The most amazing thing is that a student's single unsubstantiated Twitter post could produce a cascade that degenerates into a ritual public shaming and inquisition. That's a serious institutional failure on NYU's part and a personal ethical failure on the part of its leadership. They should have in place an administrative process that handles student complaints privately -- with step 1 being a fair finding of fact. Students should be asked to use that process, not make claims on Twitter as a first resort. If that process fails, then fine, go to Twitter. But claims made first on Twitter and without due process should be ignored by the university. Any university worth its tuition should do this.
Most do. Crybaby students piss and moan and make up lies about their professors on Twitter every day. There are millions of tweets that get ignored completely. The reason select outrage is cultivated to this extent is simply because the institution - the colleagues of the target - had it in for him and were just waiting for the right opening.
Yes, this clearly begs the question, "Who is in charge?" What is a student if a student is in charge? Our war of independence was, I thought, fought for due process, trial by jury, freedom of speech... So why bother to even go to college? This is Alice in Wonderland time.
I listened to the first 10-15 minutes of Red Scare's interview with the prof and paused thinking, what where they thinking as they complied a long list of defamatory and provably false accusations? that the 20-year teacher of propaganda, historical and current would be an easy mark and just roll over? did they think it would cover them in the glory of Twitter righteousness like in a metoo job?
Maybe you're right. Maybe it was the institution that turned them into such idiots.
They have seen it work so often before; accusation-as-fact, unanimity serving as final judge, and never a sign of context, nuance or perspective.
A remarkable example preceding this one was the effort to find, somewhere in the massive ouvre Steven Pinker has produced in his long public career, some violation of their principles. The result was a very few interpretation-dependent "sins" of questionable sinfulness. They (the signatories of the attempted cancelling letter to the American Linguistic Association) went blindly ahead with their rote accusations against him, apparently with a complete absence of self-awareness that to any external (sane) person, they (accusations AND accusers) appeared to be completely divorced from reality.
I generally dislike judging people based on their personal appearance, since I'm not so pretty myself, but that photo is like reading an old EC Comic. The Vault Keeper, The Crypt Keeper, and the Old Witch. You can pick which witch is which.
apparently the NYU officials acting in this case were either hostile, inept and/or adhering to policy. Perhaps they should all be fired even if they were arguably following policy?.
What's really astonishing is that one boneheaded student can create such a kerfuflle. Where's the leadership in academia to ferret out this nonsense or to at least sit this chick down and give her a lesson in exactly why she's attending university, ie to hone her analytical skills & writing and not to hound the faculty with her snowflake sensitivities. Where are the adults??
There hasn't been leadership in academia for a long time. Deans in every department are now "fundraisers" (see Columbia- Purdue/Sackler) or beggars for money. Education is secondary- -building nice endowments is first.
Second comes the expansion of the administrative layer, which gives deans and department heads patronage jobs to dispense, interns, and, if I'm not misjudging the history of academe, easy access to mistress-candidates. Or is that TOO cynical?
This isn’t “the left”. It’s the authoritarian woke “left”. A perversion of the real left. A liberal idpol co-optation of the left. The actual left is primarily about working-class issues and being against war/militarism. Look at Taibbi here, or Greenwald and many others - these are actual pro-working-class anti-war anti-authoritarian/pro-civil-liberties leftists. (To a European like myself, the politics in this country is completely insane.)
"To a European like myself, the politics in this country is completely insane."
If by "this country" you mean the USA, as a certified USAsian, I agree with you.
Why does most of the "idpol" crowd seem not to want to touch the issue of 20-years-long-and tending-towards-permanent US warfare with a 10-foot pole? I'm willing to be educated.
Because huge amounts of corporate money and msm propaganda are being poured into efforts to distract people from issues that the plutocrats and the military-industrial complex don’t want people to be focused on and instead herding people towards issues that plutocrats/MIC couldn’t care less about. Relentless amplification of idpol issues is a huge and well-financed part of that effort. Classic “divide and conquer”.
B/c we have an all volunteer military and wokesters don’t want to get anywhere near redneck kids or Hispanics who could care less about being called a Latinx.
The all-volunteer military is part of the problem. At least when there was a draft, people could legitimately, openly revolt against the government forcing them to do something they didn't want to do.
Now going into the service is the only realistic economic option for a lot of people. Are they forced to "volunteer" for it? Technically, no. They can do ... whatever else instead.
We are twenty years into this post-9/11 shit. People who have done their third and fifth and seventh Iraq or Afghanistan tours are burned out and angry; justifiably so.
It’s the only way to pay for college. How fucked is that... Everyone should serve in some capacity. There’d be less wars, more skilled workers, less debt. But that’s not what this country wants. We want debt slaves, jingoists, dullards, wealth-worshippers believing there’s an American dream for them and fighting each other for it instead of the elites and the powers that be. And we fight over the dumbest shit.
We should just start drafting people into the Post Office. They could use the personnel.
Went in to my city's main PO a couple days back. 2 clerks working the counter, 1 focused exclusively on passport applications. The line was stretching outside. Took me 30 minutes to mail 2 letters.
I am willing to accept what you say, I am willing to accept M/T and others genuine proofs of commitment to bettering the lot of the commons.
Are you willing to accept they have no power?
That is no accident.
Politics is power, not justice. I doubt our host and many others can even still accept that politics is power, and they have none.
To explain our politics to foreigners: we have 2 problems.
1] We are a Global Empire and our Politics are going to be different. The most powerful Capitol in the world is not going to attract saints.
2] We the American People are not yet conquered nor subdued, this is an oversight our Ruling Predator Class is in the process of correcting by any means necessary. Part of that is the actual real in terms of power authoritarian legal, media, and street Left who want to achieve #1 in exchange for doing #2.
Both of these goals are entirely sane.
One may question the sanity of those pursuing those ancient and eternal goals, but the goals themselves are entirely sane. Evil sure, but sane.
As for the working class, the authoritarian left is about as welcome here as they were in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. You will notice I am sure certain practices carried out by the STASI and others remarkably similar to what has happened to Professor Crispin.
We the commons they don't fire, they simply destroy our economy to the maximum extent that they can. I actually think this cannot be their end state out of sheer necessity of consolidating their power. Don't be surprised if the 1930s plays out in America. The world had better hope it's closer to Spain then Germany, or the USSR.
For America forgive me is the richest store of natural wealth and indeed industrial might on earth, guarded by matchless geography. Quite worth conquering once, quite worth conquering again. As for we the 'Heritage Americans' ;) - We're the Indians now.
"As for we the 'Heritage Americans' ;) - We're the Indians now."
The Heritage Americans may have lost in the end but they put up a pretty good fucking fight. Sometimes it's not about winning but still fighting when you know you're going to lose.
Never Forget: Cochise, Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull ... or Stand Watie.
It's more precisely code for the descendants of European people, whose roots in America go back to the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century, and the nineteenth up to the great immigration of the 1870's and on.* Notice that with the Immigration Act of 1965 Europeans specifically were limited. This was intentional, and it wasn't out of the kindness of anyone's heart. It was meant to disrupt and emulsify the existing society. Which it has.
And it's intended to further globalism, which is the end game.
*It was the dominant culture. There is also a dominant culture in Riyadh, Addis Ababa, Tunis, and other places in the world. No one is accusing them of bigotry, nor should they.
We have all kinds of terms for the things you can't say.
You will forgive me if I am not going to be deceitful - respectfully - there is entirely too much of that now, it's a 'saturated market'.
As for Creepy - it's already pretty creepy and it's going to get much worse. This is 1930s Europe playing out here and the winner is unlikely to be 'democracy' - which just left the stage, BTW.
Nor is this warmed over gang of neoliberal geriatrics going to hold, it's a question of who displaces them - I refer to Biden.
Understand that this is a domestically repressive regime that hates cops and it's reciprocated. A war mongering regime that has a history of investigating, persecuting and hounding soldiers using the same methods used against cops, for wars they themselves began, that they profit from, profits that are not shared, burdening soldiers with lunatic notions of rules of engagement, giving them impossible missions such as turning Afghanistan into a social democracy.
So you have a corrupt and warmongering repressive klepotocracy that has made enemies of it's police and military, while it slowly grinds the people into poverty, breadlines, ruin.
This crew does not last; something creeps up on them still mostly in the fog, but creeps up on them it does.
Have a good day anyway, and no I'm not a Klansman or even racist, I have noticed we're the new 'native Americans' and the neoliberals the railroads. > a historical pattern that isn't surprising. Over the next 1000 years it will probably happen again.
The reason these guys are noe publishing on substack with individual subscribers is because they are not a good fit with the new left, which is now largely in charge.
I'm from a STEM background - and it is common and encouraged after presenting some information, proposal, or data to be asked "WHY?", with an expectation that you will be able to provide a coherent answer. Many times on more complicated questions, you may have to get back to the person our group with more detail.
It is expected that the person asking the question is roughly your intellectual equal , and wants to know the details with no malice. Even if they are much junior to you, this could be a learning experience. And sometimes, during the explanation, you may find a hole in your logic which may require you to tighten up your presentation. That is the whole point of reviews.
In rare instances you may be wrong - and that is when you will see a hissy fit. I also notice this behaviour in rigid hierarchies - they are not use to being questioned and "being wrong" has severe consequence. Try getting a politician or professor to back track on a stance. it boomerangs on you as a Denier (which has a slew of religious connotations - Propaganda started from the Catholic Church).
Personally - I believe that non-surgical masks provide some level of befit against COVID, but the response from people in authority when questioned sends red flags. The emotions and vitriol says the person is emotionally unstable and cannot answer a simple question or they cannot admit they don't know the answer. Either way - they need to be removed from a position of authority.
Listened to the podcast and thought, that's a great class. Forcing students to, cough, think outside of their comfort zone. My hats off to him and best of luck in running the gauntlet of institutional stupidity.
Their teachers K- PhD for generations, the media, Finance, the government and the jobs in those industries that await them, some will even go on to the Intelligence Community.
At present the correct term would be Commissars, not Reichsfuehers.
Prefacing this from a place of personal experience and bias:
The loudest voices on social media are the ones who will never lose a job. By which I mean if they lose a "job," they will have another one waiting for them immediately. Their job is being a loud voice.
They're not you or me. In a way, I admire the grift. It's nice work if you can get it.
There's an ugly acceptance of snitching and denunciation now. Someone attends the DC rally on January 6--just the rally, she wasn't at the Capitol--and she's fired. There were young people who called up the FBI and turned in their own parents. There are several similar cases.
I think only a major society-wide shock of some kind could break through this self-righteousness and bring them back to earth, it's so ingrained.
I watched the interview on Useful Idiots. The student joins the class late and apparently misses Miller saying they should wear their masks. Then everything goes off the rails. I am curious, but I guess not surprised, that the University didn’t just talk to all of the class members about what Miller told the students as opposed to relying on one person who missed the first class. This was an intellectual exercise that seems to have been lost on the “intellectuals”. There is something else at play here as Katie postulated towards the end of the interview. I donated to his legal fund.
I always wonder what happens with these types when the rhetorical kiddie-playtime is over and it's grownup-time for the guns to come out. Mao had a thought or two on this subject.
This is a particularly interesting article, Matt. Thanks for posting it. I was an Adjunct Professor at Northern Michigan University. I taught a little creative writing, but mostly freshman and sophomore English in which my students had to write argument papers and other persuasive analyses. Some of the above happened to me about four years ago as this cancel thing was just ramping up. I conveniently didn't fill out my self-evaluation on time (when I was down at Karmanos Hospital with my son who had developed testicular cancer) and lost my place in the teaching queue--not all that upsetting as it turns out. I was also called an "anti-intellectual" and much more by the acting head of the English dept. Publicly. I don't always agree with YOU, either, but I am so grateful you are writing and doing this important work.
We need a new political language, since these cultural revolutionaries are not "the left". They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class. They certainly aren't progressives, either.
Particularly because the academic language and terms tend to exclude people of many backgrounds who might be completely open to the ideals if expressed in plain words. It seems like this is due to the epidemic in our country of being out of touch with people who aren't part of your circle (political, economic, educational, racial, regional.....) We are all talking in code now and nothing honest is really being conveyed.
Plain words to express ideas are the best words to use; much academic language these days is so abstruse and impenetrable because the ideas themselves are shallow and empty and don't correspond to reality. Cf. Critical Race Theory et al.
"They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class."
A big part of the project is policing working-class language. You better not say the wrong racial slur on the Internet unless your identity is already clearly defined. Depending upon your registered identity, the slur that you type might be completely OK, even lovable. If you have the Wrong Identity, it will be very very bad.
In my "lived experience," working-class people of all colors call each other slurs of various denominations, then high-five or fist-bump and get drunk together. Weird; should probably be outlawed.
you can't, really. And without going full CCP, the most anyone can do is make the Internet inconvenient. Like, who really needs Facebook or Youtube to get a message out?
I was working for eBay when, at a Job Fair/Skills event, one of their "helpers" saw that this older guy (me) didn't have Twitter or FaceBook showing in my info. She came over and asked if I needed help to set them up. I paused a bit and told her "I was online and communicating with people just fine 25 years ago. The addition of 200 million normies to the Internet has not improved it. Thus my conscious decision to avoid Facebook and Twitter." I smiled, coz it wasn't her fault, but she kind of ran off anyway.
I realize that. in the days when daily newspapers reigned as authoritative media source, only a small fraction of readers followed the front-page stories inside of the fold, too. A large fraction only glanced at the headlines.
That's just how it goes. I can't quite bring myself to conclude that my society is largely made up of dullards, somnambulists, and the intellectually lazy and uncaring, but if that isn't the case, there's certainly a profound difference between the intellectual potential of the majority and its activation.
I think there needs to be distinction between content and process. Content is what riles people up, but there should be a parallel process next to ALL content -- this is how one identifies propaganda: https://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/AGRI183/propoaganda.html
Identify the piece/writer/affiliations/company allegiances
1. How many positions are represented in this article/reading?
2. How effective are the arguments for each position? Did they stack the deck?
3. How certain are the conclusions? ambiguous, reserved, full blown certain
4. How will this article age over time? 1st reading - 1 year later second reading?
5. Who profits most from this article? Why?
The process of analysis is the most important part. I do not know if the professor starts this way or not --- diminishing the content off the bat, but I did listen to Matt & Katie's interview of Dr. Miller --- and he mentioned that the student who complained missed the first class (and asked to be included late) --- as a former professor, this stuck out to me because there is a great deal of preparation for each class -- and after the first one, its time to get moving. And sometimes, it is hard to remember and go back and inoculate the course from disruption...
By removing content as the most important part -- or reducing its importance, the professor can make propaganda detectives out of the course via process. How to identify effective propaganda from all sides.
"propaganda" implies an incentivized misrepresentation of info. The analytical methods Miller (and mcelroyj above) recommend are useful to improve the utility of sloppily presented information as well, even if there's no real intent to deceive. Or so I've found. My Dad (a true auto-didact) taught me this skeptical approach, and it was a revelation as I read the papers in my teens (first WaPo, then the Chicago Tribune). Greatly enhanced both my enjoyment and the value of the information presented.
Very true, there is a great deal of work to be done by those who have those skills applied with a skeptical approach (editing, augmenting arguments, clarity checking, and avoiding the worst cases of deception. Well said.
I returned to college in 1998[age 46] to get my teaching credentials. I had been a PI for 20 years. I spoke my mind in class. I'm libertarian which should be cool in campus, but even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors. They would come up to me after class[w/ the prof gone!] and thank me. I tried to encourage them to speak up, but that was not an option in their minds. I did my undergrad 1970-74. It was a different world back then. Wokeism has taken over academia, MSM, corporate complex, medicine. It is time to revolt!
Ah yes. I went to college late in life. In a Women's Studies class I said that I was okay with porn as long as both parties were adults who consented. Women in this class started screaming and yelling at me, some even crying and saying I was not a feminist. I used to think I was pretty much on the left, but the more of these types of people I came across, the more in the middle I became. Part of having so much exposure to the woke madness is having 2 state universities in the same area. New ones descend on my area every year determined to be the Woke Saviors of all they deem unjust around here.
I don't wish concentration camps on anyone, but I think there's a reason why the denial of normal human sexuality tends to be front and center in mass social control projects. They can't go after food, but they can go after pretty much everything on Maslow's pyramid above it.
I don't know if there's a singular codified "Woke" playbook -- part of the ideology (if we want to call it that)'s power is its amorphousness; its commissars can denounce each other for not being sufficiently true to the Pure Doctrine they themselves expound -- but I'm pretty sure if you're white and male and horny, you're bad. Scratch that; male and horny. Scratch even that; female and horny. All bad.
A postulate that (I think) has both explanatory and predictive power:
Somebody wants to take power and they must gain a great degree of allegiance to some proclaimed (bullshit) goal. Conflicts of commitment and loyalty must, then, be resolved. The genetic family stands in their way, as it creates loyalties and commitments that they cannot dictate.
So, they attack with things like "heteronormativity" being a (bad) thing, or "cis" or promoting gender uncertainty, attacking masculinity and child-bearing, and on and on. If 2020 cringe-inducing insanity was about anything, it was ongoing and very determined efforts to undermine "family". REAL blood family, not "the family we found along the way" that we see in almost every entertainment product.
It's weird for me to be so old and have to admit that the Falwellite "Family First" types of the '80s might have had a point or two. At the time they were cringeworthy and comical. Premature anti-fascism?
If you've taken it to mean that the women that run that place don't really like male employees until they need them, your spidey sense is probably right.
But for intimate care, many women, especially elderly ones, would rather have a female assistant, not on account of fear of rape or misandry, but simple modesty and embarrassment.
Handling violent or out of control clients obviously would be more easily handled by men, but if summoning the men only is a stated policy then I think you should get hazard pay.
The assisted care that I do is with mentally & physically challenged clients. I doubt that many of them would be able to tell the difference.
I suppose that the same could be said about the male clients since many of them have turbulent relations with female staff.
A lot of it, and I'm just assuming from experience, revolves around unrequited sexual desires. I've had to literally pull clients off of young female staff. Older, more experienced female staff tended to not allow themselves to be caught in that situation.
I understand that it is something that can't be allowed but I can't help feeling sorry for the clients. It's a lonely life.
There were other incidents that made me wary of female staff. Just one occurred when I was much younger and had just started. Women would hit on me constantly, failing to notice the wedding ring on my finger. I'd always politely decline their advances. Then the rumors started that I was gay. Which actually made me laugh. Made my wife laugh also. I never did figure why their go to slur was my apparent gayness when I never took my ring off & the obvious answer was "married.".
Being a libertarian has never been cool. We somehow manage to be the uncoolest people alive despite theoretically being the coolest people alive. The nerd-ism is baked deeply within.
That's true. Libertarians who should please both sides just don't. Though I never get any problem from the right, just the left. And I no longer share many values with leftists as I once did. They are getting outright crazy. Late term abortion to the moment of delivery? Socialism? Cancel cultuer? Censorship? Gender craziness -- giving children hormones? God.
Libertarians suck at organizing because we basically don't care about organized projects. We're not interested in seizing power because we don't get a hard-on from telling other people what to do.
It's a good way to live your life, IMO, but it's no way to get control of a government.
I chuckle and agree w/ you. But "cool" in this context didn't mean "cool guy on campus" but simply not controversial. Now, only groupthink wokeism is acceptable.
It is said that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, but moderation. Politically, that is true for libertarians-woke people hate the idea of live and let live on a social basis, as did Falwell types back in the 80s/90s.
Dude, I was sitting in a community college calculus class a few years ago and some girl said she needed to go pick up her kids from school and the professor gave her some cock and bull routine about asking the front desk for a permission slip... like a fucking HALLWAY PASS!
I immediately stood up and said, "No. That's not how it works. You pay good money to be here and learn this stuff. THEY work for YOU so you can get a degree. You're an adult, and if you have to go care for your kids, then go do it. I'll make copies of my notes for you and get them to you later." *I turned to the teacher "This woman needs to go get her kids from school. Will you acknowledge that she is free to go and not penalize here for this? Kids need care; we don't get to say WHEN they need a parent's care."
The professor agreed and relented, saying, "Well, I guess you're only going to miss the last half hour of class and we can make sure you have the notes. If you need more help feel free to ask and I'll spend a little time with you on it later."
I asked, "There, was that so hard?"
The thought of the professor acting as a jailer or high school cunt teacher made my stomach turn. That they all assumed this was normal in some way also made my stomach turn. What the ever-loving FUCK is going on here??
"even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors."
Thankfully, I haven't been in college for 22 years either, which makes me wonder whether today the kids are being cowered by the bully professors or whether the professors are being cowered by the bully kids.
As much as I value my education (Homer, Virgil, Joyce, paying money to be forced to read books, which is kind of the point of spending the money), I'm very glad that I'm not working in academia now. I extend sincere sympathy to all adjuncts and just slightly less to the tenured professors. I wouldn't want to be in any of your respective shoes.
I was getting prepared to cheer for a professor actually teaching their students to think, but a visit to his blog seriously undercut that self-promotion. The blog promotes some sources with seriously deficient logic and "conspiracy theory" type thinking. (No I don't dismiss any contrarian view as a conspiracy theory; it depends on the content. Some of them ARE kind of delusional, whether left or right). His blog is not a haven for critical thinking. It's possible that he can teach "do as I say, and not as I do", but I wonder.
That said, I am disgusted with the way that woke elites try to twist this into a threat to his job. So he's a conspiracy thinker on his own time, who cares? He wasn't attacked for that per se, but for not being woke enough.
If I favored censorship the first phrase I'd censor is "conspiracy theory" -- it destroys meaning, throws ad-hominem shade, and ends productive discussion.
Imagine in the 1970s if someone said the Catholic church is covering up an epidemic of child sexual abuse by priests. They'd have been roundly dismissed at the time as a "conspiracy theorist". Now we know they were right.
There are far-fetched theories, ridiculous theories and plausible theories -- all of which should stand or fall on evidence that sometime takes years to come to light -- but there are no "conspiracy theories". Conspiracies aren't theories but facts. History shows powerful throughout time have conspired to do things that often remain carefully hidden from public view.
It's the misuse of the word "theory" that gets to me the most. Responsibly considered, the possibility of conspiracy is a topic for research and investigation. At appropriate intervals, it can be useful to develop working hypotheses, in order to find avenues for further development of evidence and leads (and for the purpose of refutation, of ruling out a given hypothesis.) Those hypotheses do not require "theories."
As for flimsy Conspiracism, it seldom if ever develops into full-fledged, internally coherent Theory. Instead, what one finds from the proponents are more along the lines of murky insinuations, and half-baked flights of imagination that pretend to fill in the voluminous missing blanks between a scattering of data points. There's quite a bit of that gimmickry to be found in these discussions, for what that's worth (zilch.)
It's interesting how the most effective defense found in flimsy conspiracism consists of its own vagueness. It's so murky and shadowy that it eludes challenge. It's too vague to bother with refuting. But that's the source of its power- the imagination of credulous readers who think they know exactly what the writer is talking about, and build out the narrative by filling in the blanks with their fantasies.
Most are "conspiracy HYPOTHESES", and you can tell the worst of them by the fact they are clearly reverse-engineered from factual observations, and they always explain everything. If I've learned anything about the world, it's that it is too complicated for a single hypothesis to explain away EVERYTHING.
The conspiracy hypotheses are inevitable though, because when the official narrative is literally unbelievable, the mind will naturally look for closure, that is a back story that takes all of the known facts and tries to account for them in another way.
And the corporate media has destroyed its own credibility, so that any interpretation they univocally offer is, for me, per se suspect. Who can trust a story that comes from someone they know to be a committed liar? And who have been lying for years?
I hope to live long enough to see the end of this gaslighting of the country.
I'd nominate for second place the nebulous-but-potent usage: "alt-right". I love the over-the-top nature of these folks, who, not content with the near meaninglessness of the term, proceeded to coin "alt-right adjacent". Truly amazing.
If I once or twice agree with a thing an "alt-right" person -- clearly an inviolable category, defined by display of Pepe The Frog iconography -- might say, am I "alt-right" or just "alt-right adjacent?"
Darling, should you once or twice agree with a thing an alt-right person might say, then you will be alt-right. You can't be a little bit pregnant. The commissars will tell you that.
Agree that "conspiracy theory" throws ad hominem shade and ends productive discussion. That term implies that especially corporate media sources may be relied upon to present everything of real significance to our lives and societies. Here's a direct quote: "If that were true, it would have been on MSNBC!" That was about a New York Assembly bill to provide for forcibly confining people, or groups of people, who represented a public health threat to others, until such time as they agree to undergo necessary medical treatment, or are deemed no longer a hazard.
--That bill has passed, by the way. It's A416 or A419, I forget which.
That occurs to me often as the proper, and only required, course of action in response to most of these accusations. I'm guessing a good college administrator could turn that three-word prescription into a full page of polysyllabic grandiloquence.
So where do we draw this "kind of delusional" line?
Example. 9/11 alone wasn't enough to get the Patriot Act through congress. Then there were anthrax attacks on congress itself which focused their attention very quickly. Would you think it kind of delusional to wonder how that all happened? Am I kind of delusional to find it entirely plausible that the CIA (or whatever TLA) would be well prepared to undertake such an operation?
Your statements suggest you believe that most reasonable people should be able to share a common-sense judgement on what "ARE kind of delusional." As I see it, on so many questions we simply don't have access to evidence that would conclusively settle any reasonable doubt. And a lot of that is because the people and organizations that control the evidence can't be trusted.
And (sorry to get meta) it seems this all works very well for the status quo. Questioning official propaganda makes me seem like a crank, doubt everything and feel paranoid. As a form of social control, this is genius. Defer to the official narratives or be ostracized as delusional.
He- an authority figure, a tenured professor- told undergrads that masks don't work. Freedom of speech has limits. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater. You don't get to say shit that directly endangers human life, which is what he did. Fuck him and his batshit crazy conspiracy-addled mind. He can do crazy on his own time, but that's not what he did here. He did it on the job, in a manner that puts people in danger.
No he did NOT say masks don't work. He WEARS a mask. He questioned whether they work, which is the truth. Tons of conflicting information on it--even coming from Fauci and others.
And his point was all the pre-covid studies that showed masks don't work, which are the exact studies the CDC was relying on when Fauci (and others) explicitly stated that masks don't work.
No one anywhere has managed to create an HIV vaccine, though many groups around the world have tried. The only meaningful way to decide if you can trust Dr. Fauci is to study his overall record of accomplishments and guidance. If you do so, you will learn that he has made tremendous contributions to fighting contagious diseases.
HIV is a very different virus than covid19. For reasons that virologists understand all too well, and that even educable layfolk can comprehend, if they bother to do the reading. A lot of reading.
Dr. Fauci was a leader in developing effective treatments for HIV over the past 30 years. There was a time when there wasn't any such thing.
Yeah, and there are some scientists that question the science of climate change too. Meanwhile the planet burns. The OVERWHELMING evidence is that masks are one of the only measures that mitigate the damage of the virus. You can argue that the Earth is flat too, but that just makes you a harmless nutjob. In this case he is not being harmless, he is effectively yelling fire in a crowded room. It's disinformation and it puts lives in danger to do what he did. And again, it'd be one thing if he was just blogging about it (like he does about 9/11 conspiracies and various other garbage) but he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line. And I repeat: I HATE CANCEL CULTURE. This isn't that.
So ... arguing that someone should be fired for what they say isn't "cancel culture"? You are either punking us, or are seriously misguided on just what constitutes cancel culture ...
Some cunt sitting in a class on communications at NYU who posts a tweet complaining about something they misunderstood?
Some group of bureaucrats at some college who aren't medical professionals themselves?
Some CIA goons in a darkened room deciding how best to disrupt a society so that they can bend it to their will?
Rudolph Hess?
Chairman Mao?
Ronald Reagan?
Who?
I'll tell you, cunt: the Constitution. It grants free speech without guardrails.
You are sitting here defending the indefensible and acting as though you have some moral high ground. You don't, and neither did Hitler, Mao, Trump, Bush or Obama.
They are a real-time death cult hell bent on controlling the whole globe, it's people, it's resources.
They KNOW it's not sustainable and they don't fucking care. They just want to be around ling enough to pick up the pieces and forge a new society afterward, and guess what? You're still going to be trammeled under the boot, even as you glance upward with puppy dog eyes and say, "But... I defended your right to censor things! I believed in you!!!"
I strongly protest your calling someone a cunt just because you disagree with that person. We should be attempting to exchange ideas and opinions here, not throwing around anger and insults. Why should that be necessary?
I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle.
What this kid did is such playground behavior: "I'm going to tell!" Except she doesn't (to be charitable) understand that she needs to clarify before she tattles on people. So much for the university as a training in reasonable discourse.
Where does this current relish come from, to get people into such hot water at their jobs?
Kids will always be a bit socially backward and immature, that's fine, they'll grow out of it. But this thoughtless malice and spite is horrible. Where did they learn to act like this? Is narking rewarded in the public schools?
In related news, even the UK Court of Appeal agrees with Scott's comment below (this from Dec 18th 2020):
"...Judges have insisted that freedom of speech includes the 'right to offend' in a landmark ruling...presiding over a case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby said: 'Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.'
They added that 'free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another'. The judgment from two senior members of the judiciary will set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech.
The ruling has emerged only now, but came in the successful appeal decided last week in favour of mother-of-two Kate Scottow, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, after she had been found guilty under the 2003 Communications Act earlier in the year..."
FWIW for masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
Amusing side note, someone mentioned getting into an elevator where someone had been wearing very generous amounts of aftershave recently. Their cloth mask was no match for the scent. I was thinking they should have worn their 3M powered air purifying respirator instead 😀
I gotta agree with Commentorinchief. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you are a case study in what propoganda does the brain.
which wouldn't be all bad. You could reflect on the experience and maybe get some insight into how your buttons are getting pushed. Maybe you will get famous and end up in a case study as patient privileged white male.
Your non-ironic slinging of the reflexive woke epithet whilst assailing me for being part of cancel culture is absolutely hilarious. Especially considering you don't know anything about me. Gross.
Oh please you have NO evidence that the planet is burning because of climate change! None at ALL. Even the scientists admit that. And there really is no real evidence masks work or do more than make people feel better. Or work as a political statement. I have no problem wearing them inside places especially if asked to, but this is ridiculous.
"masks work" according to the CDC PRIMARILY to stop the spraying of droplets of infected people wearing them. That's all. It's pretty well established that to block out viruses one needs a hermetically sealed and filtered-down-to-.1micron filter.
That's not really disputed by any medical personnel anywhere.
It's the oversight in letting people think they are protected just by wearing a mask that is abhorrent.
You wouldn't walk around with a condom on your willy when you're not having sex, would you?
Welcome to your introduction into the enigma that is Ralph Dratman.
We've all been trying to get our heads around this guys hyperbole for months now. Is he supporting the argument? Which part of it? Is he arguing against it? How?
These and many other questions will enter your mind when reading Ralph's comments but remember: not even Ralph knows the answers to these questions.
Ralph seems to deserve pity, but then he doesn't. He is like a riddle.
Before you jump to those conclusions, read the pre-Covid studies Dr. Miller was pointing out to his students. You know, the studies Dr. Fauci, et al. were relying on in March to say that masks don't work. I am not an anti-masker but the evidence is not OVERWHELMING (although the common sense reason for wearing masks is).
Better still... if you want to be laughed out of a lab, hand people surgical masks before they enter a containment area where the most virulent strains are kept.
No, never mind the filtered full bunny suits, you'll say... and they'll all turn and walk away. You might even get sued for attempting to expose them all to deadly viruses.
The doctors and nurses taking care of Covid patients wear masks to keep themselves safe. Most of them are still not infected. What kind of strange belief/disbelief operation are you running? You sound like either you are being intentionally provocative or your thinking is not clear.
I actually believe in masks (believe being the operative word) but in the interest of seeking truth and having an open mind, I will not shut down contrary evidence.
An excerpt from the above linked study:
"Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.
"The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization "
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
I said he is cancel culture because he is literally advocating for cancel culture in his comment. You and he can say you hate it as much as you want but if you advocate for it as well, then you and he would obviously be lying about hating it. BTW - This applies to any side of the political spectrum. People on the Right can engage in cancel culture as well, although, it is typically to prove to the Left how destructive the thing they unleashed on the world is. But it is still cancel culture.
It is true that "the planet burns" is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. But in light of the fact that global warming is a real situation, there is no reason to see that message as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory claims that an organized group of people is perpetrating lies or committing crimes. That comment refers to no conspiracy at all.
Every single sentence in this comment contains at least one bald-faced example of bad faith argumentation. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about it that this is the result. Just like I'm sorry Prof Miller's late-comer, uninformed student was so emotional she took to twitter to demand he be fired.
You say he crossed a line. What consequences do you think would be appropriate for him? If you think he should be silenced, how is that not cancellation?
I'm not seeing that. My only quarrel with this comment from Mark Read is where he writes, "he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line" -- I'm not sure there is a prohibition against giving students low quality information, or if there is, what crossing a line would imply.
And...I guess your skeptical analysis stops before you get to the fact that the accusation is a lie? THAT doesn't bother you?
Then maybe, if you hadn't stopped there, you might have noticed the ridiculous escalation of charges and accusations contained in the succeeding responses from faculty and administrators.
Mark clearly thinks that's okay, because he approves of the original misrepresentation of what Prof Miller said. And you do also?
I hear your dislike of cancel culture. What the article describes is a hybrid; we might take the original motive to be "protect students from hearing scientifically wrong statements from a professor, by any means available".
But then then the condemnation accuses "intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
Is there any evidence of those misdeeds? Or is this boilerplate cancel culture take-down?
This sounds like those concerned by his mask heresy and desiring to stop it "by any means possible" may have wound up reframing this as a social justice issue, after observing that such issues seem to have the ability to penetrate academic freedoms like the spike protein allows SARS-CoV-2 to penetrate cell walls. That is, maybe the intent was "good" (if you believe in face covering, as I do) and the attackers just used a wokist reframe as a cynical but effective tool to take him down, because normal due process was judged insufficient or too slow. Grab the handiest tool with a proven sharp edge.
How do you feel about using (and thus reinforcing) cancel culture methods - but for a good cause which you do support? Would you do that?
And I agree with you about the quality control on his blog entries.
"intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
This is really what the school administrators are up to.
Agreed. The letter that those faculty wrote is full on wokist horseshit. I hate it and they all suck for writing it. AND Miller should be canned for discouraging mask use. No good guys in this story. Miller is no martyr for free speech.
Again, he specifically told his students to wear masks AND wore one himself. You seem to believe that if you just lie often enough, that makes it true.
Re: overwhelming evidence?....FWIW on masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
You want to draw a distinction between critical thinking and cancel culture. But that distinction is difficult to maintain at the moment. Why? Because most of the US population is so deeply divided into two factions that everyone is expected to attach to one side or the other and fight for it. If one side is opposed to something, that something then must be opposed without exception or compromise. Since "cancel culture" is a term that has been attached to the Democrats, it is not possible to oppose cancel culture, as you do, yet still criticize someone who has become associated with Republican positions.
I did make a point. My point was that one can oppose "cancel culture" (railroading individuals via group opinion), yet not support some other positions of people on the right who also happen to oppose cancel culture. What's so strange or incomprehensible about that? It's like ordering a la carte from a menu rather than just taking the whole meal as offered.
Let me see if I understand this. You seriously feel you have the personal authority to tell me with some finality that I support cancel culture, even after I clearly said I hate it? So in your view my word counts for nothing, and yours for everything, when I describe what I like or support? That is a mighty strange way to show enthusiasm for first amendment rights. Apparently they only have meaning if you agree with the point of view being put forward. Otherwise what I say gets cancelled out by your overriding power of proclamation. I'm getting a bad feeling about living in a society run by your rules.
And Matt provides direct evidence in his piece of official skepticism over masks. This is just one of those things that the public cannot get past. We should be told (or at least assume as rational, informed adults) that there's conflicting evidence about mask efficacy but, given the fact that they MIGHT help keep people alive, laws mandating their use are justified.
You are wrong! He did not tell them that. He told them that pre-Covid there were quite a few peer reviewed studies that concluded masks don't work for respiratory illness. *In fact, his point was that the CDC, WHO, and others had initially relied on those studies when they pronounced early on that masks don't work.* His point was then to also look at the studies post-Covid, which come to a different conclusion. He DID NOT tell his students to think anything!
I also found the accusations that this 130 lbs of 60ish New York intellectual intimidated, aggressed against or bullied these college students beyond what they could bear.
Then again, in a society where a group of feminists claimed to be threatened and traumatized by the vicious presentation of the misogynistic opinion that "Men are, on average, taller than women." It was at a free speech presentation, back when colleges had those, and was presented (naively) as an example of unobjectionable fact. They REEEEEE'd and stormed out to protest. (wish I could
Thus do current day college students refute reality!! (science note: None of the participating feminists were made taller by their actions, though the "allied" men with them were observed slouching a bit.)
I believe you are talking about Heather Heying's remarks at Portland State in 2018. Lest anyone who thinks your comment is preposterous, they can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM&feature=emb_logo (beginning at ~19:20)
As I understand it, it has not yet been established that in fact he did tell undergrads that masks don't work; let's not get stampeded by unverified assertions.
His story - that he suggested they read pre-Covid and post-Covid assessments of mask utility - does not sound like a problem to me. But I wasn't there and do not have any recording of what he actually said, in any direction.
I do want to suggest that we might want to warn undergrads (among others) not to trust a communications professor to be an expert in weighing evidence about a biology question under dispute. The relevant logical fallacy is inappropriate reference to unqualified authority (not any reference to any authority).
Oh bologne. He does not have to be an authority on everything to suggest students research people who are! Please. That's the point. His job is to teach students to think critically. As a retired Adjunct Professor who taught argument papers, I can attest to that. He also did not ASk them to trust HIM. If you are so "logical and reasonable" you'd see that. That is his job, and the students should understand that. He is saying not to blindly trust ANYONE. Duh.
He said he explicitly told his class he is not telling them to not wear masks. I am going to believe he is telling the truth, rather than trying to establish a fact.
Please take a breath. 💗Take some DMAE (supplement) to remove the raging cortisol in your system from the constant stress and fear and propaganda you are clearly immersed in. Take care
Thank you, you're too kind! Sometimes I comment in a less than totally optimal state of sobriety and in the morning fear what potential foolishness I may have wrought.
But I think one may need to be in a less than totally optimal state of sobriety to begin with in order to believe that commenting in comments sections -- even MT's -- is a good use of one's inevitably dwindling time.
Exactly, what ever happened to the mantra - "question authority" Even if you aren't willing to go to battle at every moment - question everything with your own good mind. Question motives especially...financial, and other self-serving psychological motives. Such as baiting your students into a fight out of disrespect for them rather than real teaching or dialogue. It's bad but it happens all the time in the wild. One has to prepare for this kind of interaction in the world. University is a good lab for that ;)
What happened? Over abundance, entitlement, apathy, adderall, psycho pharmaceuticals, social media, lack of nature, no self responsibility, history not being taught, civics not being taught, 24/7 media propaganda, Marxist indoctrination in schools, etc. etc.
:::::sigh:::: I could listen all night... oh, wait, err... I don't know you...
haha
I think they are bored. They need outrage. And something with which to elevate themselves in their own opinions and that of the sexually active age women with which they are surrounded but never noticed.
Unless they are middle aged black women who re-write American history for sport. they're just bitter.
I would direct you to the source study from which I draw my wisdom but then I would have to block your avatar and it, despite being a silhouette, doesn't really look like it wants to be blocked.
excellent point-- they also need to be significant. How can you be when mom and dad are buying everything for you, making everything easy and smooth. And as saw in the last few years, even buying your way (more blatantly) into schools 😊
I dunno ... I'm a middle aged white guy, and when I was in my early 20s and utterly ignored by women, I didn't have much time to notice because there were all these incredible ideas to explore. Literature and music and history and art ... certainly had better things to do than try to silence other people or feel outraged ...
People are exhibiting a truly inexplicable deference to "authority", overlooking
a) Every scientific advancement has been made against the "consensus opinion" and sometimes against the entrenched careers, of other scientists.
b) While some people do seem really stupid, the range of intelligence really DOES massively favor the center of the curve, and scientists, much less university professors, are NOT all bunched down at the genius end.
c)The extra learning people acquire to become "authorities" is valuable, but it also creates incentives to favor certain entrenched positions. Some, for no reason other than the expansion or continuation of their own academic careers. Indeed, some "expert" opinions are pretty much bought and paid for. Thus, skepticism should be applied, even if it's towards an opinion that comes from a real smarty man.
Of course, when someone puts forth an argumentum ad vericundiam, I despair of inculcating in them a healthy degree of cynical skepticism. Ah well...can't expect every generation to be as reflexively iconoclastic as mine.
Nothing happened to that mantra. It's just we happen to have triggered some folk deeply invested in official propaganda and, naturally, they respond emotionally.
Physiological reaction which triggers hormonal overload (adrenals, cortisol). Very hard to get rid of for some people. And some really like being in that fight or flight feeling--it makes them feel alive. Then add the cocktail of meds they are on and well...you get the picture.
Excellent point. When (sorry usually a man) tells me " you know you should be wearing a mask", I say thanks Dad! If they continue I say thanks I am a medical professional (what? look on their face) but thanks so much for the advice.
As Miller says in his interview with MT, the "LEFT" ain't the left it used to be.
We Americans need to get away from this Left/Right BS. There is only one very tiny slice of society benefiting from getting us to self-identify with a "faction" and pitting us against each other.
The best description of our 'parties' is Uniparty.
There is no real daylight between the parties.
The Political types elected or in the streets or universities will normally be looking for money, the really dangerous ones power and more power.
Power is crack to paraphrase Khrushchev.
The Venal were historically easier to deal with, not now.
They want it all and they've never been in a fist fight never mind pinched by the cops for crimes, or in real danger. This is all a movie to them and they're playing a script.
As again to the parties - we can't vote this out, hell it's been decades since we voted ourselves into this mess. We're just seeing them with the mask off.
I actually am lol exactly that, well Recon part time now.
Not BTW a Maoist foot soldier.
The problem for the profs is they are the old geezers and the young they raised to be merciless Maoist Calvinist Morals Police are throwing them down. This is simple: the young see the opportunity to take the power from the Prof.
We quite remain Chimpanzees when it comes to Politics.
I wondered what had happened to him. I've thought one of his comments from the early aughts, which I'm paraphrasing, could be extended to describe our current situation succinctly.
About the political climate of the early Bush years, MCM said, "It's like the "Republicans got the government and the Democrats got the English Department." The irony is that 20 years later, it appears the English Department, or at least the Cultural Studies section, now has the government.
I saw this shit coming from a long time ago. It's the progression of the left which seemed inevitable even back when I came of age and voted the first time in 1976. I was sure that when others researched this new political party that a friend introduced me to that hated war, wanted to decriminalize drugs, freedom from income tax and no censorship that everyone would agree. I proudly told anyone who would listen to vote for Roger McBride of the libertarian party! It was a no brainier! Get government out of the way and let freedom ring!
The party was trashed by the MSM and other politicians who denounced libertarian principals as crazy and unrealistic while blindly marching towards the state of affairs we are in today.
I also failed to underestimate the ability of folks to be deceived over and over, again and again and continue to vote the same way expecting different results.
Orwell's 1984 should be promoted reading instead of the woke curriculum today.
Orwell, or Huxley? From Postman.....”What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. ... In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
I think Orwell. Brave New World was all about controlling people through pleasure. There is nothing pleasurable about the narrative the 'ministry of truth' is pushing out currently. It's all about control through fear, shame, and guilt, and denigrating anything that gives us pleasure and adds meaning to our lives.
If it were profitable, they'd use "the right" -and they do, just not to the same extent. I think they are forced to use "the left" as a mask because most of the people in charge of the propaganda machines are lefty college types.
Please... understand that this is not some cancer growth of a certain side. It has no side except the side it's own bread is buttered on.
I have only recently started to realize how true this is. Trump's term in office has put a spotlight on this simply because he was not a part of the establishment. It's really remarkable. Once you have seen it, you cannot unsee it.
To belabor the obvious, when you make this point, people will invariably come after you for being "pro-Trump."
It's the conflation of the man with the structural situation, and it's meant to dump all the guano on the man. I guess we'll find out how long this paradigm holds up in his absence.
As we speak, they are scurrying back to their well appointed DC habitats with fully stocked pantries to carry on with business as usual. From there, they will saunter back into the shadows to pull the levers of unelected power through their government issued Alexa.
Naturally, I'm being hyperbolic. Everyone knows that an Alexa could never pass through the stringent DoD requirements that are clearly defined in the smart speaker STIG. Otherwise, that is all true.
As for sounding like I am pro-Trump, I could honestly care less. If that is a scarlet letter, I will wear it with pride as long as I get the top bunk at the gulag. If it is the bottom bunk, I'll roll over like a puppy and give up everything that they ask for. Gotta have standards.
Just curious, what kind of background did McBride have. I’m libertarian but I definitely get annoyed by the Libertarian Party’s tendency to attract candidates who are wack jobs outside of politics-like the Senate candidate from Montana who accidentally dyed himself blue. I don’t think legislative chambers should be Cosplay conventions!
I was 19 years old and really didn't really focus on the individual. More focus on the liberty, free speech, antiwar, drug decriminalization, low taxe theme and what seemed to be a return to what our founding fathers sought. That message to me back then seemed more optimistic but then reality got in the way. I agree the libertarian candidates can be a little different and most of the time and they come across as weird. I wouldn't mind more weird.
Brilliant. Kind-of gives me a new perspective on the Barrel Man. Would love to know what his inspiration really was. A bankruptcy barrel at the end of a tough season fits.
I am completely ready to get trashed for saying this, but I think Jimmy meant well and made ultimately meaningless efforts to rein in the permanent bureaucracy. He was the 1-term Trump of 45 years ago
“Reaganland” by Perlstein, is actually a granular rehash of the Carter presidency. He meant well, but was his own worst enemy in nearly every action he attempted. A good man in an unenviable situation, and Reagan played him like a well tuned fiddle. I wouldn’t compare him to Trump in any manner whatsoever. Carter had an immense intellect, but an intellect entirely unsuited for the job. Trump, otoh, is absent cognitive ability. I mean, here’s a guy that was portrayed as some form of brilliant deal maker, put in a position where he could have worked myriad deals and come out as the greatest Prez in American history and gotten rich doing it, and he’s essentially just proven what a dork and incompetent he is. His latest, letting himself be taped in the con of looking for 11,000+ votes, only shows what a dweeb he is.
Thanks for the rec, and I admit my comparison of Carter to Trump was lazy. It's impossible for me at this point to remember what details I read when and where, but I thought Fritz Mondale's autobiography was particularly illuminating; he admired Carter's work ethic but was baffled by his personal coldness -- somebody who kept everybody away emotionally.
My sense is that Jimmy got dumped in a shark tank with no pre-existing support network and spent 4 years trying furiously to keep his head above water. I guess that's where my Trump comparison comes from.
Not lazy. There really isn’t anyone to compare either Prez to. Both were out of their element, one well intended with skills entirely mismatched to the job and the other just a cheap shyster and a crook. Reaganland is a great read, but what surprised me is it’s really nearly all about Carter and how he set the stage for Reagan.
Haha, yes, I remember reading about this. One of the main reasons why Carter was ultimately ineffectual was that he was a workaholic control freak who couldn't delegate authority. He'd work 20-hour days doing shit like that instead.
The Church Committee (starting, admittedly, pre-Carter) was at least an effort. Carter appointing ADM Turner to clean house at CIA was another one. Frank, Stansfield, and Jimmy all failed in the end, but at least they tried. I might be too kind to career bureaucrats.
Jimmy Carter is the 2 wolves inside you. I am not going to argue that I would have been a better President of the USA in 1978.
Leonid frickin Brezhnev called up DC on the red phone to ask Carter what the hell he was thinking and why did he want to trigger a war when Carter proposed removing US troops from the 38th parallel in 1977 or 78.
Brezhnev was an awesomely lazy man; so lazy you have to admire his sheer chutzpah of inaction. He and Carter were more or less good ol' boys right up until Leonid made the mistake of doing a thing and invaded Afghanistan. It's funny -- Carter rode into office on the back of Nixon-engineered detente, but started what is popularly thought of as "Reagan's" defense buildup in his last year of office. One of the weirdest volte-faces from dove to hawk in American executive politics. Woodrow Wilson is comparable, maybe?
Woodrow Wilson was the most evil piece of shit ever elected to public office in the United States. He was basically Emperor Palpatine w/ less technology at his disposal.
Guys like Harding and Coolidge (Pierce? Arthur?) tend to get knocked around by historians for being corrupt do-nothing shitheels, but at least they didn't do that much harm, either. We're still living in the Empire Woody made.
It's a curious phenomenon that the people who do the most actual harm in the world tend to view themselves as the most rectitudinous. Happens over and over again, like a stuck record.
You are correct about Brezhnev’s laziness-he had a giant tower built in the middle of a forest preserve so he and his buddies could just snipe game instead of actually hunting. He let the Soviet economy float for the 1970s on high oil/gas prices.
There are two main issues at play here and one of them leads to the other in a sense. The first issue is a public health and scientific issue. Initially, I was skeptical of masks being effective because at a molecular level, a mask is effectively cheesecloth and a virus will sail right through it. I'm a former molecular biologist and so I understand the science and biology. Then, there were experiments showing that masks prevent aerosols, basically saliva sprays when someone sneezes or talks, and therefore limit local transmission. The virus is embedded in droplets that are 10 to 1000-fold larger than the virus. This is why surgeons use masks when you have surgery, to limit wound infection. (This is also how bioweapons are weaponized - the agent is injected into the environment in an aerosol or powder form to enable it to reach as many people as possible with the smallest amounts.) To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask. Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended. I do not wish to get sick or cause harm.
Now then, he's a media professor and his specialty is propaganda. It is not biology, public health, or a hard science. He's certainly within his rights and profession to say the things he's been saying, but does he have the academic chops to definitively say certain public health measures are propaganda? They may possibly be, but considering that Japan controlled its pandemic through mask use and other measures would suggest otherwise. Now, if his focus was what is reported in the media, fine. Most journalists took chemistry for poets in college or university. They are liberal arts and communications majors, not science majors. They have no concept of the size of an atom versus virus versus human cell versus something on the macroscopic scale such as a mask. Microscopic scales are even abstract for science majors. You can't see what you are manipulating, but you are working with billions and trillions of them. At best a bacterial culture turns cloudy whereas said culture clears from lysis when a viral infection kills 99% of the cells. What I am trying to convey here is that any information we get from the average journalist about science in general and Covid-19 measures is like Chinese whispers. Information will get lost in translation because experts have to simplify the message so that the average person can grasp it. It doesn't help that science is an iterative process and most messaging is conservative to begin with, then you have to dumb it down further. It's like the Red Dwarf episode where the crewmembers try to explain to the Cat what a spacetime rift is only to state that it's a magic door in total frustration.
So, do I support Mr. Miller? The answer is yes. He was doing his job. He should keep his job. But, he should confer with colleagues who know the science and can keep him from inserting his foot into his mouth on what could be a public health issue. If it goes to the courts, that could or could not be in his favor. Courts don't handle scientific evidence well and the issue depends heavily on context. A lot of crap in academia doesn't get put in emails, so it could be difficult to prove who said what, when, and exactly why, for what reasons he was censured. If the institution attacks him from the public health angle, he might have a difficult fight.
“To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder.”
This is insane. If I have spent the last month alone indoors and know I am not infected how am I murdering someone by not wearing a mask?
Moreover, you parrot the same censorious agenda for the exact reasons the professor teaches are incorrect. No one should be disallowed to ask people to research and think for themselves, much less a professor whose very job is to do just that.
"To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder."
Poppycock.
HIV had a 100% fatality rate.
Covid, as they say, how will we know the vaccine is effective?
HIV wasn't 100% transmissible unless people were sharing dirty needles. I could only find 50% fatality rates for HIV in the literature. Depending on your age, the fatality rate for Covid-19 varies from less than 1% to 25%. Covid is a mess because testing is so fucked up. We don't know who has the asymptomatic variant of the disease until after the fact usually.
Yes, it was generally except for the occasional non-progressive, and I don't disagree. But, there were also people who had it who wanted to take as many people with them as possible. Hospitals weren't run by MBAs during the HIV epidemic. Reaganism's neoliberal streak hadn't fully taken hold, though public health funding was starting to be cut back then. Now, the whole system is corrupted by money.
come on, you can do it, just admit it. The hype about Covid, an overwhelmingly survivable virus, is off the chart compared to the lack of attention for HIV.
So instead of admitting it, you say, not in certain groups for Covid.
Well, we weren't all dying of AIDS either, were we?
Just admit it. This virus is being hyped. Our system has been keeping people alive past their expiration date and the virus is wiping em out.
The Covid virus is essentially a a predator. It kills off the sick and old. This is its function and its job. It doesn't care who you are or what you think. If the genetic lottery or viral lottery is against you, you meet your maker. There's a lot of hype out there, but what pisses me off is that we did these things to protect people and a bunch of idiots and incompetents have let it kill those people we sacrificed our freedom for and another group are making money off of other's misery. Billionaire's are making out like bandits, as are the pharmaceuticals when the government is subsidizing the research, manufacturing, and distribution of a vaccine. Shit we bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street again. Everyone is generally biased for their own survival, so I don't fault people for trying to live another day longer. But, I hate a system throwing everyone under the bus economically except millionaires and billionaires during a recession caused by a public health crisis.
Small side note - N95 masks do not have holes too small for particles to pass through, but they have convoluted paths through which particles need to pass, and electrostatic attraction which can capture most particles. If they are washed, the holes don't change size but the electrostatic charge effect is destroyed and the mask is not longer effective.
So physical particle size versus mask hole size is not the sole issue to consider.
But that's an aside. I do not disagree with your points.
The mask is like a molecular sieve. As particles pass through it, they are gradually filtered and constrained by size not unlike lengthy DNA molecules passing through an agarose gel that are constrained proportionally by molecular length. The longer the DNA fragment, the less it travels through the gel. The bigger the droplet, the less it travels through the mask. The electrostatic charge prevents the virus from leaving the mask basically. It's just added protection.
I have some questions for you, not to be argumentative, but for info only:
Do you wear a mask out in public when you know you will not be within at least 20 feet from other people, such as walking your dog in a suburban environment, or riding your bike or otherwise exercising?
Do you wear a mask indoors? My health care provider is Kaiser, and they say we should leave our windows open to allow the air to circulate to lessen the concentration of the virus found in the home. It seems to me that the virus in a home would likely be more concentrated than in an open suburban area, especially if there is any wind at all, so a mask indoors may be needed also.
Any ideas on the breakdown on the causes of infection, meaning through breathing it in or from transmission from infected hands to face?
I do wear a mask, we sterilize commonly touched household areas every morning and wash our hands religiously, but I was still infected in mid May, was sick for 16 days, but did not require hospitalization because my breathing was never labored, but did suffer from body ache, fever, headache/wooziness and a hyper heightened sense of taste that came simultaneously with the headache about a week into the symptoms beginning. The only lingering symptom was a definite increase in confusion and distractedness that has basically gone away after lingering for a few months, but not so severely as to cause me to cast a vote for either Trump or Biden.
If you've had the virus, your body will clear it after a month. You wouldn't need to wear a mask indoors in your own home after that. From what I can tell, the mode of transmission went from contact to aerosol 4-5 months ago. Most everyone accepts it is respiratory virus now. If I were exercising, I would not wear a mask and would avoid anyone.
Thanks. I still act as though I'm not immune(not sure how long the immunity lasts, anyway) because I don't want to pass it along to someone else and start a chain of infections.
One positive side effect is I haven't had a cold yet this year, which I normally would have had by now, because I do wash my hands more often and have largely broken a lifelong habit of touching my face.
«Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended.»
Please, please, let's be realistic: the evidence is all over the place (even if I think that masks are somewhat effective), but the "preponderance of evidence" is a weak argument, the better argument is "the precautionary principle": it is a minor inconvenience to wear masks, and they might work to prevents a lot of trouble, and so why not?
“To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask.“
What should the criminal punishment be for this kind of offense, like leaving your home without a mask or being too close to others when improperly covered? Attempted murder, with an option to upgrade to murder if the “victim” dies within two weeks of the offense?
Stop please. He was not saying DON'T wear masks! He was simply pointing out to his class the many studies pre-Covid that found masks are not effective in stopping respiratory viruses (important point: these were the studies the CDC relied on when first saying masks don't work). He then directed his class to review the post-Covid studies that came to a different conclusion and ask what changed? Or what explains the different results pre and post Covid. That is all!
And, why didn't he walk over to the public health department or virology department and ask his colleagues about the papers and the medical science? Doctors have been wearing masks in surgery for decades to limit wound infection. I was trying to convey that initially, I was skeptical of masks until I had seen some studies. Realizing that people spew aerosols changed my mind. You don't see those droplets. All I stated was that if he is attacked from the public health angle he could be in trouble since it could be seen as a contrarian view or opinion against a public health message, or used as evidence against him out of context. He is a professional educator even with tenure and people can get testy over public health debates, especially when the speaker isn't a medical doctor. He is an expert on propaganda, not pathogenic aerosols. We don't know exactly what he said to the students, but the context was probably his specialty except he stated opinions on studies and press releases. Press releases are not studies. They aren't even abstracts. At best they are Chinese whispers. That is his specialty. He doesn't read scientific papers for a living generally. He is likely innocent, but now he's censured and censored.
Even in the medical fields, the efficacy of masks is debated. Acting is if there is some monolithic "truth" out there - some kind of oracle we should all bow down before - is about as anti-science as one can get.
How many undergraduate communication majors do you know who can dissect medical studies? I find it difficult to read and comprehend them, especially clinical ones, and I have a doctorate in molecular biology. Someone who has no math or scientific background will flounder and need help from someone with the knowledge to know the paper's methodology and flaws, not to mention understand the jargon used. Lambda means different things to a mathematician, a microbiologist, and an immunologist, and the latter two are bioscientists. Context matters even in research papers.
I think his point was that there were many studies pre-Covid that found masks aren't effective and then the post-Covid, the studies made an about turn. The question he asked his students to consider is why or what changed. See this 2017 meta-study as a place to begin. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
You mean what changed in Western societies? In Asia, the cities are more densely populated, and in Japan, mask use is quite prevalent. Japan also contained the virus quite well, as good as Hong Kong or Singapore. I was trying to point out that he was a non-medical expert talking about mask studies. The debate or controversy may have been more nuanced. It's a given in medical circles to wear masks to limit transmission. But, an epidemiologist's opinion would carry more weight than a GP's opinion. And, his opinion as a communication expert would carry even less weight. He has no scientific expertise. He could have accidentally cherry picked the studies he used. He may have been contrasting studies versus press releases for all I know, and press releases are pale shadows of the studies they cite. Sometimes they are just a sales pitch to boost a pharmaceutical's stock price. Meta studies bother me. If the meta analysis is proven correct by follow up empirical evidence, fine, but stand alone analysis really bothers me. They are basically statisticians looking for casual factors by shoehorning other people's datasets generally. And, you have to be a statistician to know the work's flaws.
Thank you! HIV was 100% lethal. You got it, you died. Corona is nothing like that. We know the fatality rate is well below 1% for most people under 75.
Institutional Washington DC has been, throughout my lifetime and probably well before that, an heroic epic of upwards failure.
Patriotic, conscientious, diligent kids get blinded by the bright lights and burn 5 years or 2 decades there before they finally learn how the sausage is made and bail. The scum stays and rises to the top. The key factor in going or staying is the ability to feel shame.
If you don’t wear a mask, you have Covid-19, and you go to a family gathering and kill a few of your relatives, I would say let the family mete out justice. If you kill a complete stranger through recklessness disregard, how is that different from killing someone while driving drunk?
It’s different in a lot of ways but if you want to treat “breathing near people” as equally punishable by law then that’s your thing I guess.
If you have Covid-19 and somebody gets it from you and dies, you didn’t kill them — Covid-19 killed them (which seems to be debatable based on comorbidities and all the other data swirling around). Are you hoping to expand this idea of justice beyond Covid to the common cold and the seasonal flu too?
I can think of a lot of injury lawyers who would love to add this to the list of things they can sue for, plus a lot of great new surveillance tools that can ensure these new laws against public breath exposure can be properly enforced. How far do you want to take this?
So, you are sick, you know you are sick, there's a pandemic, and you don't excuse yourself from a family gathering or from a public place that's crowded. It's just a cold or bronchitis. You didn't kill that elderly person who is at much greater risk by giving them the agent that killed them, that you produced?
Every old person I know understands a) they're gonna die and b) they still have agency, they can still decide to ensure their safety by NOT meeting with their families, and NOT going out in public.
MOST of the old people I know would very much like this to be their own choice, not yours.
«If you have Covid-19 and somebody gets it from you and dies, you didn’t kill them»
Deliberately infecting someone with a disease is considered at least assault and is a crime in most countries, as a disease is as to damage equivalent to a poison. Infecting people negligently or recklessly with minor diseases is rarely prosecuted of course...
Probably because of the way the lockdowns have been instituted. Restaurants were open for inside dining for maybe a couple of months, if that, and outdoor dining was severely regulated. What might be a result of that? People invite their friends over for dinner instead of going out maybe?? Small businesses that sold some of the same things Costco or Target sell have been shut down. What happens? More crowds over at the Target and the Costco where they do nothing to limit the numbers of people coming in. Maybe having the largest percentage of homeless in the country and letting thousands of criminals onto the street that had Covid contributed?? Maybe treating everyone like little kids that couldn't possibly know what's best for them backfired to the point that many Californians just ignored the lunacy coming from their leaders?? In the end, it's probably just really poor state and local leadership in California. Maybe that's why so many people are leaving California as well......
theory: California is a nanny state where Gov Newsome is perceived to be responsible for your wellbeing. Not being your responsibility to protect yourself, you assume if the Whole Foods is open for business, it must be safe to shop there.
Florida is a "protect yourself as appropriate" state where Gov DeSantis is assumed to not give a shit what happens to you so you protect yourself. haha
The most amazing thing is that a student's single unsubstantiated Twitter post could produce a cascade that degenerates into a ritual public shaming and inquisition. That's a serious institutional failure on NYU's part and a personal ethical failure on the part of its leadership. They should have in place an administrative process that handles student complaints privately -- with step 1 being a fair finding of fact. Students should be asked to use that process, not make claims on Twitter as a first resort. If that process fails, then fine, go to Twitter. But claims made first on Twitter and without due process should be ignored by the university. Any university worth its tuition should do this.
Most do. Crybaby students piss and moan and make up lies about their professors on Twitter every day. There are millions of tweets that get ignored completely. The reason select outrage is cultivated to this extent is simply because the institution - the colleagues of the target - had it in for him and were just waiting for the right opening.
plausible.
Yes, this clearly begs the question, "Who is in charge?" What is a student if a student is in charge? Our war of independence was, I thought, fought for due process, trial by jury, freedom of speech... So why bother to even go to college? This is Alice in Wonderland time.
Why indeed.
Smells of the Chinese Red Guards
That’s what they wanted. Now they’re getting it.
Not just institutional failure. Individual too.
I listened to the first 10-15 minutes of Red Scare's interview with the prof and paused thinking, what where they thinking as they complied a long list of defamatory and provably false accusations? that the 20-year teacher of propaganda, historical and current would be an easy mark and just roll over? did they think it would cover them in the glory of Twitter righteousness like in a metoo job?
Maybe you're right. Maybe it was the institution that turned them into such idiots.
Shitpost follows: don't read it. I've made it before.
Where the hell did #metoo go after Tara Reade showed up? Vanished overnight.
They have seen it work so often before; accusation-as-fact, unanimity serving as final judge, and never a sign of context, nuance or perspective.
A remarkable example preceding this one was the effort to find, somewhere in the massive ouvre Steven Pinker has produced in his long public career, some violation of their principles. The result was a very few interpretation-dependent "sins" of questionable sinfulness. They (the signatories of the attempted cancelling letter to the American Linguistic Association) went blindly ahead with their rote accusations against him, apparently with a complete absence of self-awareness that to any external (sane) person, they (accusations AND accusers) appeared to be completely divorced from reality.
https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/Screen%20Shot%202019-07-16%20at%2012.23.24%20PM.png
I generally dislike judging people based on their personal appearance, since I'm not so pretty myself, but that photo is like reading an old EC Comic. The Vault Keeper, The Crypt Keeper, and the Old Witch. You can pick which witch is which.
Recognize the dude in the left?
Of course.
This is the Cultural Revolution
apparently the NYU officials acting in this case were either hostile, inept and/or adhering to policy. Perhaps they should all be fired even if they were arguably following policy?.
What's really astonishing is that one boneheaded student can create such a kerfuflle. Where's the leadership in academia to ferret out this nonsense or to at least sit this chick down and give her a lesson in exactly why she's attending university, ie to hone her analytical skills & writing and not to hound the faculty with her snowflake sensitivities. Where are the adults??
Professors have for decades empowered Juries of Children to indict and condemn. The academics raised an army that is eating their creators.
Surprised?
There hasn't been leadership in academia for a long time. Deans in every department are now "fundraisers" (see Columbia- Purdue/Sackler) or beggars for money. Education is secondary- -building nice endowments is first.
Second comes the expansion of the administrative layer, which gives deans and department heads patronage jobs to dispense, interns, and, if I'm not misjudging the history of academe, easy access to mistress-candidates. Or is that TOO cynical?
Nope you are correct!-- that is how "empire" (and corruption) is built.
precisely
The Left is purging itself because the Left understands politics is power. Not truth, not justice and certainly not Liberties or free speech.
You will comply or be purged.
Had we not gone through a century of this it would be surprising I suppose.
This isn’t “the left”. It’s the authoritarian woke “left”. A perversion of the real left. A liberal idpol co-optation of the left. The actual left is primarily about working-class issues and being against war/militarism. Look at Taibbi here, or Greenwald and many others - these are actual pro-working-class anti-war anti-authoritarian/pro-civil-liberties leftists. (To a European like myself, the politics in this country is completely insane.)
"To a European like myself, the politics in this country is completely insane."
If by "this country" you mean the USA, as a certified USAsian, I agree with you.
Why does most of the "idpol" crowd seem not to want to touch the issue of 20-years-long-and tending-towards-permanent US warfare with a 10-foot pole? I'm willing to be educated.
Because huge amounts of corporate money and msm propaganda are being poured into efforts to distract people from issues that the plutocrats and the military-industrial complex don’t want people to be focused on and instead herding people towards issues that plutocrats/MIC couldn’t care less about. Relentless amplification of idpol issues is a huge and well-financed part of that effort. Classic “divide and conquer”.
B/c we have an all volunteer military and wokesters don’t want to get anywhere near redneck kids or Hispanics who could care less about being called a Latinx.
The all-volunteer military is part of the problem. At least when there was a draft, people could legitimately, openly revolt against the government forcing them to do something they didn't want to do.
Now going into the service is the only realistic economic option for a lot of people. Are they forced to "volunteer" for it? Technically, no. They can do ... whatever else instead.
We are twenty years into this post-9/11 shit. People who have done their third and fifth and seventh Iraq or Afghanistan tours are burned out and angry; justifiably so.
It’s the only way to pay for college. How fucked is that... Everyone should serve in some capacity. There’d be less wars, more skilled workers, less debt. But that’s not what this country wants. We want debt slaves, jingoists, dullards, wealth-worshippers believing there’s an American dream for them and fighting each other for it instead of the elites and the powers that be. And we fight over the dumbest shit.
We should just start drafting people into the Post Office. They could use the personnel.
Went in to my city's main PO a couple days back. 2 clerks working the counter, 1 focused exclusively on passport applications. The line was stretching outside. Took me 30 minutes to mail 2 letters.
I am willing to accept what you say, I am willing to accept M/T and others genuine proofs of commitment to bettering the lot of the commons.
Are you willing to accept they have no power?
That is no accident.
Politics is power, not justice. I doubt our host and many others can even still accept that politics is power, and they have none.
To explain our politics to foreigners: we have 2 problems.
1] We are a Global Empire and our Politics are going to be different. The most powerful Capitol in the world is not going to attract saints.
2] We the American People are not yet conquered nor subdued, this is an oversight our Ruling Predator Class is in the process of correcting by any means necessary. Part of that is the actual real in terms of power authoritarian legal, media, and street Left who want to achieve #1 in exchange for doing #2.
Both of these goals are entirely sane.
One may question the sanity of those pursuing those ancient and eternal goals, but the goals themselves are entirely sane. Evil sure, but sane.
As for the working class, the authoritarian left is about as welcome here as they were in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. You will notice I am sure certain practices carried out by the STASI and others remarkably similar to what has happened to Professor Crispin.
We the commons they don't fire, they simply destroy our economy to the maximum extent that they can. I actually think this cannot be their end state out of sheer necessity of consolidating their power. Don't be surprised if the 1930s plays out in America. The world had better hope it's closer to Spain then Germany, or the USSR.
For America forgive me is the richest store of natural wealth and indeed industrial might on earth, guarded by matchless geography. Quite worth conquering once, quite worth conquering again. As for we the 'Heritage Americans' ;) - We're the Indians now.
"As for we the 'Heritage Americans' ;) - We're the Indians now."
The Heritage Americans may have lost in the end but they put up a pretty good fucking fight. Sometimes it's not about winning but still fighting when you know you're going to lose.
Never Forget: Cochise, Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull ... or Stand Watie.
Grisha; Heritage Americans is code for white.
It's more precisely code for the descendants of European people, whose roots in America go back to the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century, and the nineteenth up to the great immigration of the 1870's and on.* Notice that with the Immigration Act of 1965 Europeans specifically were limited. This was intentional, and it wasn't out of the kindness of anyone's heart. It was meant to disrupt and emulsify the existing society. Which it has.
And it's intended to further globalism, which is the end game.
*It was the dominant culture. There is also a dominant culture in Riyadh, Addis Ababa, Tunis, and other places in the world. No one is accusing them of bigotry, nor should they.
that's creepy. Don't get all David Duke on us.
That is what the term means.
Just as 'white ethnics' means Catholics.
We have all kinds of terms for the things you can't say.
You will forgive me if I am not going to be deceitful - respectfully - there is entirely too much of that now, it's a 'saturated market'.
As for Creepy - it's already pretty creepy and it's going to get much worse. This is 1930s Europe playing out here and the winner is unlikely to be 'democracy' - which just left the stage, BTW.
Nor is this warmed over gang of neoliberal geriatrics going to hold, it's a question of who displaces them - I refer to Biden.
Understand that this is a domestically repressive regime that hates cops and it's reciprocated. A war mongering regime that has a history of investigating, persecuting and hounding soldiers using the same methods used against cops, for wars they themselves began, that they profit from, profits that are not shared, burdening soldiers with lunatic notions of rules of engagement, giving them impossible missions such as turning Afghanistan into a social democracy.
So you have a corrupt and warmongering repressive klepotocracy that has made enemies of it's police and military, while it slowly grinds the people into poverty, breadlines, ruin.
This crew does not last; something creeps up on them still mostly in the fog, but creeps up on them it does.
Have a good day anyway, and no I'm not a Klansman or even racist, I have noticed we're the new 'native Americans' and the neoliberals the railroads. > a historical pattern that isn't surprising. Over the next 1000 years it will probably happen again.
The reason these guys are noe publishing on substack with individual subscribers is because they are not a good fit with the new left, which is now largely in charge.
I dislike using terms like "new left" because I think it is neither particularly new nor particularly left but I think I know what you mean.
Substack ain't 100% perfect, but nothing is. I'm glad there's some kind of an outlet.
It's been longer than a century, buddy.
I'm from a STEM background - and it is common and encouraged after presenting some information, proposal, or data to be asked "WHY?", with an expectation that you will be able to provide a coherent answer. Many times on more complicated questions, you may have to get back to the person our group with more detail.
It is expected that the person asking the question is roughly your intellectual equal , and wants to know the details with no malice. Even if they are much junior to you, this could be a learning experience. And sometimes, during the explanation, you may find a hole in your logic which may require you to tighten up your presentation. That is the whole point of reviews.
In rare instances you may be wrong - and that is when you will see a hissy fit. I also notice this behaviour in rigid hierarchies - they are not use to being questioned and "being wrong" has severe consequence. Try getting a politician or professor to back track on a stance. it boomerangs on you as a Denier (which has a slew of religious connotations - Propaganda started from the Catholic Church).
Personally - I believe that non-surgical masks provide some level of befit against COVID, but the response from people in authority when questioned sends red flags. The emotions and vitriol says the person is emotionally unstable and cannot answer a simple question or they cannot admit they don't know the answer. Either way - they need to be removed from a position of authority.
Propaganda long predates the Catholic Church ...
No, sorry... They're removing the word "why" from the English language.
Listened to the podcast and thought, that's a great class. Forcing students to, cough, think outside of their comfort zone. My hats off to him and best of luck in running the gauntlet of institutional stupidity.
Christ what crap. Who died and made all these thinking-free sieg heiling students junior popes or reichsfuehrers?
I have wondered the exact same thing sooo many times. they are so sure of their superiority on so many fronts.
Their teachers K- PhD for generations, the media, Finance, the government and the jobs in those industries that await them, some will even go on to the Intelligence Community.
At present the correct term would be Commissars, not Reichsfuehers.
At present.
Prefacing this from a place of personal experience and bias:
The loudest voices on social media are the ones who will never lose a job. By which I mean if they lose a "job," they will have another one waiting for them immediately. Their job is being a loud voice.
They're not you or me. In a way, I admire the grift. It's nice work if you can get it.
Best job since "being a hippie" back in the late 60s, early 70s.
Didn't pay well, but the bennies!
LOL even wannabe paid trolls like the student who complained are getting in on the act. Ha cha cha
Jack Dorsey? He's not dead yet tho.
Mao’s ghost....but he invented this behavior during the Cultural Revolution.
There's an ugly acceptance of snitching and denunciation now. Someone attends the DC rally on January 6--just the rally, she wasn't at the Capitol--and she's fired. There were young people who called up the FBI and turned in their own parents. There are several similar cases.
I think only a major society-wide shock of some kind could break through this self-righteousness and bring them back to earth, it's so ingrained.
I watched the interview on Useful Idiots. The student joins the class late and apparently misses Miller saying they should wear their masks. Then everything goes off the rails. I am curious, but I guess not surprised, that the University didn’t just talk to all of the class members about what Miller told the students as opposed to relying on one person who missed the first class. This was an intellectual exercise that seems to have been lost on the “intellectuals”. There is something else at play here as Katie postulated towards the end of the interview. I donated to his legal fund.
Power is at play.
Empowering children as thought militia or SJWs means they have power.
Oops.
Yes, professors are afraid or at least wary of their students now.
I always wonder what happens with these types when the rhetorical kiddie-playtime is over and it's grownup-time for the guns to come out. Mao had a thought or two on this subject.
Once the student rebels were done dragging the landlords out of their homes and off to death camps, they too were dispensed with.
Here we go.
Ever play RISK?
Everybody wants North America! You can only be attacked from 2 directions!
^See when you go from college to the ultimate college town: DC ... ^
This is a particularly interesting article, Matt. Thanks for posting it. I was an Adjunct Professor at Northern Michigan University. I taught a little creative writing, but mostly freshman and sophomore English in which my students had to write argument papers and other persuasive analyses. Some of the above happened to me about four years ago as this cancel thing was just ramping up. I conveniently didn't fill out my self-evaluation on time (when I was down at Karmanos Hospital with my son who had developed testicular cancer) and lost my place in the teaching queue--not all that upsetting as it turns out. I was also called an "anti-intellectual" and much more by the acting head of the English dept. Publicly. I don't always agree with YOU, either, but I am so grateful you are writing and doing this important work.
We need a new political language, since these cultural revolutionaries are not "the left". They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class. They certainly aren't progressives, either.
Particularly because the academic language and terms tend to exclude people of many backgrounds who might be completely open to the ideals if expressed in plain words. It seems like this is due to the epidemic in our country of being out of touch with people who aren't part of your circle (political, economic, educational, racial, regional.....) We are all talking in code now and nothing honest is really being conveyed.
Plain words to express ideas are the best words to use; much academic language these days is so abstruse and impenetrable because the ideas themselves are shallow and empty and don't correspond to reality. Cf. Critical Race Theory et al.
"They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class."
A big part of the project is policing working-class language. You better not say the wrong racial slur on the Internet unless your identity is already clearly defined. Depending upon your registered identity, the slur that you type might be completely OK, even lovable. If you have the Wrong Identity, it will be very very bad.
In my "lived experience," working-class people of all colors call each other slurs of various denominations, then high-five or fist-bump and get drunk together. Weird; should probably be outlawed.
If he is successfully teaching critical thinking skills then does it matter what he writes in his blog?
I agree with this comment, but clearly there is a cadre of people who think it matters what he writes in his blog. Wrong Thought is no longer allowed.
Short answer: don't go on the Internet and say what you really think. It was cute while it lasted.
Remember all the people who said you can’t control the Internet? 🤣
Oh, you can control it; it's just awkward and obvious.
I miss 1995 and Geocities.
Check this out. Not Geocities but Tripod. And the page is for one of the best non-fiction books I've read https://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
Thanks for the link (unironically)!
you can't, really. And without going full CCP, the most anyone can do is make the Internet inconvenient. Like, who really needs Facebook or Youtube to get a message out?
People exist who only know how to use Facebook and Youtube (and Twitter, etc).
I wish this were hyperbole. It's not.
I was working for eBay when, at a Job Fair/Skills event, one of their "helpers" saw that this older guy (me) didn't have Twitter or FaceBook showing in my info. She came over and asked if I needed help to set them up. I paused a bit and told her "I was online and communicating with people just fine 25 years ago. The addition of 200 million normies to the Internet has not improved it. Thus my conscious decision to avoid Facebook and Twitter." I smiled, coz it wasn't her fault, but she kind of ran off anyway.
I think the internet as we knew it died circa 2004.
I realize that. in the days when daily newspapers reigned as authoritative media source, only a small fraction of readers followed the front-page stories inside of the fold, too. A large fraction only glanced at the headlines.
That's just how it goes. I can't quite bring myself to conclude that my society is largely made up of dullards, somnambulists, and the intellectually lazy and uncaring, but if that isn't the case, there's certainly a profound difference between the intellectual potential of the majority and its activation.
"I can't quite bring myself to conclude that my society is largely made up of dullards, somnambulists, and the intellectually lazy and uncaring"
I'm convinced there must be a reason why zombie movies and TV shows have been culturally foisted on the populace for 20-odd years.
The people who dig this stuff are convinced they're the hero and not the zombie.
I think there needs to be distinction between content and process. Content is what riles people up, but there should be a parallel process next to ALL content -- this is how one identifies propaganda: https://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/AGRI183/propoaganda.html
Identify the piece/writer/affiliations/company allegiances
1. How many positions are represented in this article/reading?
2. How effective are the arguments for each position? Did they stack the deck?
3. How certain are the conclusions? ambiguous, reserved, full blown certain
4. How will this article age over time? 1st reading - 1 year later second reading?
5. Who profits most from this article? Why?
The process of analysis is the most important part. I do not know if the professor starts this way or not --- diminishing the content off the bat, but I did listen to Matt & Katie's interview of Dr. Miller --- and he mentioned that the student who complained missed the first class (and asked to be included late) --- as a former professor, this stuck out to me because there is a great deal of preparation for each class -- and after the first one, its time to get moving. And sometimes, it is hard to remember and go back and inoculate the course from disruption...
By removing content as the most important part -- or reducing its importance, the professor can make propaganda detectives out of the course via process. How to identify effective propaganda from all sides.
"propaganda" implies an incentivized misrepresentation of info. The analytical methods Miller (and mcelroyj above) recommend are useful to improve the utility of sloppily presented information as well, even if there's no real intent to deceive. Or so I've found. My Dad (a true auto-didact) taught me this skeptical approach, and it was a revelation as I read the papers in my teens (first WaPo, then the Chicago Tribune). Greatly enhanced both my enjoyment and the value of the information presented.
Very true, there is a great deal of work to be done by those who have those skills applied with a skeptical approach (editing, augmenting arguments, clarity checking, and avoiding the worst cases of deception. Well said.
I returned to college in 1998[age 46] to get my teaching credentials. I had been a PI for 20 years. I spoke my mind in class. I'm libertarian which should be cool in campus, but even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors. They would come up to me after class[w/ the prof gone!] and thank me. I tried to encourage them to speak up, but that was not an option in their minds. I did my undergrad 1970-74. It was a different world back then. Wokeism has taken over academia, MSM, corporate complex, medicine. It is time to revolt!
Ah yes. I went to college late in life. In a Women's Studies class I said that I was okay with porn as long as both parties were adults who consented. Women in this class started screaming and yelling at me, some even crying and saying I was not a feminist. I used to think I was pretty much on the left, but the more of these types of people I came across, the more in the middle I became. Part of having so much exposure to the woke madness is having 2 state universities in the same area. New ones descend on my area every year determined to be the Woke Saviors of all they deem unjust around here.
LOL well, good luck to all of them then... denying human sexuality like new-age protestants.
They deserve the concentration camps that are coming.
I don't wish concentration camps on anyone, but I think there's a reason why the denial of normal human sexuality tends to be front and center in mass social control projects. They can't go after food, but they can go after pretty much everything on Maslow's pyramid above it.
I don't know if there's a singular codified "Woke" playbook -- part of the ideology (if we want to call it that)'s power is its amorphousness; its commissars can denounce each other for not being sufficiently true to the Pure Doctrine they themselves expound -- but I'm pretty sure if you're white and male and horny, you're bad. Scratch that; male and horny. Scratch even that; female and horny. All bad.
A postulate that (I think) has both explanatory and predictive power:
Somebody wants to take power and they must gain a great degree of allegiance to some proclaimed (bullshit) goal. Conflicts of commitment and loyalty must, then, be resolved. The genetic family stands in their way, as it creates loyalties and commitments that they cannot dictate.
So, they attack with things like "heteronormativity" being a (bad) thing, or "cis" or promoting gender uncertainty, attacking masculinity and child-bearing, and on and on. If 2020 cringe-inducing insanity was about anything, it was ongoing and very determined efforts to undermine "family". REAL blood family, not "the family we found along the way" that we see in almost every entertainment product.
Great observation about "the family we found along the way" in entertainment.
It's weird for me to be so old and have to admit that the Falwellite "Family First" types of the '80s might have had a point or two. At the time they were cringeworthy and comical. Premature anti-fascism?
In my assisted care job I'm not allowed to work with females yet women can work with both men & women.
To me this suggests that the women who run the place see all men as potential rapists.
Also whenever there's a campus wide page for assistance because a client is violent & out of control, only men are required to respond.
I've always taken it mean that the women really don't like male employees until they need them.
If you've taken it to mean that the women that run that place don't really like male employees until they need them, your spidey sense is probably right.
But for intimate care, many women, especially elderly ones, would rather have a female assistant, not on account of fear of rape or misandry, but simple modesty and embarrassment.
Handling violent or out of control clients obviously would be more easily handled by men, but if summoning the men only is a stated policy then I think you should get hazard pay.
The assisted care that I do is with mentally & physically challenged clients. I doubt that many of them would be able to tell the difference.
I suppose that the same could be said about the male clients since many of them have turbulent relations with female staff.
A lot of it, and I'm just assuming from experience, revolves around unrequited sexual desires. I've had to literally pull clients off of young female staff. Older, more experienced female staff tended to not allow themselves to be caught in that situation.
I understand that it is something that can't be allowed but I can't help feeling sorry for the clients. It's a lonely life.
There were other incidents that made me wary of female staff. Just one occurred when I was much younger and had just started. Women would hit on me constantly, failing to notice the wedding ring on my finger. I'd always politely decline their advances. Then the rumors started that I was gay. Which actually made me laugh. Made my wife laugh also. I never did figure why their go to slur was my apparent gayness when I never took my ring off & the obvious answer was "married.".
"I'm libertarian which should be cool in campus"
Being a libertarian has never been cool. We somehow manage to be the uncoolest people alive despite theoretically being the coolest people alive. The nerd-ism is baked deeply within.
That's true. Libertarians who should please both sides just don't. Though I never get any problem from the right, just the left. And I no longer share many values with leftists as I once did. They are getting outright crazy. Late term abortion to the moment of delivery? Socialism? Cancel cultuer? Censorship? Gender craziness -- giving children hormones? God.
Ah, but what a cross to bear.
It's better than being some fucking TOOL.
Libertarians suck at organizing because we basically don't care about organized projects. We're not interested in seizing power because we don't get a hard-on from telling other people what to do.
It's a good way to live your life, IMO, but it's no way to get control of a government.
grisha,
I chuckle and agree w/ you. But "cool" in this context didn't mean "cool guy on campus" but simply not controversial. Now, only groupthink wokeism is acceptable.
I think we're copacetic. Keep on bein' uncool.
It is said that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, but moderation. Politically, that is true for libertarians-woke people hate the idea of live and let live on a social basis, as did Falwell types back in the 80s/90s.
Truth!!!!
Dude, I was sitting in a community college calculus class a few years ago and some girl said she needed to go pick up her kids from school and the professor gave her some cock and bull routine about asking the front desk for a permission slip... like a fucking HALLWAY PASS!
I immediately stood up and said, "No. That's not how it works. You pay good money to be here and learn this stuff. THEY work for YOU so you can get a degree. You're an adult, and if you have to go care for your kids, then go do it. I'll make copies of my notes for you and get them to you later." *I turned to the teacher "This woman needs to go get her kids from school. Will you acknowledge that she is free to go and not penalize here for this? Kids need care; we don't get to say WHEN they need a parent's care."
The professor agreed and relented, saying, "Well, I guess you're only going to miss the last half hour of class and we can make sure you have the notes. If you need more help feel free to ask and I'll spend a little time with you on it later."
I asked, "There, was that so hard?"
The thought of the professor acting as a jailer or high school cunt teacher made my stomach turn. That they all assumed this was normal in some way also made my stomach turn. What the ever-loving FUCK is going on here??
"even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors."
Thankfully, I haven't been in college for 22 years either, which makes me wonder whether today the kids are being cowered by the bully professors or whether the professors are being cowered by the bully kids.
As much as I value my education (Homer, Virgil, Joyce, paying money to be forced to read books, which is kind of the point of spending the money), I'm very glad that I'm not working in academia now. I extend sincere sympathy to all adjuncts and just slightly less to the tenured professors. I wouldn't want to be in any of your respective shoes.
I was getting prepared to cheer for a professor actually teaching their students to think, but a visit to his blog seriously undercut that self-promotion. The blog promotes some sources with seriously deficient logic and "conspiracy theory" type thinking. (No I don't dismiss any contrarian view as a conspiracy theory; it depends on the content. Some of them ARE kind of delusional, whether left or right). His blog is not a haven for critical thinking. It's possible that he can teach "do as I say, and not as I do", but I wonder.
That said, I am disgusted with the way that woke elites try to twist this into a threat to his job. So he's a conspiracy thinker on his own time, who cares? He wasn't attacked for that per se, but for not being woke enough.
If I favored censorship the first phrase I'd censor is "conspiracy theory" -- it destroys meaning, throws ad-hominem shade, and ends productive discussion.
Imagine in the 1970s if someone said the Catholic church is covering up an epidemic of child sexual abuse by priests. They'd have been roundly dismissed at the time as a "conspiracy theorist". Now we know they were right.
There are far-fetched theories, ridiculous theories and plausible theories -- all of which should stand or fall on evidence that sometime takes years to come to light -- but there are no "conspiracy theories". Conspiracies aren't theories but facts. History shows powerful throughout time have conspired to do things that often remain carefully hidden from public view.
It's the misuse of the word "theory" that gets to me the most. Responsibly considered, the possibility of conspiracy is a topic for research and investigation. At appropriate intervals, it can be useful to develop working hypotheses, in order to find avenues for further development of evidence and leads (and for the purpose of refutation, of ruling out a given hypothesis.) Those hypotheses do not require "theories."
As for flimsy Conspiracism, it seldom if ever develops into full-fledged, internally coherent Theory. Instead, what one finds from the proponents are more along the lines of murky insinuations, and half-baked flights of imagination that pretend to fill in the voluminous missing blanks between a scattering of data points. There's quite a bit of that gimmickry to be found in these discussions, for what that's worth (zilch.)
It's interesting how the most effective defense found in flimsy conspiracism consists of its own vagueness. It's so murky and shadowy that it eludes challenge. It's too vague to bother with refuting. But that's the source of its power- the imagination of credulous readers who think they know exactly what the writer is talking about, and build out the narrative by filling in the blanks with their fantasies.
Most are "conspiracy HYPOTHESES", and you can tell the worst of them by the fact they are clearly reverse-engineered from factual observations, and they always explain everything. If I've learned anything about the world, it's that it is too complicated for a single hypothesis to explain away EVERYTHING.
The conspiracy hypotheses are inevitable though, because when the official narrative is literally unbelievable, the mind will naturally look for closure, that is a back story that takes all of the known facts and tries to account for them in another way.
And the corporate media has destroyed its own credibility, so that any interpretation they univocally offer is, for me, per se suspect. Who can trust a story that comes from someone they know to be a committed liar? And who have been lying for years?
I hope to live long enough to see the end of this gaslighting of the country.
I'd nominate for second place the nebulous-but-potent usage: "alt-right". I love the over-the-top nature of these folks, who, not content with the near meaninglessness of the term, proceeded to coin "alt-right adjacent". Truly amazing.
If I once or twice agree with a thing an "alt-right" person -- clearly an inviolable category, defined by display of Pepe The Frog iconography -- might say, am I "alt-right" or just "alt-right adjacent?"
j/k commissars please don't hurt me
Darling, should you once or twice agree with a thing an alt-right person might say, then you will be alt-right. You can't be a little bit pregnant. The commissars will tell you that.
Agree that "conspiracy theory" throws ad hominem shade and ends productive discussion. That term implies that especially corporate media sources may be relied upon to present everything of real significance to our lives and societies. Here's a direct quote: "If that were true, it would have been on MSNBC!" That was about a New York Assembly bill to provide for forcibly confining people, or groups of people, who represented a public health threat to others, until such time as they agree to undergo necessary medical treatment, or are deemed no longer a hazard.
--That bill has passed, by the way. It's A416 or A419, I forget which.
He was attacked over some dumbass cunt's twitter post and misunderstanding of the concept and RESPONSIBILITY to think critically.
That kid should have been told to go fuck themselves.
That occurs to me often as the proper, and only required, course of action in response to most of these accusations. I'm guessing a good college administrator could turn that three-word prescription into a full page of polysyllabic grandiloquence.
So where do we draw this "kind of delusional" line?
Example. 9/11 alone wasn't enough to get the Patriot Act through congress. Then there were anthrax attacks on congress itself which focused their attention very quickly. Would you think it kind of delusional to wonder how that all happened? Am I kind of delusional to find it entirely plausible that the CIA (or whatever TLA) would be well prepared to undertake such an operation?
Your statements suggest you believe that most reasonable people should be able to share a common-sense judgement on what "ARE kind of delusional." As I see it, on so many questions we simply don't have access to evidence that would conclusively settle any reasonable doubt. And a lot of that is because the people and organizations that control the evidence can't be trusted.
And (sorry to get meta) it seems this all works very well for the status quo. Questioning official propaganda makes me seem like a crank, doubt everything and feel paranoid. As a form of social control, this is genius. Defer to the official narratives or be ostracized as delusional.
He- an authority figure, a tenured professor- told undergrads that masks don't work. Freedom of speech has limits. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater. You don't get to say shit that directly endangers human life, which is what he did. Fuck him and his batshit crazy conspiracy-addled mind. He can do crazy on his own time, but that's not what he did here. He did it on the job, in a manner that puts people in danger.
No he did NOT say masks don't work. He WEARS a mask. He questioned whether they work, which is the truth. Tons of conflicting information on it--even coming from Fauci and others.
And his point was all the pre-covid studies that showed masks don't work, which are the exact studies the CDC was relying on when Fauci (and others) explicitly stated that masks don't work.
No one anywhere has managed to create an HIV vaccine, though many groups around the world have tried. The only meaningful way to decide if you can trust Dr. Fauci is to study his overall record of accomplishments and guidance. If you do so, you will learn that he has made tremendous contributions to fighting contagious diseases.
HIV is a very different virus than covid19. For reasons that virologists understand all too well, and that even educable layfolk can comprehend, if they bother to do the reading. A lot of reading.
Dr. Fauci was a leader in developing effective treatments for HIV over the past 30 years. There was a time when there wasn't any such thing.
Yeah, and there are some scientists that question the science of climate change too. Meanwhile the planet burns. The OVERWHELMING evidence is that masks are one of the only measures that mitigate the damage of the virus. You can argue that the Earth is flat too, but that just makes you a harmless nutjob. In this case he is not being harmless, he is effectively yelling fire in a crowded room. It's disinformation and it puts lives in danger to do what he did. And again, it'd be one thing if he was just blogging about it (like he does about 9/11 conspiracies and various other garbage) but he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line. And I repeat: I HATE CANCEL CULTURE. This isn't that.
So ... arguing that someone should be fired for what they say isn't "cancel culture"? You are either punking us, or are seriously misguided on just what constitutes cancel culture ...
So who gets to be the brain police, Mark?
YOU?
Some cunt sitting in a class on communications at NYU who posts a tweet complaining about something they misunderstood?
Some group of bureaucrats at some college who aren't medical professionals themselves?
Some CIA goons in a darkened room deciding how best to disrupt a society so that they can bend it to their will?
Rudolph Hess?
Chairman Mao?
Ronald Reagan?
Who?
I'll tell you, cunt: the Constitution. It grants free speech without guardrails.
You are sitting here defending the indefensible and acting as though you have some moral high ground. You don't, and neither did Hitler, Mao, Trump, Bush or Obama.
They are a real-time death cult hell bent on controlling the whole globe, it's people, it's resources.
They KNOW it's not sustainable and they don't fucking care. They just want to be around ling enough to pick up the pieces and forge a new society afterward, and guess what? You're still going to be trammeled under the boot, even as you glance upward with puppy dog eyes and say, "But... I defended your right to censor things! I believed in you!!!"
I strongly protest your calling someone a cunt just because you disagree with that person. We should be attempting to exchange ideas and opinions here, not throwing around anger and insults. Why should that be necessary?
I have to agree. Your language Scott cheapens your argument and shuts it down for many who need to hear.
I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle.
Such a scold.
And to be 💯% honest... a bummer to see figures excuse comments like “cunt.” That’s not tone, that’s violence
:P
The conflation of verbal "violence" with actual physical violence in public discourse is one of the most utterly risible developments of my lifetime.
Only one kind can kill you. That's the real kind.
That is one of the comments that sounded like bullying to me. Verbal bullying, of course. Not physical.
What this kid did is such playground behavior: "I'm going to tell!" Except she doesn't (to be charitable) understand that she needs to clarify before she tattles on people. So much for the university as a training in reasonable discourse.
Where does this current relish come from, to get people into such hot water at their jobs?
Kids will always be a bit socially backward and immature, that's fine, they'll grow out of it. But this thoughtless malice and spite is horrible. Where did they learn to act like this? Is narking rewarded in the public schools?
In related news, even the UK Court of Appeal agrees with Scott's comment below (this from Dec 18th 2020):
"...Judges have insisted that freedom of speech includes the 'right to offend' in a landmark ruling...presiding over a case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby said: 'Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.'
They added that 'free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another'. The judgment from two senior members of the judiciary will set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech.
The ruling has emerged only now, but came in the successful appeal decided last week in favour of mother-of-two Kate Scottow, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, after she had been found guilty under the 2003 Communications Act earlier in the year..."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9066069/Woke-folk-beware-Freedom-speech-includes-right-offend-say-judges-landmark-ruling.html
FWIW for masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1306277076442525697.html or here: https://twitter.com/CovidSenseBloke/status/1306277076442525697
One more thought: why does this product exist, when industrial health and safety could save money with cloth masks instead?
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Versaflo-Easy-Clean-TR-300N/dp/B07J4WCK6R
Amusing side note, someone mentioned getting into an elevator where someone had been wearing very generous amounts of aftershave recently. Their cloth mask was no match for the scent. I was thinking they should have worn their 3M powered air purifying respirator instead 😀
I gotta agree with Commentorinchief. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you are a case study in what propoganda does the brain.
which wouldn't be all bad. You could reflect on the experience and maybe get some insight into how your buttons are getting pushed. Maybe you will get famous and end up in a case study as patient privileged white male.
HEY! I'm a privileged white male, and I don't act like that ... easy on the stereotypes ... ;-)
there surely has to be something to be learned from the reactions to your unhinged rants.
Your non-ironic slinging of the reflexive woke epithet whilst assailing me for being part of cancel culture is absolutely hilarious. Especially considering you don't know anything about me. Gross.
LOL now go back and read your post with this last comment in the FRONT of your mind; not the back.
Now you'll see.
Oh please you have NO evidence that the planet is burning because of climate change! None at ALL. Even the scientists admit that. And there really is no real evidence masks work or do more than make people feel better. Or work as a political statement. I have no problem wearing them inside places especially if asked to, but this is ridiculous.
There is lots of evidence that the planet is heating up and that masks work. You cannot get rid of all that evidence just by saying it does not exist.
"masks work" according to the CDC PRIMARILY to stop the spraying of droplets of infected people wearing them. That's all. It's pretty well established that to block out viruses one needs a hermetically sealed and filtered-down-to-.1micron filter.
That's not really disputed by any medical personnel anywhere.
It's the oversight in letting people think they are protected just by wearing a mask that is abhorrent.
You wouldn't walk around with a condom on your willy when you're not having sex, would you?
LOL. Another flat earther. It'd be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
over-reactive hyperbole.
Welcome to your introduction into the enigma that is Ralph Dratman.
We've all been trying to get our heads around this guys hyperbole for months now. Is he supporting the argument? Which part of it? Is he arguing against it? How?
These and many other questions will enter your mind when reading Ralph's comments but remember: not even Ralph knows the answers to these questions.
Ralph seems to deserve pity, but then he doesn't. He is like a riddle.
Before you jump to those conclusions, read the pre-Covid studies Dr. Miller was pointing out to his students. You know, the studies Dr. Fauci, et al. were relying on in March to say that masks don't work. I am not an anti-masker but the evidence is not OVERWHELMING (although the common sense reason for wearing masks is).
Better still... if you want to be laughed out of a lab, hand people surgical masks before they enter a containment area where the most virulent strains are kept.
No, never mind the filtered full bunny suits, you'll say... and they'll all turn and walk away. You might even get sued for attempting to expose them all to deadly viruses.
The doctors and nurses taking care of Covid patients wear masks to keep themselves safe. Most of them are still not infected. What kind of strange belief/disbelief operation are you running? You sound like either you are being intentionally provocative or your thinking is not clear.
I did a quick skim for those pre-Covid studies and found this meta-study from 2017 which concerned the effectiveness of masks for HCW. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
I actually believe in masks (believe being the operative word) but in the interest of seeking truth and having an open mind, I will not shut down contrary evidence.
An excerpt from the above linked study:
"Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.
"The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization "
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
I must disagree. The operative word is not "believe". The operative words are "rely based on evidence".
You hate cancel culture? You ARE cancel culture.
Also, I am looking out my window right now and don’t see anything burning much less “the world”.
You are a case study in what propaganda does to the brain.
If Mark Read says he hates cancel culture, why would you say "You ARE cancel culture"? If he says he hates it, he hates it.
I say the same thing: I hate cancel culture. But that does not mean I can't pick and choose what other ideas I am for or against.
Oh Ralph.
I said he is cancel culture because he is literally advocating for cancel culture in his comment. You and he can say you hate it as much as you want but if you advocate for it as well, then you and he would obviously be lying about hating it. BTW - This applies to any side of the political spectrum. People on the Right can engage in cancel culture as well, although, it is typically to prove to the Left how destructive the thing they unleashed on the world is. But it is still cancel culture.
The planet burns? Who is the conspiracy nut?
It is true that "the planet burns" is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. But in light of the fact that global warming is a real situation, there is no reason to see that message as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory claims that an organized group of people is perpetrating lies or committing crimes. That comment refers to no conspiracy at all.
Ok, the planet is always warming or cooling, it isn’t a static relationship. Given that reality, I agree, it’s not conspiratorial.
Every single sentence in this comment contains at least one bald-faced example of bad faith argumentation. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about it that this is the result. Just like I'm sorry Prof Miller's late-comer, uninformed student was so emotional she took to twitter to demand he be fired.
You say he crossed a line. What consequences do you think would be appropriate for him? If you think he should be silenced, how is that not cancellation?
I'm not seeing that. My only quarrel with this comment from Mark Read is where he writes, "he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line" -- I'm not sure there is a prohibition against giving students low quality information, or if there is, what crossing a line would imply.
And...I guess your skeptical analysis stops before you get to the fact that the accusation is a lie? THAT doesn't bother you?
Then maybe, if you hadn't stopped there, you might have noticed the ridiculous escalation of charges and accusations contained in the succeeding responses from faculty and administrators.
Mark clearly thinks that's okay, because he approves of the original misrepresentation of what Prof Miller said. And you do also?
No WONDER cancel culture wins so much!
I hear your dislike of cancel culture. What the article describes is a hybrid; we might take the original motive to be "protect students from hearing scientifically wrong statements from a professor, by any means available".
But then then the condemnation accuses "intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
Is there any evidence of those misdeeds? Or is this boilerplate cancel culture take-down?
This sounds like those concerned by his mask heresy and desiring to stop it "by any means possible" may have wound up reframing this as a social justice issue, after observing that such issues seem to have the ability to penetrate academic freedoms like the spike protein allows SARS-CoV-2 to penetrate cell walls. That is, maybe the intent was "good" (if you believe in face covering, as I do) and the attackers just used a wokist reframe as a cynical but effective tool to take him down, because normal due process was judged insufficient or too slow. Grab the handiest tool with a proven sharp edge.
How do you feel about using (and thus reinforcing) cancel culture methods - but for a good cause which you do support? Would you do that?
And I agree with you about the quality control on his blog entries.
"intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
This is really what the school administrators are up to.
Agreed. The letter that those faculty wrote is full on wokist horseshit. I hate it and they all suck for writing it. AND Miller should be canned for discouraging mask use. No good guys in this story. Miller is no martyr for free speech.
Again, he specifically told his students to wear masks AND wore one himself. You seem to believe that if you just lie often enough, that makes it true.
Re: overwhelming evidence?....FWIW on masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1306277076442525697.html or here: https://twitter.com/CovidSenseBloke/status/1306277076442525697
One more thought: why does this product exist, when industrial health and safety could save money with cloth masks instead?
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Versaflo-Easy-Clean-TR-300N/dp/B07J4WCK6R
(sorry for the double up from below, but Mark had overwhelming in capital letters, so I thought it would be OK ;-)
You want to draw a distinction between critical thinking and cancel culture. But that distinction is difficult to maintain at the moment. Why? Because most of the US population is so deeply divided into two factions that everyone is expected to attach to one side or the other and fight for it. If one side is opposed to something, that something then must be opposed without exception or compromise. Since "cancel culture" is a term that has been attached to the Democrats, it is not possible to oppose cancel culture, as you do, yet still criticize someone who has become associated with Republican positions.
Once again you start off looking like you're going to make a point and then.. you don't.
Ralph.... what's going on man?
I did make a point. My point was that one can oppose "cancel culture" (railroading individuals via group opinion), yet not support some other positions of people on the right who also happen to oppose cancel culture. What's so strange or incomprehensible about that? It's like ordering a la carte from a menu rather than just taking the whole meal as offered.
Thank you for using your break from work to present the best response yet Wally. The logic seems to escape many but you presented it well.
Let me see if I understand this. You seriously feel you have the personal authority to tell me with some finality that I support cancel culture, even after I clearly said I hate it? So in your view my word counts for nothing, and yours for everything, when I describe what I like or support? That is a mighty strange way to show enthusiasm for first amendment rights. Apparently they only have meaning if you agree with the point of view being put forward. Otherwise what I say gets cancelled out by your overriding power of proclamation. I'm getting a bad feeling about living in a society run by your rules.
lol ... he pointed out that contradictions of your arguments - what authority does he need?
And Matt provides direct evidence in his piece of official skepticism over masks. This is just one of those things that the public cannot get past. We should be told (or at least assume as rational, informed adults) that there's conflicting evidence about mask efficacy but, given the fact that they MIGHT help keep people alive, laws mandating their use are justified.
These people, despite always seeming to be of the more educated amongst us, have serious comprehension problems. repetitively.
their inability to understand context and nuance is astounding.
So are they really “educated” then or indoctrinated?
Sir.... Sir! This is an Arbys.
Found the moron that didn’t read the article.
They are surprisingly prevalent in MT's comment sections. I'm a moron too but I at least make the effort to read the article.
I see things are a little more unhinged here then they are in Greenwalds comment section
If that's a compliment for my personal efforts to increase the general miasma of derangement, I'll take it.
You are wrong! He did not tell them that. He told them that pre-Covid there were quite a few peer reviewed studies that concluded masks don't work for respiratory illness. *In fact, his point was that the CDC, WHO, and others had initially relied on those studies when they pronounced early on that masks don't work.* His point was then to also look at the studies post-Covid, which come to a different conclusion. He DID NOT tell his students to think anything!
I also found the accusations that this 130 lbs of 60ish New York intellectual intimidated, aggressed against or bullied these college students beyond what they could bear.
Then again, in a society where a group of feminists claimed to be threatened and traumatized by the vicious presentation of the misogynistic opinion that "Men are, on average, taller than women." It was at a free speech presentation, back when colleges had those, and was presented (naively) as an example of unobjectionable fact. They REEEEEE'd and stormed out to protest. (wish I could
Thus do current day college students refute reality!! (science note: None of the participating feminists were made taller by their actions, though the "allied" men with them were observed slouching a bit.)
I believe you are talking about Heather Heying's remarks at Portland State in 2018. Lest anyone who thinks your comment is preposterous, they can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCrQ3EU8_PM&feature=emb_logo (beginning at ~19:20)
Oh fuck right off. Your close mindedness puts everyone in danger far worse than some blathering professor.
Off to the gulag with you.
As I understand it, it has not yet been established that in fact he did tell undergrads that masks don't work; let's not get stampeded by unverified assertions.
His story - that he suggested they read pre-Covid and post-Covid assessments of mask utility - does not sound like a problem to me. But I wasn't there and do not have any recording of what he actually said, in any direction.
I do want to suggest that we might want to warn undergrads (among others) not to trust a communications professor to be an expert in weighing evidence about a biology question under dispute. The relevant logical fallacy is inappropriate reference to unqualified authority (not any reference to any authority).
Oh bologne. He does not have to be an authority on everything to suggest students research people who are! Please. That's the point. His job is to teach students to think critically. As a retired Adjunct Professor who taught argument papers, I can attest to that. He also did not ASk them to trust HIM. If you are so "logical and reasonable" you'd see that. That is his job, and the students should understand that. He is saying not to blindly trust ANYONE. Duh.
He said he explicitly told his class he is not telling them to not wear masks. I am going to believe he is telling the truth, rather than trying to establish a fact.
Please take a breath. 💗Take some DMAE (supplement) to remove the raging cortisol in your system from the constant stress and fear and propaganda you are clearly immersed in. Take care
but we are supposed to be little kids and the government is supposed to be our Dad
I know it's a dead horse, but if I were George Orwell's body I would be really sick of being right at this point.
Always great reading one of your comments 💗 😊
Thank you, you're too kind! Sometimes I comment in a less than totally optimal state of sobriety and in the morning fear what potential foolishness I may have wrought.
But I think one may need to be in a less than totally optimal state of sobriety to begin with in order to believe that commenting in comments sections -- even MT's -- is a good use of one's inevitably dwindling time.
Exactly, what ever happened to the mantra - "question authority" Even if you aren't willing to go to battle at every moment - question everything with your own good mind. Question motives especially...financial, and other self-serving psychological motives. Such as baiting your students into a fight out of disrespect for them rather than real teaching or dialogue. It's bad but it happens all the time in the wild. One has to prepare for this kind of interaction in the world. University is a good lab for that ;)
What happened? Over abundance, entitlement, apathy, adderall, psycho pharmaceuticals, social media, lack of nature, no self responsibility, history not being taught, civics not being taught, 24/7 media propaganda, Marxist indoctrination in schools, etc. etc.
I could go on all night.
If only Marx were taught in schools. Marx at least read history and analyzed it.
"lack of nature" is key. Everybody needs to get out into the woods.
Groucho?
That's a good, and very sad, list. I've added some structural considerations that have been true for many years, above.
:::::sigh:::: I could listen all night... oh, wait, err... I don't know you...
haha
I think they are bored. They need outrage. And something with which to elevate themselves in their own opinions and that of the sexually active age women with which they are surrounded but never noticed.
Unless they are middle aged black women who re-write American history for sport. they're just bitter.
I would direct you to the source study from which I draw my wisdom but then I would have to block your avatar and it, despite being a silhouette, doesn't really look like it wants to be blocked.
Where's epierce with my drink?
excellent point-- they also need to be significant. How can you be when mom and dad are buying everything for you, making everything easy and smooth. And as saw in the last few years, even buying your way (more blatantly) into schools 😊
I dunno ... I'm a middle aged white guy, and when I was in my early 20s and utterly ignored by women, I didn't have much time to notice because there were all these incredible ideas to explore. Literature and music and history and art ... certainly had better things to do than try to silence other people or feel outraged ...
People are exhibiting a truly inexplicable deference to "authority", overlooking
a) Every scientific advancement has been made against the "consensus opinion" and sometimes against the entrenched careers, of other scientists.
b) While some people do seem really stupid, the range of intelligence really DOES massively favor the center of the curve, and scientists, much less university professors, are NOT all bunched down at the genius end.
c)The extra learning people acquire to become "authorities" is valuable, but it also creates incentives to favor certain entrenched positions. Some, for no reason other than the expansion or continuation of their own academic careers. Indeed, some "expert" opinions are pretty much bought and paid for. Thus, skepticism should be applied, even if it's towards an opinion that comes from a real smarty man.
Of course, when someone puts forth an argumentum ad vericundiam, I despair of inculcating in them a healthy degree of cynical skepticism. Ah well...can't expect every generation to be as reflexively iconoclastic as mine.
Nothing happened to that mantra. It's just we happen to have triggered some folk deeply invested in official propaganda and, naturally, they respond emotionally.
Yes, sigh, I've been thinking about that...emotions extraordinarily high all around as everyone is steeped in fear.
Physiological reaction which triggers hormonal overload (adrenals, cortisol). Very hard to get rid of for some people. And some really like being in that fight or flight feeling--it makes them feel alive. Then add the cocktail of meds they are on and well...you get the picture.
Excellent point. When (sorry usually a man) tells me " you know you should be wearing a mask", I say thanks Dad! If they continue I say thanks I am a medical professional (what? look on their face) but thanks so much for the advice.
i think the kids call it "dadsplaining"
Yes, 'fascism' is it is anywhere is coming from from the LEFT today.
As Miller says in his interview with MT, the "LEFT" ain't the left it used to be.
We Americans need to get away from this Left/Right BS. There is only one very tiny slice of society benefiting from getting us to self-identify with a "faction" and pitting us against each other.
The best description of our 'parties' is Uniparty.
There is no real daylight between the parties.
The Political types elected or in the streets or universities will normally be looking for money, the really dangerous ones power and more power.
Power is crack to paraphrase Khrushchev.
The Venal were historically easier to deal with, not now.
They want it all and they've never been in a fist fight never mind pinched by the cops for crimes, or in real danger. This is all a movie to them and they're playing a script.
As again to the parties - we can't vote this out, hell it's been decades since we voted ourselves into this mess. We're just seeing them with the mask off.
No, their foot soldiers get to taste power and blood and want more.
True, but being a foot soldier gets old after a while. Ask an old foot soldier.
I actually am lol exactly that, well Recon part time now.
Not BTW a Maoist foot soldier.
The problem for the profs is they are the old geezers and the young they raised to be merciless Maoist Calvinist Morals Police are throwing them down. This is simple: the young see the opportunity to take the power from the Prof.
We quite remain Chimpanzees when it comes to Politics.
Usually what passes for revolution is actually no more than a palace coup ...
I wondered what had happened to him. I've thought one of his comments from the early aughts, which I'm paraphrasing, could be extended to describe our current situation succinctly.
About the political climate of the early Bush years, MCM said, "It's like the "Republicans got the government and the Democrats got the English Department." The irony is that 20 years later, it appears the English Department, or at least the Cultural Studies section, now has the government.
Washington is a college town. You leave College and go to work for the government.
Same with most corporations. Indeed Union top level leadership are Lawyers.
I saw this shit coming from a long time ago. It's the progression of the left which seemed inevitable even back when I came of age and voted the first time in 1976. I was sure that when others researched this new political party that a friend introduced me to that hated war, wanted to decriminalize drugs, freedom from income tax and no censorship that everyone would agree. I proudly told anyone who would listen to vote for Roger McBride of the libertarian party! It was a no brainier! Get government out of the way and let freedom ring!
The party was trashed by the MSM and other politicians who denounced libertarian principals as crazy and unrealistic while blindly marching towards the state of affairs we are in today.
I also failed to underestimate the ability of folks to be deceived over and over, again and again and continue to vote the same way expecting different results.
Orwell's 1984 should be promoted reading instead of the woke curriculum today.
Orwell, or Huxley? From Postman.....”What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. ... In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
I think Orwell. Brave New World was all about controlling people through pleasure. There is nothing pleasurable about the narrative the 'ministry of truth' is pushing out currently. It's all about control through fear, shame, and guilt, and denigrating anything that gives us pleasure and adds meaning to our lives.
It’s probably both. It goes back and forth and overlaps.
The '90s through the smartphone rollout were the Huxley phase. We're back in the Orwell phase now.
It's not "the left" at all. It's the STATE.
If it were profitable, they'd use "the right" -and they do, just not to the same extent. I think they are forced to use "the left" as a mask because most of the people in charge of the propaganda machines are lefty college types.
Please... understand that this is not some cancer growth of a certain side. It has no side except the side it's own bread is buttered on.
I have only recently started to realize how true this is. Trump's term in office has put a spotlight on this simply because he was not a part of the establishment. It's really remarkable. Once you have seen it, you cannot unsee it.
To belabor the obvious, when you make this point, people will invariably come after you for being "pro-Trump."
It's the conflation of the man with the structural situation, and it's meant to dump all the guano on the man. I guess we'll find out how long this paradigm holds up in his absence.
As we speak, they are scurrying back to their well appointed DC habitats with fully stocked pantries to carry on with business as usual. From there, they will saunter back into the shadows to pull the levers of unelected power through their government issued Alexa.
Naturally, I'm being hyperbolic. Everyone knows that an Alexa could never pass through the stringent DoD requirements that are clearly defined in the smart speaker STIG. Otherwise, that is all true.
As for sounding like I am pro-Trump, I could honestly care less. If that is a scarlet letter, I will wear it with pride as long as I get the top bunk at the gulag. If it is the bottom bunk, I'll roll over like a puppy and give up everything that they ask for. Gotta have standards.
Republicrats. It's all the same, only different.
Just curious, what kind of background did McBride have. I’m libertarian but I definitely get annoyed by the Libertarian Party’s tendency to attract candidates who are wack jobs outside of politics-like the Senate candidate from Montana who accidentally dyed himself blue. I don’t think legislative chambers should be Cosplay conventions!
I was 19 years old and really didn't really focus on the individual. More focus on the liberty, free speech, antiwar, drug decriminalization, low taxe theme and what seemed to be a return to what our founding fathers sought. That message to me back then seemed more optimistic but then reality got in the way. I agree the libertarian candidates can be a little different and most of the time and they come across as weird. I wouldn't mind more weird.
I think all the Congresscritters should be given clownsuits, garish whiteface makeup and size 54 shoes to wear when in session.
We should strip them of their wealth and provide them with potato sacks and loin cloths to cover their nakedness.
Philosopher kings with power and influence should be able to subsist on their intellectual and moral superiority.
#DefundCongress could go viral. Of course, that will never happen unless we storm the capitol.
Too soon?
Mere potato sacks?! I say thee nay, sir. Humiliating yet comical "bankruptcy barrels" are the appropriate punishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_barrel
Brilliant. Kind-of gives me a new perspective on the Barrel Man. Would love to know what his inspiration really was. A bankruptcy barrel at the end of a tough season fits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_Man_(Denver_Broncos)
Apparently, they tell you what his inspiration was. A $10 bet to get on TV.
they kind of already are doing this with the masks and kente cloth
Boom!!!!
Come on! be honest, it was trashed by Jimmy Carter.
I am completely ready to get trashed for saying this, but I think Jimmy meant well and made ultimately meaningless efforts to rein in the permanent bureaucracy. He was the 1-term Trump of 45 years ago
“Reaganland” by Perlstein, is actually a granular rehash of the Carter presidency. He meant well, but was his own worst enemy in nearly every action he attempted. A good man in an unenviable situation, and Reagan played him like a well tuned fiddle. I wouldn’t compare him to Trump in any manner whatsoever. Carter had an immense intellect, but an intellect entirely unsuited for the job. Trump, otoh, is absent cognitive ability. I mean, here’s a guy that was portrayed as some form of brilliant deal maker, put in a position where he could have worked myriad deals and come out as the greatest Prez in American history and gotten rich doing it, and he’s essentially just proven what a dork and incompetent he is. His latest, letting himself be taped in the con of looking for 11,000+ votes, only shows what a dweeb he is.
Thanks for the rec, and I admit my comparison of Carter to Trump was lazy. It's impossible for me at this point to remember what details I read when and where, but I thought Fritz Mondale's autobiography was particularly illuminating; he admired Carter's work ethic but was baffled by his personal coldness -- somebody who kept everybody away emotionally.
My sense is that Jimmy got dumped in a shark tank with no pre-existing support network and spent 4 years trying furiously to keep his head above water. I guess that's where my Trump comparison comes from.
Not lazy. There really isn’t anyone to compare either Prez to. Both were out of their element, one well intended with skills entirely mismatched to the job and the other just a cheap shyster and a crook. Reaganland is a great read, but what surprised me is it’s really nearly all about Carter and how he set the stage for Reagan.
In what way did Jimmy Carter try to rein in the permanent bureaucracy?
Carter was an inveterate micromanager-he personally maintained the schedule for the WH tennis court.
Haha, yes, I remember reading about this. One of the main reasons why Carter was ultimately ineffectual was that he was a workaholic control freak who couldn't delegate authority. He'd work 20-hour days doing shit like that instead.
The Church Committee (starting, admittedly, pre-Carter) was at least an effort. Carter appointing ADM Turner to clean house at CIA was another one. Frank, Stansfield, and Jimmy all failed in the end, but at least they tried. I might be too kind to career bureaucrats.
Jimmy Carter is the 2 wolves inside you. I am not going to argue that I would have been a better President of the USA in 1978.
I should find a good book on that CIA time
There are many! One of my favorites is John Stockwell's "In Search of Enemies." He quit the CIA not too long before the "Halloween Massacre": https://www.amazon.com/Search-Enemies-CIA-Story/dp/0393009262
From this period, although fictionalized, is this. https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Trade-Alan-Furst/dp/0440076986
Leonid frickin Brezhnev called up DC on the red phone to ask Carter what the hell he was thinking and why did he want to trigger a war when Carter proposed removing US troops from the 38th parallel in 1977 or 78.
Brezhnev was an awesomely lazy man; so lazy you have to admire his sheer chutzpah of inaction. He and Carter were more or less good ol' boys right up until Leonid made the mistake of doing a thing and invaded Afghanistan. It's funny -- Carter rode into office on the back of Nixon-engineered detente, but started what is popularly thought of as "Reagan's" defense buildup in his last year of office. One of the weirdest volte-faces from dove to hawk in American executive politics. Woodrow Wilson is comparable, maybe?
Woodrow Wilson was the most evil piece of shit ever elected to public office in the United States. He was basically Emperor Palpatine w/ less technology at his disposal.
Oh yeah. At the absolute bottom of my list.
Guys like Harding and Coolidge (Pierce? Arthur?) tend to get knocked around by historians for being corrupt do-nothing shitheels, but at least they didn't do that much harm, either. We're still living in the Empire Woody made.
It's a curious phenomenon that the people who do the most actual harm in the world tend to view themselves as the most rectitudinous. Happens over and over again, like a stuck record.
You are correct about Brezhnev’s laziness-he had a giant tower built in the middle of a forest preserve so he and his buddies could just snipe game instead of actually hunting. He let the Soviet economy float for the 1970s on high oil/gas prices.
Brezhnev was the career bureaucrat perfected to its absolute pinnacle. The New Soviet Man. A god.
Russians refer to the Brezhnev regime as "The Era of Stagnation." Arguably, being stagnant beats getting sent to the gulag.
There are two main issues at play here and one of them leads to the other in a sense. The first issue is a public health and scientific issue. Initially, I was skeptical of masks being effective because at a molecular level, a mask is effectively cheesecloth and a virus will sail right through it. I'm a former molecular biologist and so I understand the science and biology. Then, there were experiments showing that masks prevent aerosols, basically saliva sprays when someone sneezes or talks, and therefore limit local transmission. The virus is embedded in droplets that are 10 to 1000-fold larger than the virus. This is why surgeons use masks when you have surgery, to limit wound infection. (This is also how bioweapons are weaponized - the agent is injected into the environment in an aerosol or powder form to enable it to reach as many people as possible with the smallest amounts.) To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask. Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended. I do not wish to get sick or cause harm.
Now then, he's a media professor and his specialty is propaganda. It is not biology, public health, or a hard science. He's certainly within his rights and profession to say the things he's been saying, but does he have the academic chops to definitively say certain public health measures are propaganda? They may possibly be, but considering that Japan controlled its pandemic through mask use and other measures would suggest otherwise. Now, if his focus was what is reported in the media, fine. Most journalists took chemistry for poets in college or university. They are liberal arts and communications majors, not science majors. They have no concept of the size of an atom versus virus versus human cell versus something on the macroscopic scale such as a mask. Microscopic scales are even abstract for science majors. You can't see what you are manipulating, but you are working with billions and trillions of them. At best a bacterial culture turns cloudy whereas said culture clears from lysis when a viral infection kills 99% of the cells. What I am trying to convey here is that any information we get from the average journalist about science in general and Covid-19 measures is like Chinese whispers. Information will get lost in translation because experts have to simplify the message so that the average person can grasp it. It doesn't help that science is an iterative process and most messaging is conservative to begin with, then you have to dumb it down further. It's like the Red Dwarf episode where the crewmembers try to explain to the Cat what a spacetime rift is only to state that it's a magic door in total frustration.
So, do I support Mr. Miller? The answer is yes. He was doing his job. He should keep his job. But, he should confer with colleagues who know the science and can keep him from inserting his foot into his mouth on what could be a public health issue. If it goes to the courts, that could or could not be in his favor. Courts don't handle scientific evidence well and the issue depends heavily on context. A lot of crap in academia doesn't get put in emails, so it could be difficult to prove who said what, when, and exactly why, for what reasons he was censured. If the institution attacks him from the public health angle, he might have a difficult fight.
“To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder.”
This is insane. If I have spent the last month alone indoors and know I am not infected how am I murdering someone by not wearing a mask?
Moreover, you parrot the same censorious agenda for the exact reasons the professor teaches are incorrect. No one should be disallowed to ask people to research and think for themselves, much less a professor whose very job is to do just that.
"To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder."
Poppycock.
HIV had a 100% fatality rate.
Covid, as they say, how will we know the vaccine is effective?
When 99.8% survive it instead of 99.7%
HIV wasn't 100% transmissible unless people were sharing dirty needles. I could only find 50% fatality rates for HIV in the literature. Depending on your age, the fatality rate for Covid-19 varies from less than 1% to 25%. Covid is a mess because testing is so fucked up. We don't know who has the asymptomatic variant of the disease until after the fact usually.
for the first 12 to 15 years, it was a death sentence.
Rumor has it that the hospitals receive more money for Covid related deaths.
That there be what we call an incentive for some garbage in data.
Yes, it was generally except for the occasional non-progressive, and I don't disagree. But, there were also people who had it who wanted to take as many people with them as possible. Hospitals weren't run by MBAs during the HIV epidemic. Reaganism's neoliberal streak hadn't fully taken hold, though public health funding was starting to be cut back then. Now, the whole system is corrupted by money.
come on, you can do it, just admit it. The hype about Covid, an overwhelmingly survivable virus, is off the chart compared to the lack of attention for HIV.
So instead of admitting it, you say, not in certain groups for Covid.
Well, we weren't all dying of AIDS either, were we?
Just admit it. This virus is being hyped. Our system has been keeping people alive past their expiration date and the virus is wiping em out.
The Covid virus is essentially a a predator. It kills off the sick and old. This is its function and its job. It doesn't care who you are or what you think. If the genetic lottery or viral lottery is against you, you meet your maker. There's a lot of hype out there, but what pisses me off is that we did these things to protect people and a bunch of idiots and incompetents have let it kill those people we sacrificed our freedom for and another group are making money off of other's misery. Billionaire's are making out like bandits, as are the pharmaceuticals when the government is subsidizing the research, manufacturing, and distribution of a vaccine. Shit we bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street again. Everyone is generally biased for their own survival, so I don't fault people for trying to live another day longer. But, I hate a system throwing everyone under the bus economically except millionaires and billionaires during a recession caused by a public health crisis.
Small side note - N95 masks do not have holes too small for particles to pass through, but they have convoluted paths through which particles need to pass, and electrostatic attraction which can capture most particles. If they are washed, the holes don't change size but the electrostatic charge effect is destroyed and the mask is not longer effective.
So physical particle size versus mask hole size is not the sole issue to consider.
But that's an aside. I do not disagree with your points.
The mask is like a molecular sieve. As particles pass through it, they are gradually filtered and constrained by size not unlike lengthy DNA molecules passing through an agarose gel that are constrained proportionally by molecular length. The longer the DNA fragment, the less it travels through the gel. The bigger the droplet, the less it travels through the mask. The electrostatic charge prevents the virus from leaving the mask basically. It's just added protection.
I have some questions for you, not to be argumentative, but for info only:
Do you wear a mask out in public when you know you will not be within at least 20 feet from other people, such as walking your dog in a suburban environment, or riding your bike or otherwise exercising?
Do you wear a mask indoors? My health care provider is Kaiser, and they say we should leave our windows open to allow the air to circulate to lessen the concentration of the virus found in the home. It seems to me that the virus in a home would likely be more concentrated than in an open suburban area, especially if there is any wind at all, so a mask indoors may be needed also.
Any ideas on the breakdown on the causes of infection, meaning through breathing it in or from transmission from infected hands to face?
I do wear a mask, we sterilize commonly touched household areas every morning and wash our hands religiously, but I was still infected in mid May, was sick for 16 days, but did not require hospitalization because my breathing was never labored, but did suffer from body ache, fever, headache/wooziness and a hyper heightened sense of taste that came simultaneously with the headache about a week into the symptoms beginning. The only lingering symptom was a definite increase in confusion and distractedness that has basically gone away after lingering for a few months, but not so severely as to cause me to cast a vote for either Trump or Biden.
Your opinions are welcome, and thank you.
If you've had the virus, your body will clear it after a month. You wouldn't need to wear a mask indoors in your own home after that. From what I can tell, the mode of transmission went from contact to aerosol 4-5 months ago. Most everyone accepts it is respiratory virus now. If I were exercising, I would not wear a mask and would avoid anyone.
Thanks. I still act as though I'm not immune(not sure how long the immunity lasts, anyway) because I don't want to pass it along to someone else and start a chain of infections.
One positive side effect is I haven't had a cold yet this year, which I normally would have had by now, because I do wash my hands more often and have largely broken a lifelong habit of touching my face.
«Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended.»
Please, please, let's be realistic: the evidence is all over the place (even if I think that masks are somewhat effective), but the "preponderance of evidence" is a weak argument, the better argument is "the precautionary principle": it is a minor inconvenience to wear masks, and they might work to prevents a lot of trouble, and so why not?
Cuz Kay Ivey ain't their meemaw. hahaha that's a joke.
“To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask.“
What should the criminal punishment be for this kind of offense, like leaving your home without a mask or being too close to others when improperly covered? Attempted murder, with an option to upgrade to murder if the “victim” dies within two weeks of the offense?
Stop please. He was not saying DON'T wear masks! He was simply pointing out to his class the many studies pre-Covid that found masks are not effective in stopping respiratory viruses (important point: these were the studies the CDC relied on when first saying masks don't work). He then directed his class to review the post-Covid studies that came to a different conclusion and ask what changed? Or what explains the different results pre and post Covid. That is all!
And, why didn't he walk over to the public health department or virology department and ask his colleagues about the papers and the medical science? Doctors have been wearing masks in surgery for decades to limit wound infection. I was trying to convey that initially, I was skeptical of masks until I had seen some studies. Realizing that people spew aerosols changed my mind. You don't see those droplets. All I stated was that if he is attacked from the public health angle he could be in trouble since it could be seen as a contrarian view or opinion against a public health message, or used as evidence against him out of context. He is a professional educator even with tenure and people can get testy over public health debates, especially when the speaker isn't a medical doctor. He is an expert on propaganda, not pathogenic aerosols. We don't know exactly what he said to the students, but the context was probably his specialty except he stated opinions on studies and press releases. Press releases are not studies. They aren't even abstracts. At best they are Chinese whispers. That is his specialty. He doesn't read scientific papers for a living generally. He is likely innocent, but now he's censured and censored.
Even in the medical fields, the efficacy of masks is debated. Acting is if there is some monolithic "truth" out there - some kind of oracle we should all bow down before - is about as anti-science as one can get.
maybe the students were supposed to go investigate the studies to see if they are true?
How many undergraduate communication majors do you know who can dissect medical studies? I find it difficult to read and comprehend them, especially clinical ones, and I have a doctorate in molecular biology. Someone who has no math or scientific background will flounder and need help from someone with the knowledge to know the paper's methodology and flaws, not to mention understand the jargon used. Lambda means different things to a mathematician, a microbiologist, and an immunologist, and the latter two are bioscientists. Context matters even in research papers.
I am admittedly, woefully unacquainted at present with any undergraduate communication majors.
I think his point was that there were many studies pre-Covid that found masks aren't effective and then the post-Covid, the studies made an about turn. The question he asked his students to consider is why or what changed. See this 2017 meta-study as a place to begin. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
I do not get your point.
You mean what changed in Western societies? In Asia, the cities are more densely populated, and in Japan, mask use is quite prevalent. Japan also contained the virus quite well, as good as Hong Kong or Singapore. I was trying to point out that he was a non-medical expert talking about mask studies. The debate or controversy may have been more nuanced. It's a given in medical circles to wear masks to limit transmission. But, an epidemiologist's opinion would carry more weight than a GP's opinion. And, his opinion as a communication expert would carry even less weight. He has no scientific expertise. He could have accidentally cherry picked the studies he used. He may have been contrasting studies versus press releases for all I know, and press releases are pale shadows of the studies they cite. Sometimes they are just a sales pitch to boost a pharmaceutical's stock price. Meta studies bother me. If the meta analysis is proven correct by follow up empirical evidence, fine, but stand alone analysis really bothers me. They are basically statisticians looking for casual factors by shoehorning other people's datasets generally. And, you have to be a statistician to know the work's flaws.
but he wasn't advocating they were true, he was using the arguments surrounding masks to analyze and access propoganda.
WTF... he didn't claim to be an epidemiologist curing Covid transmissions....
Hyperbole! Covid is not like HIV.
Thank you! HIV was 100% lethal. You got it, you died. Corona is nothing like that. We know the fatality rate is well below 1% for most people under 75.
What AIDS and Covid have in common is Fauci fucking up.
Institutional Washington DC has been, throughout my lifetime and probably well before that, an heroic epic of upwards failure.
Patriotic, conscientious, diligent kids get blinded by the bright lights and burn 5 years or 2 decades there before they finally learn how the sausage is made and bail. The scum stays and rises to the top. The key factor in going or staying is the ability to feel shame.
If you don’t wear a mask, you have Covid-19, and you go to a family gathering and kill a few of your relatives, I would say let the family mete out justice. If you kill a complete stranger through recklessness disregard, how is that different from killing someone while driving drunk?
It’s different in a lot of ways but if you want to treat “breathing near people” as equally punishable by law then that’s your thing I guess.
If you have Covid-19 and somebody gets it from you and dies, you didn’t kill them — Covid-19 killed them (which seems to be debatable based on comorbidities and all the other data swirling around). Are you hoping to expand this idea of justice beyond Covid to the common cold and the seasonal flu too?
I can think of a lot of injury lawyers who would love to add this to the list of things they can sue for, plus a lot of great new surveillance tools that can ensure these new laws against public breath exposure can be properly enforced. How far do you want to take this?
So, you are sick, you know you are sick, there's a pandemic, and you don't excuse yourself from a family gathering or from a public place that's crowded. It's just a cold or bronchitis. You didn't kill that elderly person who is at much greater risk by giving them the agent that killed them, that you produced?
Every old person I know understands a) they're gonna die and b) they still have agency, they can still decide to ensure their safety by NOT meeting with their families, and NOT going out in public.
MOST of the old people I know would very much like this to be their own choice, not yours.
«If you have Covid-19 and somebody gets it from you and dies, you didn’t kill them»
Deliberately infecting someone with a disease is considered at least assault and is a crime in most countries, as a disease is as to damage equivalent to a poison. Infecting people negligently or recklessly with minor diseases is rarely prosecuted of course...
are you committing a home invasion to deliberately infect the weak or are you running into the Circle K and forgot to mask up?
The Circle K or whatever it was called down the road from me just got robbed by someone wearing a Covid mask ( not a bandana).
did they breathe menacingly at the camera?
No, he had a gun!
Probably because of the way the lockdowns have been instituted. Restaurants were open for inside dining for maybe a couple of months, if that, and outdoor dining was severely regulated. What might be a result of that? People invite their friends over for dinner instead of going out maybe?? Small businesses that sold some of the same things Costco or Target sell have been shut down. What happens? More crowds over at the Target and the Costco where they do nothing to limit the numbers of people coming in. Maybe having the largest percentage of homeless in the country and letting thousands of criminals onto the street that had Covid contributed?? Maybe treating everyone like little kids that couldn't possibly know what's best for them backfired to the point that many Californians just ignored the lunacy coming from their leaders?? In the end, it's probably just really poor state and local leadership in California. Maybe that's why so many people are leaving California as well......
theory: California is a nanny state where Gov Newsome is perceived to be responsible for your wellbeing. Not being your responsibility to protect yourself, you assume if the Whole Foods is open for business, it must be safe to shop there.
Florida is a "protect yourself as appropriate" state where Gov DeSantis is assumed to not give a shit what happens to you so you protect yourself. haha
Apparently you do not know that dying from COVID and dying with COVID are two very different things.
Love your show. This one was particularly informative.