catholic?

Who would have thought that this would cease to be a rhetorical question?

NYT: "Push For Gender Equality In Tech: Some Men Say It's Gone Too Far"

This is surprisingly objective.
   Though, not to quibble: it's not "gender equality." It's about sex, not gender, and it's about what seems like an artificial balancing of numbers, not about eliminating discrimination.
   Thing is, there just can't be any real doubt that this sort of thing has gone too far--that is to say, become unfair and unreasonable in many ways. Those who continue to pretend that pointing out the obvious reveals or constitutes prejudice can either cut it the hell out and admit the facts, or continue to further alienate those of us who refuse to pretend that the Emperor's duds are the greatest thing ever.
   In general, this has kind of become a battle between people who refuse to pretend that day is night and those who are happy to pretend whatever they're told to pretend.
   I'm interested in addressing the weirdness of sex imbalances--but not by creating even worse, even crazier problems--and certainly not by creating an official public myth that everyone must pretend to believe on pain of accusations of prejudice.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Trump Basically Calls American Citizens Exercising Their First Amendment Rights "Sons Of Bitches"

This sonofabitch is trying my patience.

We're Pretty Crazy When It Comes To Politics

Ilya Somin, "An Inconvenient Truth"

Bullshit Watch: "The Google Memo Guy Just Showed Everybody Why He Got Fired"

Wow this is bullshit.
   The PC totalitarians are still trying to get Damore. He twittered (I'm not saying "tweeted" anymore, goddamnit) something like: the Klan, for all its failings, has some pretty rockin' names for their officers, e.g. "Grand Wizard." Incidentally, this is what we Earthlings call "humor"...
Look, dumbasses: in grad school, a friend of mine and I had a discussion about what international figure had the coolest name. Bouhtros Bouhtros-Ghali came in second. Slobodan Milosovich came in first. Nobody was idiotic enough to suggest that, by saying he had a cool name, we were endorsing anything he did. This is not a difficult distinction to grasp. Saying that the Nazis were snappy dressers does not entail that the Holocaust was good. saying that Damore "showed why he got fired," does the WaPo mean: he showed that a lot of people non-identical with him are f*cking idiots?

The Resurrection Of Roy Moore

Saints preserve us.
   ...a man who has twice been removed as Alabama’s chief justice for defying federal judges and twice lost the governor’s race in the state—a man who has questioned former President Barack Obama’s citizenship, said “homosexual conduct” should be illegal and suggested the 9/11 attacks were an act of punishment by God—is on the precipice of becoming Alabama’s next U.S. senator.
   Moore, an Alabama native and a Vietnam veteran, has been motivated for his whole career by primarily by one belief: that his evangelical interpretation of Christianity should govern society. He eloquently and effortlessly mixes Bible verses and quotes from the Founding Fathers at campaign stops and other appearances. God and the Bible alone are the moral foundation for law and government in America, he often says, and removing God from the equation yields only bad results. Moore, who met his wife 33 years ago while reciting poetry during a Bible study, summed up these views in a poem he wrote in 2007, which begins: “America the Beautiful, or so you used to be/Land of the Pilgrims’ pride, I’m glad they’re not here to see/Babies piled in dumpsters, abortion on demand/Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.”
   I get it. Y'all don't like Luther Strange. But come on, Alabama. This guy is a God damned nut.

John Daniel Davidson: The Confederate Statue Controversy Isn't About Slavery; It's About Ending America

This is hyperbolic, but there's an element of truth in it that should be reflected upon: anti-southernism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Westernism are powerful forces on the extreme left. There's no doubt that a bunch of asinine, incoherent bullshit is helping to motivate anti-Confederate hysteria.
   None of that tells us a lot about what we--we sensible people--ought to think and do about the statues, of course.

Caroline Kitchener: How Campus Sexual Assault Became So Politicized

Not pretty, if true:
   The answer is likely—and unsurprisingly—political. After a devastating 2010 midterm election, Democrats in Congress looked to Senator Michael Bennet’s campaign in Colorado—one of the few bright spots for their party in 2010—as a model. Bennet had relied heavily on identity politics, rallying women, minorities, and millennials. And he had triumphed.
   In the lead up to the 2012 presidential election, Obama campaigned hard on a variety of social issues, including gay rights and support for Planned Parenthood. Some conservatives argue that, politically, it made sense for Obama to position himself as a champion for college victims of sexual assault. “Obama and the Democrats played into this narrative of standing up to campus patriarchy and a conservative view of sex,” The Campus Rape Frenzy’s Johnson said. “The narrative that campuses, which typically are the most gender-progressive institutions in society, were actually indifferent to these rapist animals in their midst was absurd. But there was enough evidence that you could wrap your arms around it.”
   As Obama moved to make college sexual assault one of his administration’s signature causes, Republicans began associating him with the issue.
   Ugh. At the time, I didn't blame Obama for any of this insanity. There's a decent chance I was wrong about that.
   On a more substantial note: I'm not entirely convinced that the preponderance of evidence standard is an unreasonable one in such cases. I'm more concerned about the acceptance of other insane ideas that seem to come from feminism--e.g. the idea that it is plausible that A and B might have a sexual relationship over a long period of time, but that A might only come to realize, after they break up, that one of the first times they had sex was non-consensual. In the sweep of human history, every damn think you can imagine has probably happened at least a couple of times...but without some really substantial and unusual evidence, no one should give credibility to such a story. I'm just not sure how much of the prevailing insanity is actually due to the lowered burden of proof. Without some genuinely extraordinary evidence, a tale like that shouldn't even be able to get anywhere close to clearing the lowered evidential bar. A's word alone, in the face of A's continued relationship with B, isn't enough--it isn't anywhere close to being enough--to meet even a mere preponderance of evidence requirement. I suspect that it's the feminist listen and believe delusion that's responsible for the problem rather than the standard of proof.
   Here's another worrisome thing in the article:
   It is unlikely that universities, unless forced, will change the Obama-era policies. The interim guidance issued Friday generally allows universities to retain the procedures they adopted after the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, and many institutions have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on expanding bureaucracies charged with carrying out those procedures.
   And as liberal institutions, many college presidents want to avoid aligning with President Trump—particularly on an issue like sexual assault. “These are institutions which, on any gender-related questions, are well to the left of the national norms,” said Johnson, the author. “Due-process advocates are not going to stage a campus sit-in in the president’s office, but if a president does anything to create a fairer process on this issue, she could be targeted by accuser’s rights groups. If the impression is that President X is indifferent to rape, President X is probably going to be out of a job.”
(This is a really badly-organized post, but I'm too lazy to fix it...)

Friday, September 22, 2017

Will Donald Trump Destroy The Presidency?

m*th*r f*ck*r...
   Citizens’ trust in American institutions has been in decline for a while. That’s one reason Donald Trump was elected. His assault on those institutions, and the defiant reactions to his assault, will further diminish that trust and make it yet harder to resolve social and political disputes. The breakdown in institutions mirrors the breakdown in social cohesion among citizens that was also a major cause of Trumpism, and that Trumpism has churned further. This is perhaps the worst news of all for our democracy. As Cass Sunstein lamented in his book #Republic, “Members of a democratic public will not do well if they are unable to appreciate the views of their fellow citizens, if they believe ‘fake news,’ or if they see one another as enemies or adversaries in some kind of war.”
   To that depressing conclusion I will add another. The relatively hopeful parts of the analysis offered here—that the Constitution has prevented presidential law-breaking, and that most of Trump’s norm violations will not persist—rest on a pair of assumptions that have so far prevailed but that might not hold in the future. The first is that Trump’s presidency, which has accomplished little, will continue to fail and that he will not be reelected. But it is conceivable that he will turn things around—for example, by pulling off tax and infrastructure reform and putting Kim Jong Un in a box—and win the 2020 election, perhaps in a three-way race. If Trump succeeds and makes it to a second term, his norm-breaking will be seen to serve the presidency more than it does today. If that happens, the office will be forever changed, and not for the better.
   The second assumption is that the country is fundamentally stable. In Trump’s first seven months in office, the stock market boomed and the United States faced no full-blown national-security crisis. But what if the economy collapses, or the country faces a major domestic terrorist attack or even nuclear war? What if Mueller finds evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians—and Trump fires not just Mueller but also scores of others in the Justice Department, and pardons himself and everyone else involved? These are not crazy possibilities. The Constitution has held thus far and might continue to do so under more-extreme circumstances. But it also might not.
Remember when we all hated Jack Goldsmith? Well, anyway...this is a good article, if mostly depressing.

A Shitty Anti-Quillette Post Somewhere


The PC Circular Firing Squad: Frances Lee: "Excommunicate Me From The Church Of Social Justice"

I'm not all that enthusiastic about this sort of argument...but it really is important.
   I'm interested in the fact that PC is wrong--not so much in the fact that it's unsustainable. I say go for the important objections, not the cheap, fast, effective ones. You go for the cheap refutation, you miss the real point. Also (this is the very kind of argument I don't care about...) you are subject to work-around defenses: Somebody dedicated to PC/SJW-ism can reason: What's really important is figuring out a way to avoid this SJW-on-SJW viciousness... When what's really really important is not being an SJW in the first place...
(Though I'm more inclined than I used to be to think that these things may not be entirely separable in fact. Possibly the fact that PC is unstable, plagued by ceaseless internecine war, is some kind of indicator that it's wrong. I dunno.)

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Volokh: At The University Of Oregon: No More Free Speech For Professors On Subjects Such As Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation

This is great. The article, I mean. Not the death of free speech in academia. That's very bad indeed.
   Volokh says that professors will likely be hesitant to talk about these subjects...but that isn't right. Professors with PC leftist views won't hesitate to talk about them. But professors with even slightly heterodox views will hesitate--and probably just not talk about them. Which will mean that students will get even more of what they're already getting: one small fragment of one weird, bad perspective on the subjects.

Sesardic: How To See Further Than Others: Four Strategies

Ripped off from the great Neven Sesardic:

(1) “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
— Isaac Newton

(2) “If I have seen further than others, it was because I was surrounded by midgets.”
— Murray Gell-Mann

(3) “If some people have seen further than others, it is because they were midgets standing on the shoulders of a vast pyramid of other midgets.”
— Robert Boyd & Peter Richerson

(4) “If you want to see further than others, socialize with midgets and don’t let anyone stand on your shoulders!”
— Carmen de Macedo

Gary Gutting: Feminism And The Future Of Philosophy

Via the estimable Ph*l*s*phy M*t*bl*g: this, an embarrassment. Feminist philosophy is generally pretty embarrassing, and so is Gutting's hagiographical account of it.
   Somebody explain to me how anyone can take the following seriously:
...Sally Haslanger, in her seminal analysis of gender and race, says, “At the most general level, the task is to develop accounts of gender and race that will be effective tools in the fight against injustice.” She goes on to offer the following definition of “woman”: “S is a woman [if and only if] S is systematically subordinated along some dimension — economic, political, legal, social — and S is ‘marked’ as a target for this treatment by observed or imagined bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction.”
Haslanger is a hack, and that is hackery of the first water. It's not's not close to being's not interestingly's just bullshit.
   And don't even get me started on the idea that the point of philosophy is to "develop accounts of [anything] that will be effective tools in the fight against injustice." I mean, hey, fighting injustice: groovy. But (a) much of what these people want to fight isn't injustice, and (b) to the extent that's what you aim at, you're not doing philosophy. It's fact, it's way more important than philosophy. But it's not philosophy. But, of course, that's how we get bullshit like Haslanger's: she's not even trying to get at the truth; she's trying to effect some political end. (Though, again, incidentally: whatever that end is, it almost certainly isn't justice.)

   Incidentally, Gutting starts off with this bit about Haslanger:
“There is a deep well of rage inside of me. Rage about how I as an individual have been treated in philosophy; rage about how others I know have been treated; and rage about the conditions that I’m sure affect many women and minorities in philosophy, and have caused many others to leave.” Those words, written a decade ago by Sally Haslanger, a distinguished professor of philosophy at M.I.T., well express the moral energy behind the feminist ferment currently shaking American philosophy.
 Here's the great Neven Sesardic on Haslanger's tribulations in philosophy. It's short and worth the read. tl;dr: Haslanger got a series of sweet-ass jobs despite having almost no publications, and then got hired into one of the world's best departments...but...because she still didn't have enough publications to get early tenure...was forced to...oh God, I can hardly even type it it's so horrible...get twice the ordinary number of letters of recommendation... I, for one, don't know how she's survived...

Laura Kipnis's Endless Trial By Title IX

Yet another sign that liberalism is dead is the lack of outrage about the academy having been taken over by the thought police. Here's something on the latest effort to misuse Title IX to punish the critics of the misuse of Title IX:
   Back in 2015, the first investigation of Kipnis immediately triggered several other complaints. A professor whom Kipnis brought to her interview as her “support person” also had a Title IX retaliation complaint filed against him, after he spoke to the faculty senate about his concerns that the Kipnis investigation threatened academic freedom. An additional Title IX complaint at the same time also accused Kipnis of “involvement in and/or approval of” the faculty support person’s statement to the faculty senate. (Both of those complaints were eventually dropped.)
   Drawing on her experience, Kipnis wrote the book “Unwanted Advances,” which was published in April. After Northwestern terminated Ludlow’s employment, he gave Kipnis access to confidential records in the graduate student’s successful Title IX complaint against him, along with thousands of texts and e-mails between them. Kipnis writes that “the more I learned about his situation, the more I saw his case as a lens through which the excesses and hypocrisies of the current campus hysteria came into focus.” Kipnis devotes a chapter of “Unwanted Advances” to her theory that Ludlow was falsely accused. In a letter to the editor in the Daily Northwestern, the Northwestern Philosophy Graduate Student Association objected that Kipnis “unfairly portrayed our colleague,” the graduate student.
  In May, the graduate student sued Kipnis and her publisher, HarperCollins, for defamation. (A HarperCollins representative told me that the company does not comment on pending litigation.) The suit alleges that the book falsely suggests that the graduate student and Ludlow had a consensual dating relationship, falsely insinuates that her allegation of rape was untrue, and falsely claims that she is a “serial Title IX filer.” It also makes an invasion-of-privacy claim, alleging that Kipnis’s book publicly disclosed private facts, including the plaintiff’s prior relationship with a married professor at another school, and details intimate conversations from her relationship with Ludlow.
   It’s puzzling that the plaintiff is staking part of her lawsuit on the alleged falsehood of the statement that she is a “serial Title IX filer.” Kipnis mentions in the book that the graduate student was a complainant in six Title IX complaints; in the suit, the plaintiff acknowledges two, one against Ludlow and one against Kipnis. But days before filing the defamation suit, in May, the graduate student joined four Northwestern faculty members and five other graduate students as a complainant in yet another Title IX complaint against Kipnis, this time based on the publication of “Unwanted Advances.”
   Kipnis told me that she was surprised when Northwestern once again launched a formal Title IX investigation of her writing. (A spokesperson from Northwestern did not respond to a request for comment by press time.) Kipnis said that investigators presented her with a spreadsheet laying out dozens of quotations from her book, along with at least eighty written questions, such as “What do you mean by this statement?,” “What is the source/are the sources for this information?,” and “How do you respond to the allegation that this detail is not necessary to your argument and that its inclusion is evidence of retaliatory intent on your part?” Kipnis chose not to answer any questions, following the standard advice of counsel defending the court case.
   She did submit a statement saying that “these complaints seem like an attempt to bend the campus judicial system to punish someone whose work involves questioning the campus judicial system, just as bringing Title IX complaints over my first Chronicle essay attempted to do two years ago.” In other words, the process was the punishment. Possible evidence of retaliatory purpose, she learned, included statements in the book that aggressively staked out her refusal to keep quiet, expressed in her trademark hyperbole. Her prior Title IX investigation, she writes, “has made me a little mad and possibly a little dangerous. . . . I mean, having been hauled up on complaints once, what do I have to lose? ‘Confidentiality’? ‘Conduct befitting a professor’? Kiss my ass. In other words, thank you to my accusers: unwitting collaborators, accidental muses.” Also presented as possible evidence was her Facebook post quoting a book review—“Kipnis doesn’t seem like the sort of enemy you’d want to attract, let alone help create”—on which Kipnis had commented, “I love that.”
   If Kipnis did engage in retaliation or violate confidentiality, those infractions would be impossible to untangle from her book’s performance of her protest. “Unwanted Advances” sharply criticizes both the use of Title IX to silence political opponents and the secrecy that can enable abuse and overreach in campus Title IX processes. The latest iteration of Northwestern’s investigation of Kipnis took a month to complete, and again ruled in her favor. The university concluded that she did not retaliate or engage in sexual harassment by discussing mostly public information about pseudonymous students in a book meant to critique the Title IX landscape, including false accusations and the use of Title IX to punish those critical of Title IX. Though she didn’t honor the confidentiality of university investigations, Northwestern recognized that confidentiality is a request rather than a requirement in its sexual-misconduct policy.
   Northwestern’s decision letter did suggest, however, that the dean of Kipnis’s school might still choose to sanction her for possible violations of the university’s policy on “civility and mutual respect.” The evidence: her statements after the book’s publication, in e-mails, on social media, and in talks, in which she questioned the veracity and reliability of the graduate student’s account and hoped that “the book will cause a bit of a shit storm.” The university said that these “behaviors could be interpreted as demeaning and/or intimidating.” Kipnis objected that her statements rebutting charges of inaccuracy in her book could not legitimately be construed as “incivility.” The dean ultimately found that Kipnis did not violate the civility policy, and that was the end of the matter.
Many to most alleged liberals of my acquaintance simply aren't bothered by this. Or they make excuses for it so that they don't have to be looked upon unfavorably for criticizing it. Or they say something on the order of "get back to me when this is as bad as Trump being President." 
   Professors should be rioting on the quad about this.
   I'll say it again: liberalism is dead. 

I Thought The Left Thought That White-Knighting Is Bad...

It's almost as if these guys don't recognize the ambiguity in their name, 'White Nonsense Roundup'...but...that can't really, they are, themselves, kinda trolling...right?
   Actually, I think it's good to help people stave off trolls.
   But it's not good to be a f*cking moron about it, yeah?
   By all means, troll the trolls...and totally troll the racist trolls...because...well f*ck 'em... That's a good enough reason, IMO.
   But honestly, a better name for this organization might be 'PC Jargon Generator'.

Significant Nonsense Watch: "Straight Black Men Are The White People Of Black People"

This sort of bullshit is significant in that it represents a kind of data point that lets us plot the trajectory of political correctness / social justice madness.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Drum: Trump Administration Cheating Re: Costs (And Benefits...) Of Refugees?

Yeah, that's a shocker alright.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than We Thought?

Sooo....does this mean that even science is now anti-science?

More Pictures From Mexico City

I hope we already got search and rescue teams on the way.
There's no way that the death toll is 100.

Can Centrism Be A Movement?

Marvel's New Idea: No-Escapism

I don't know why so many people make long, rambling YouTube videos to make a point that could be made in two paragraphs of writing...but they do.
   The important point here is that Marvel now thinks that every issue of every title should have some PC bullshit in it. Escapism is patriarchy or whatever. The order of the day is now no-escapism. Because what kind of cult lets people take breaks?

Pictures From Mexico City

God, these pictures and video are horrifying.

Trump Something Something "Totally Destroy" Something Something "Rocket Man" Something Something

I'm going to stop reading the news now. I'd kind of rather just not know what's happening.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Derision For Liberalism And Individual Rights On The Left

What really interests me about this piece by Freddie deBoer is just the beginning--the acknowledgement that (as people paying attention already know) much of the American left has turned anti-liberal, and anti-individual-rights. It's clear that they're against free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, for example. I was on a discussion board not so long ago on which a swarm of lefties was deriding free speech, and denying that free speech was ever an idea that was central to liberalism. They were utterly insane, obviously...but that's what they were claiming. They acted as if they had simply never heard of such a thing as liberals caring about freedom of expression.

Andrew Sullivan: "The Boston Rally Exposed The Left's Intolerance Of Free Speech"

Sully's on the money, as usual.

Transgender Totalitarianism Marches On

Or transtalitarianism, if you will....
California says it can compel you to say what someone else tells you to say if you work in a nursing home.
   Notice that the way the law is written, not using pronouns at all, or not speaking to someone at all, can be prosecuted by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail. It doesn't even merely (lol merely...) outlaw calling someone something they don't want to be outlaws not calling someone something they want you to call them. That's compelled speech. And it's the kind of thing that makes conservatives and libertarians suggest that progressivism's motto should be YOU WILL BAKE ME A CAKE. Though at least the cake-baking question is a tough one. This pronoun nonsense is not a close call at all. It's completely cracked. By trying to force people to call a man 'she', the state is trying to make them say false things, and tacitly accept a completely wacko metaphysics.
   But, since all the liberals seem to have died off or turned into progressive pod people, and no one takes libertarians or conservatives seriously, and Americans generally seem to have been retrained into doing what they're told to do, saying what they're told to say, and believing what they're told to we are. We sure are a compliant lot now, aren't we? We remind me basically not at all of what we seemed to be like in my youth...
   Also, notice how quickly we went from here's a wacky idea you've probably never heard of before to you must believe this or you are literally Hitler to we are going to put you in jail if you don't profess belief in this. And this is one of the creepiest, crazies, scariest things about the contemporary left: it's willing to go full totalitarian on the basis of an obviously ludicrous fad. Oh and, not to mention: it very clear aims to micromanage your actions and control your thoughts. And it's not just fringe wackos anymore--it takes a lot of mainstream Democrats, even in California, to turn some crazy-ass crackpottery like this into law.

Happy Constitution Day!

a link

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Evergreen Settles With Weinstein

$500k sounds like an awful lot of money... It's rather difficult to believe that his...suffering or whatever...really was commensurate with that...but what do I know?

Friday, September 15, 2017

Somebody Please Take Trump's Twitter Away, Episode MCXVIII

Please take it away.

RIP Cassini

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Ben Shapiro vs. The Anti-Free-Speech Left At Berkeley

Francis Scott Key Memorial Vandalized

Completely unpredictable.

NASA Cassini Countdown Clock

The Hill: "Antifa Activists Say Violence Is Necessary"

Antifa's the only thing that's ever made me feel like defending Nazis.

Trump Confirms Support For Legislation To Protect DACA Recipients

I never really thought this was in question.
   I'm obviously not a Trump fan, but I don't think he's unreasonable / heartless enough to want to kick out "childhood arrivals."
   Needless to say, we'll have to worry about details--we can't go overboard and simply say that anyone under the age of 18 who makes it across the border gets to stay...but I've just been assuming that such a policy simply isn't on the table.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Heckler's Veto: Charles Murray / Assumption College

This is exactly what violet leftist totalitarians want.

More Calls To Criminalize Climate-Change Skepticism

Such insanity is now fairly common.

Teenagers Semi-Hang Eight-Year-Old Biracial Boy

I have nothing to say about this that everybody else hasn't already said, I just want to complain about it.
Some people just ****ing suck.
I know that teenagers are like humans, but crazy...but seriously, man. How does this end up seeming like a good idea?

Statues Of Jefferson Are Next: The Shroudening

Protesters shrouded the statue of Jefferson at the rotunda. That's the same treatment the Lee and Jackson statues got.
   Man--totally nobody could have predicted this!
   No, wait...remember how Trump was a racist lunatic for pointing out (the obvious fact that) this would happen?
   As I've said before, I'm not even entirely sure that the PC left--loony though it is in myriad ways--is entirely wrong about Jefferson statues. I'm not sure what to think about the issue. But I do think that liberals / progressives who think that it's obvious that (i) Lee statues have to come down, and also obvious that (ii) Jefferson statues do not, occupy an unstable / not-obviously consistent position. Anyway, whether or not e.g. Washington and Jefferson statues should come down, there was no doubt that there would be efforts to take them down. Well, I also think that it was nuts to say that Trump is a racist for stating obvious facts about the trajectory we're on. The post-C'ville press conference wasn't what you'd call the greatest time to bring up the subject, and he didn't exactly bring it up in a diplomatic way. But what he said was right.

Trump's Charlottesville Missteps Largely A Result Of Stubbornness And Anger?

Seems like the best explanation to me, actually, observing the guy.
   (Though I still disagree with the consensus on the left about his post-C'ville statements. And polling data seems to show that I'm not that crazy. Or, if I am, a lot of Americans--including black Americans--are crazy too.)

Calling Time Outs Doesn't Stop Runs

Daggum Roy may actually know a little something about basketball...

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Third Party Overhears Perfectly Innocent Private Joke Between Friends, One Black One White; Charges Racism; White Guy Fired

Millions of Little Brothers are watching you.

93% Of Earth's Heat Is Contained In Oceans...So...

Interesting, but not very politically correct:
When we consider that 93% of the Earth’s heat is contained in the oceans, which is symbiotically connected to sea level rise and fall via thermal expansion, we can affirm that both surface temperatures and sea levels can and do rise and fall without any meaningful contribution from the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Therefore, it can be concluded that other internal mechanisms, and not CO2 concentrations, are the driving influence impacting both surface temperatures and sea levels.
Damn interesting, actually, though I don't know enough to identify even obvious errors if they're there.

Pascal Bruckner: "There's No Such Thing As Islamophobia"

The title's a bit hyperbolic...but this is pretty good.

John Tierney: "The Real War On Science"

Is waged by the left:
    The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologisturging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”
   The Left’s most rigid taboos involve the biology of race and gender, as the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker chronicles in The Blank Slate. The book takes its title from Pinker’s term for the dogma that “any differences we see among races, ethnic groups, sexes, and individuals come not from differences in their innate constitution but from differences in their experiences.” The dogma constricts researchers’ perspective—“No biology, please, we’re social scientists”—and discourages debate, in and out of academia. Early researchers in sociobiology faced vitriolic attacks from prominent scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, who accused them of racism and sexism for studying genetic influences on behavior.
   Studying IQ has been a risky career move since the 1970s, when researchers like Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein had to cancel lectures (and sometimes hire bodyguards) because of angry protesters accusing them of racism. Government funding dried up, forcing researchers in IQ and behavioral genetics to rely on private donors, who in the 1980s financed the renowned Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Leftists tried to cut off that funding in the 1990s, when the University of Delaware halted the IQ research of Linda Gottfredson and Jan Blits for two years by refusing to let them accept a foundation’s grant; the research proceeded only after an arbitrator ruled that their academic freedom had been violated.
   The Blank Slate dogma has perpetuated a liberal version of creationism: the belief that there has been no evolution in modern humans since they left their ancestral homeland in Africa some 50,000 years ago. Except for a few genetic changes in skin color and other superficial qualities, humans everywhere are supposedly alike because there hasn’t been enough time for significant differences to evolve in their brains and innate behavior. This belief was plausible when biologists assumed that evolution was a slow process, but the decoding of the human genome has disproved it, as Nicholas Wade (a former colleague of mine at the New York Times) reported in his 2015 book, A Troublesome Inheritance.
   “Human evolution has been recent, copious and regional,” writes Wade, noting that at least 8 percent of the human genome has changed since the departure from Africa. The new analysis has revealed five distinguishable races that evolved in response to regional conditions: Africans, East Asians, Caucasians, the natives of the Americas, and the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Yet social scientists go on denying the very existence of races. The American Anthropological Association declares race to be “a human invention” that is “about culture, not biology.” The American Sociological Association calls race a “social construct.” Even biologists and geneticists are afraid of the R-word. More than 100 of them sent a letter to the New York Times denouncing Wade’s book as inaccurate, yet they refused to provide any examples of his mistakes. They apparently hadn’t bothered to read the book because they accused Wade of linking racial variations to IQ scores—a link that his book specifically rejected.
   Some genetic differences are politically acceptable on the left, such as the biological basis for homosexuality, which was deemed plausible by 70 percent of sociologists in a recent survey. But that same survey found that only 43 percent accepted a biological explanation for male-female differences in spatial skills and communication. How could the rest of the sociologists deny the role of biology? It was no coincidence that these doubters espoused the most extreme left-wing political views and the strongest commitment to a feminist perspective. To dedicated leftists and feminists, it doesn’t matter how much evidence of sexual differences is produced by developmental psychologists, primatologists, neuroscientists, and other researchers. Any disparity between the sexes—or, at least, any disparity unfavorable to women—must be blamed on discrimination and other cultural factors.
   Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers found this out the hard way at an academic conference where he dared to discuss the preponderance of men among professors of mathematics and physical sciences at elite universities. While acknowledging that women faced cultural barriers, like discrimination and the pressures of family responsibilities, Summers hypothesized that there might be other factors, too, such as the greater number of men at the extreme high end in tests measuring mathematical ability and other traits. Males’ greater variability in aptitude is well established—it’s why there are more male dunces as well as geniuses—but scientific accuracy was no defense against the feminist outcry. The controversy forced Summers to apologize and ultimately contributed to his resignation. Besides violating the Blank Slate taboo, Summers had threatened an academic cottage industry kept alive by the myth that gender disparities in science are due to discrimination.
   This industry, supported by more than $200 million from the National Science Foundation, persists despite overwhelming evidence—from experiments as well as extensive studies of who gets academic jobs and research grants—that a female scientist is treated as well as or better than an equally qualified male. In a rigorous set of five experiments published last year, the female candidate was preferred two-to-one over an equivalent male. The main reason for sexual disparities in some fields is a difference in interests: from an early age, more males are more interested in fields like physics and engineering, while more females are interested in fields like biology and psychology (where most doctorates go to women).
   On the whole, American women are doing much better than men academically—they receive the majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees—yet education researchers and federal funders have focused for decades on the few fields in science where men predominate. It was bad enough that the National Science Foundation’s grants paid for workshops featuring a game called Gender Bias Bingo and skits in which arrogant male scientists mistreat smarter female colleagues. But then, these workshops nearly became mandatory when Democrats controlled Congress in 2010. In response to feminist lobbying, the House passed a bill (which fortunately died in the Senate) requiring federal science agencies to hold “gender equity” workshops for the recipients of research grants.
   It might seem odd that the “party of science” would be dragging researchers out of the lab to be reeducated in games of Gender Bias Bingo. But politicians will always care more about pleasing constituencies than advancing science.
   And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. To conservatives, the fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for “scientific socialism,” a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man. Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a “better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.”
I say read the whole thing.


McArdle: Everybody's A Hate Group To The SPLC

Michael Booker: "Why I Don't Use Female Pronouns For My Transgender Brother"

This is exactly right, and I've made the same arguments before.
   But also: to use sex-specific pronouns incorrectly is to endorse a crackpot social constructionist metaphysics, in particular about sex/biology. I wouldn't make a federal case out of it...but no one can insist that you do it. Or, well...they can insist all they want...but you're under no obligation.

Arresting Looters Is White Supremacy

But, then, what isn't, really?
“good morning, the carceral state exists to protect private property and is inseparable from white supremacy”
There are few phrases that are invariable indicators of moonbattery, and "carceral state" is one of them. Ditto "white supremacy," basically, anymore. It used to actually mean something--to wit, the Klan et al. Now it basically just means 'racism'...because it sounds even worse than racism (and when used to mean what it actually means, it is worse than racism...) And also everything white is racist already by you gotta have somewhere to go, terminologically speaking. Now, though, we really need another term even beyond 'white supremacist' to mean the Klan et al... This is the logic of never-ending PC terminological escalation.

College Park Votes On Whether Non-Citizens Should Be Able To Vote

The People's Republic of Maryland, everybody!

Plus, I think they meant undocumented citizens...

Psychological "Priming" Turns Out To Be Bullshit

I never really believed this crap...but I am generally ill-disposed toward such stuff...and so I guessed that there was a good chance I was being irrational. Here's a description of a study that I'd not heard
of before:
“In an experiment that became an instant classic, the psychologist John Bargh and his collaborators asked students at New York University—most aged eighteen to twenty-two—to assemble four-word sentences from a set of five words (for example, “finds he it yellow instantly”). For one group of students, half the scrambled sentences contained words associated with the elderly, such as Florida, forgetful, bald, gray, or wrinkle. When they had completed that task, the young participants were sent out to do another experiment in an office down the hall. That short walk was what the experiment was about. The researchers unobtrusively measured the time it took people to get from one end of the corridor to the other.”
Nooooo. No. No way. Just no. Who the hell believed that? Honestly...there's just no way that's true. It's not as absurd as the "thinking like a blonde" study...but it's pretty bad. The thinking like a blonde study was the one that basically made me turn the corner on such things and just start dismissing the really dumb sounding ones out of hand. I can't find a link now...but it was briefly famous ten-or-so years ago. Apparently they gave some dudes pictures of equally-attractive blonds and brunettes, and allegedly discovered that men got lower scores on IQ tests after they looked at the pictures of blondes. They "hypothesized" (if you want to dignify it by characterizing it that way) that men began "thinking like blondes" (or: thinking as blondes are reputed to think...i.e. dumbly) after viewing the pictures. I remember thinking, basically: That's about enough cognitive psychology for me. F*ck this BS...
   The PC left that runs the APA (the philosophy one, not the psychology one) is still trying to push "implicit bias" long after it's become even clearer that it's BS. A belief in implicit bias allows them to continue to attribute some kind of prejudice to men and other un-PC groups--even those who don't seem to be prejudiced--and to continue to push stronger affirmative action measures. So they are not going to give that up easily, evidence be damned.

Zakaria: "Stop Being Afraid Of More Government. It's Exactly What We Need"

   Contemporary conservatives seem to tend to think: More government is a threat to freedom...and government can't do anything right anyway. Whoever the other side is (progressives, liberals, whatever) seem to tend to think: Government can do just about anything...and more of it is no threat to freedom. I'm stuck in the middle, and am of late inclined to think: Government can do all sorts of things better than the private sector...but very often there are bad unintended consequences...and more government is likely to be a threat to freedom.
   But that's just an kind of inclination. I'm not all that sure about any of it.

Monday, September 11, 2017

9/11 Hijacker: "Your Blood Is Delicious For Us, And Your Meat Is Cheap."

Well...he seems nice.
How do our JDAMs taste? They're not cheap...but we're gonna keep sending 'em your way, nevertheless.
Let us know if you guys ever cobble together an F-15 out of mud or whatever.

My Kitchen

Because I know you care...
   On the last week of June, our new cabinets arrived, and our carpenter told us he'd have 'em installed the next day.
   Here's what our kitchen still looks like today:

Should have finished the job ourselves, but we've been too busy not completing all the other jobs we don't exactly know how to do correctly.
I miss food.

Newt Gingrich: Postmodern Epistemic Nihilist? Nuking The OTA (And GAO) (A Blast From The Past)

   In short, Mr. Gingrich’s unprovoked attack on the C.B.O. is part of a pattern. He disdains the expertise of anyone other than himself and is willing to undercut any institution that stands in his way. Unfortunately, we are still living with the consequences of his foolish actions as speaker.
   We could really use the Office of Technology Assessment at a time when Congress desperately needs scientific expertise on a variety of issues in involving health, energy, climate change, homeland security and many others. And given the enormous stress suffered by state and local governments as they are forced by Washington to do more with less, an organization like the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations would be invaluable.
   It is essential that Congress not cripple what is left of its in-house expertise. Gutting the G.A.O. and abolishing the C.B.O. would be acts of nihilism. Any politician recommending such things is unfit for office.
   Well...I gotta lotta theories, of course...and one of them is that the left and the right are subject to different variations on similar vices, intellectual and otherwise. The right is more subject to a kind of outright, Neanderthal dogmatism. Roughly: You eggheads with your book-learnin' are gettin' in the way of my shit. The left is, seems to me, more prone to flights of baroque, theoretical fancy--they're more likely to invent some literary Foucaultian bullshit about science evaporating in a puff of patriarchy. I don't think Gingrich is a postmodern nihilist: I think he's an egomaniacal snake-oil salesman who is happy to risk sinking the country if it raises the odds of him getting what he wants (both financially and ideologically). I don't know whether it would be better or worse if Gingrich were as smart as he thinks he is.
   I keep repeating this, but if we were placing bets on who's most likely to be responsible for sending the country down in flames (should that happen soonish), my money's long been on Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. The former wrecked the traditions of civility that were part of the lifeblood of the House, and the latter made bullshit the lifeblood of a giant chunk of American conservatives. People might say Fox News...but I say that Limbaugh may very well have made Fox possible.
   I gotta quit just complaining about everything. I blame a lack of sleep and a marginal moral character.

PC Madness: Protesters At Reed Disrupt Greek Philosophy And Literature Courses

Crazy people are crazy.
And, of course, any refusal to immediately accede to the demands of the crazy people is...which groundless accusation will it be? Iiiiiit's....racism!

More Anti-First Amendment Violence By Antifa

Or, as the Post's headline puts it: "Antifa, Far-Right Protesters Clash Again In Portland, Disrupting Peaceful Rallies." Who started the violence (yet again)? Oh, well, uh...y'know...there were clashes...  Which side was exercising its Constitutional rights, rallying peacefully? And which side was trying to prevent people from doing so...yet again? Clashes! It was clashes! Some people clashed!
   I read a story recently about two guys who clashed with a third guy over who should get to have the third guy's car that he owned. But the first two guys wanted it, so...y'know...clash. They clashed, and third guy ended up with no car and also dead. Because of the clash. And the bullets. Which clashed with his internal organs.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Still More Antifa Violence

These fellows need a good ass-kicking.

Limbaugh Rushes For Higher Ground After Indicating That Coverage Of Recent Hurricanes Is Part Of A Climate-Change Hoax

This guy is made of bullshit.

DACA Doesn't Cost Blacks Or Hispanics Jobs (?)

What should my attitude be about this story?
   When we assert that something is the truth, we're typically indicating that the evidence is so strong that there's not a lot of doubt left about the conclusion. Does anyone know whether that's true in this case? Are these arguments fairly conclusive?  The reasons given seem pretty cogent...but I'm not knowledgeable about economics, and not that great at thinking like an economist.
   Input would be appreciated.
   I also have to say that it seems at least a bit tendentious to characterize these arguments as "pitting minorities against each other." Perhaps that is what's going on...but I'm not so sure that such arguments, if given by Democrats, would be similarly characterized. I suspect they might more likely be characterized as genuine concern for minorities.
   But, then, my intellectual pendulum has kind of swung in the I'm-getting-a-bit-irked-by-the-non-stop-Trump-bashing direction. Jeez, I can't even stand the guy and it's starting to seem like a bit much to me. But contrarianism is one of my most obvious intellectual vices.

Washington Post: "DeVos's Remarks On Campus Sex Assault Were Right On Target"

Wow, even the Post is on board. Maybe we really have reached a turning point on all this.
   At a glance, this link in the story doesn't stir up much worry in my mind. Jackson will almost have to be better than Lhamon (who is, unfortunately, now the Chair of USCCR). I know nothing about Muniz...but when even opposing lawyers say that the case is better for having you on it, you must be doing something right.
   Nobody wants to see anyone get away with sexual assault. Real cases will always present us with problems. But the most immediate, pervasive, and easily-avoidable threat right now comes from the other direction. Campus sex assault policy has implemented extremist leftist/feminist ideas that rob those accused of due process, treat every accusation as true, and open the door to accusations that no sensible person would take seriously (e.g. accusations about single sexual encounters months or years in the past, even after accusers continued to have consensual sex with the accused long after the alleged assault). Right now ending this madness, including Title IX abuse--that's the low-hanging fruit.

Saturday, September 09, 2017

12-Year-Old Boy "Transitions" To A "Girl"--Then Changes His Mind

Entirely impossible to have predicted, obviously.

Transracialism Isn't Going Away

It's exactly as legitimate as transgenderism.
You can decide which way you think that inference should go...

Some People Drink A Whole Lot

How is the top decile still alive?

Rachel DiCarlo Currie: "In Defense Of Bourgeois Culture--And Professor Amy Wax"

   If all cultures were exactly, equally good in all respects, it would be the most amazing fact about humanity by far. It would be a miracle. It would have to be a miracle--an actual act divine intervention. It would be impossible for such a thing to happen naturally. If you think that all cultures are equally good in all respects, then you're probably just stipulating that it's so.

Associated Press Refers to Illegals as "Undocumented Citizens"

The Newspeakification of American English proceeds apace.

Friday, September 08, 2017

Berkeley To Offer "Counselling And Support Services For Students, Faculty And Staff" Upset By Ben Shapiro Speaking On Campus

You people are pathetic.

No, Mr. Bond, I Expect You To Die

Reuters: FBI Chief Sees No Evidence Of Interference In Russia Probe

Does this include the Comey firing?
I realize that he's in a much better position to know than we are...but I find it hard to believe that the Comey firing doesn't constitute some evidence of interference.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

The Alt-Right's Opposite Number Is The Ctrl-Left

Damn, wish I'd thought of that.

Drum: Race Is Not The Explanation For Everything Republicans Do

It's astonishing that this has to be said.
   Amanda Marcotte is a complete moron...but she's not the only one on the left who thinks that all Republicans are racist, and that racism explains everything they do. By far the majority of accusations of racism I hear of these days are pretty obvious bullshit. That's racist! is just the go-to argument of the progressive left. I barely even pay any attention to such accusations anymore. They're background noise at this point, like accusations of misogyny, "transphobia," and the rest of that bunch.
   And I've never bought the line about birtherism being mainly motivated by racism. The crazy right made it clear during the Clinton years that they were going to make up some bullshit about whoever the next Democratic President was...and the next and probably the next. Because Democrats, by definition, can't be legitimate Presidents. (The left has basically the same disease when it comes to Trump...though who knows whether it'll last when there's a normal Republican in office?)
   Remember how Clinton was a murdering, drug-running rapist? Imagine the left's reaction of those things had been said about a black President. (Clearly racist! What other possible explanation is there? They'd never say that of a white man!) The righties found something handy about Obama--ferrin' pops--and they ran with it. Obama's father was black and from Kenya...and voila! If you think they wouldn't have seized on that had the players been white, then you haven't been paying much attention to the fever swamps. There is one helluva lot of crazy over there. They're just as bad as the moonbats. I knew they'd make up something about the next Democrat. And/so birtherism--batshit crazy though it obviously was--honestly didn't surprise me all that much. I'm sure that racists were only too happy to believe birtherism. But--though the left may find it surprising--there are a whole lot of ways to be crazy that aren't being racist.

Michael Moore Looking Forward To A White Minority

Moore is heartened by the changing demographics of the United States. “Nearly 70% of the country is either female, people of color, or young adults between 18 and 35, or a combination of the three. The angry white guy is dying out, and the Census Bureau has already told us that by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I’m not sad to say I can’t wait for that day to happen. I hope I live long enough to see it because it will be a better country.”

A Gender Studies Dissertation: "Self-Storying To (De)Construct Compulsory Heterosexuality: A Feminist Poststructural Autoethnography Of A Self-Wedding Ritual"


Ed. Says It Will Finally Confront Its Role In Campus Due Process Crisis

In a speech today at George Mason University, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos acknowledged that the department’s approach to enforcing Title IX, the law against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, is fundamentally broken. Secretary DeVos announced the department will launch a public “notice-and-comment” process to “replace the current approach with a workable, effective, and fair system.”
Trump's a national disgrace...but his Department of Education puts Obama's to shame--at least with respect to these issues.

Trump: DACA Recipients "Have Nothing To Worry About"

Whew...I didn't think they did...but confirmation is good.

While We're On The Daggum Subj'ct

[a] Trump's No-Standing Argument Is Crazy--But [b] He Still May Not Be In Violation Of The Emoluments Clause

Think Progress Editor Suggests That Thinking Politically Incorrect Thoughts Should Not Be Tolerated

He doesn't quite argue that--but he doesn't quite not argue it, either.
   It doesn't matter all that much what this one jackass thinks--except insofar as he is expressing a view that just doesn't seem to be that uncommon on the left. In fact, that idea was, it seems to me, pretty common during the paleo-PC era as well. This is one of the creepiest/craziest things about the radical left: it wants control over your mind as well as your speech and other actions. As a conservative friend of mine has long put it: the right just wants you to behave; the left wants your soul... I'm not certain that the bit about the right is right; but the bit about the left is right, and no doubt.

Emily Yoffee: The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy

First of a three-part series.
   I've heard it all before...but this is still an exhausting read.
   Rape crisis hysteria and Title IX totalitarianism seem to capture something general about the derangement of the PC / "social justice" left. The politically correct but obviously false assertions repeated and repeated until they come to have the social status of truths...the entirely unsupported claims elevated to the status of virtual fact, the near-total subordination of truth to radical left ideology...the patently crackpot ideals and policies that seem to have been dreamed up by creatures that had never met human beings... the "valorization" of victimhood...the complete disregard for reason, and for rights...  And, of course: the fact that the welfare of men (especially white ones) counts for nothing.* Worse: if you wanted to construct a policy specifically aimed at doing harm to university men, you could hardly come up with a more sinister plan.
   What drives me crazy about all this is the Kafkaesque madness of the whole thing. It's not the actual harm being done to people--I do care about that, but it doesn't grip me and infuriate me like the sheer bat-shit looniness of it all. It's as if Scientologists had taken over some institution and forced it to institute some of their daft sci-fi theories. But, since it all originates in extremist academic feminism--a cesspool of crazy that really does rival Scientology--it's all protected by the academic feminist force field.
   It's all total madness.

*Notice how often people revert to counterproductivity arguments. They realize that mere unfairness or harm to men is virtually weightless in such discussions. To have any effect, you have to make a case for harm to women (e.g. infantilizing them), or for undermining some aspect of feminism.

Monday, September 04, 2017

Trump Shouldn't End DACA; Obama Shouldn't Speak Out If He Does

That's my $0.02, anyway.

Happy Labor Day; The Best Labor Movie Of All Time

John Sayles's Matewan.
   Containing, among other awesomeness, Hazel Dickens's rendition of "Hills of Galilee."
   Pour one out for Sid Hatfield.
   F*ck the Baldwin-Felts!


Jesus Christ Twitter is a goddamn disaster for democratic self-governance as it is....  And Trump is only minimally rational under the best of conditions... It just brings out the very worst in him.
   Twitter: shut yourself down for the good of the world.
   (Jeez, just imagine what the White House Yik Yak looked like...)

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Frank Joyce: "Black Men Must Be Stopped: The Very Future Of Mankind Depends On It"

Whoops!...that's white men, not black...Good thing, too...Otherwise it would have been totally racist...

Trump To End DACA, With 6 Month Delay

Not the course of action I tend to favor.

Anis Shivani: "Time To Give Up On Identity Politics: It's Dragging The Progressive Agenda Down"

There are some good ideas in here...but some of it seems pretty shoot-from-the-hip, to say the least.
I don't really care. Anything from the left that's against identity politics is good news in my book.
I go over this material because I realize that those who are in their 20s and 30s today have not known any other ideological order. Identity politics — the brand of communalism it flows from, i.e., multiculturalism, and the brand of expression it leads to, i.e., political correctness — is existentially unassailable for the young. They know no other means of self-understanding, artistic expression or personal solidarity. They can only be organized around this principle. They see the world strictly through this framework, not through some Enlightenment perspective of universal human rights irrespective of one’s biological identity. The trendy concept of “white privilege,” unmoored from class conditions, exemplifies this simplistic tendency.
Since the self-esteem of liberals has flourished on the basis of the constant calling out of offenses among liberal stalwarts who had strayed from the politically correct parameters of discourse, the right has decided — and this really explains so much about the alt-right and its allies — to keep liberals occupied full-time. They did that first with right-wing talk radio, with its barrage of offenses, starting at the same time as identity politics among liberals took hold, i.e., around 1990. Then came Fox News and the many internet venues that flourished in the 2000s, and finally there was Donald Trump as constant outrage machine.
Liberals can’t have a moment of peace, because they all but desired this interminable reality of having to put out discursive fires, and now they can do so to their heart’s content for the duration of the Trump presidency.

Saturday, September 02, 2017

Berkeley Chancellor's Statement About Free Speech

At Leiter's digs.

Lesbian Couple Wins $10,000 Judgment Against County Clerk For Calling Them 'Abominations'

Somebody needs to find a different  job.
Not. cool.
Way to kill the wedding buzz, too. Particularly bad time to be gratuitously mean to somebody.
Think what you want. Say it, even--on your own time. But don't be an asshole when performing official duties, ya shithead.
How hard is that, really?

Scott Shackford: Every Cop Involved In The Arrest Of This Nurse Needs To Be Fired

I'm not entirely sure that they all do--but the bystanding cops need to at least be disciplined. It looked like at least one guy was trying to talk reason to the guy. But that asshat Payne must be fired.
   Honestly, I'm not sure how people resisted knocking his ass out, cop or no. What a psycho. That's some fascist shit right there. I'm not sure why the nurse, Ms. Wubbles, freaked out like that--for one thing, she's going to be a reasonably wealthy woman after this...
   Anyway, that sonofabitch Payne needs to never work in law enforcement again.

Former Conservative Recalls Belittling Tirade From College Student That Brought Him Over To The Left

God bless The Onion