Monday assorted links

1. “We have every right to hate you.

2. Land Grant colleges were good for the United States.

3. Eric Weinstein video explains the Intellectual Dark Web.

4. How captured is our economy? (CapturedEconomy.com, a new website resource from Lindsey and Teles).

5. “Retired fire chief Richard Gasaway refers to this apparent slowing down of time in tense situations as tachypsychia, which roughly translates as “fast mind.”

6. North Korean officials explore Singapore.

7. “Thomas Schelling’s medal went on the block May 31 at a Los Angeles auction house, fetching $187,000. His family donated the proceeds to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that fights hate and bigotry and advocates for civil rights through litigation.”  Link here.  And: “…his widow, Alice Schelling, says the most influential book he ever read was one for children, the 1927 Newbery Medal winner “Smoky the Cowhorse” by Will James.”

Comments

1. You do. We don't care, you're too ugly.

Quoted from elsewhere including Dr. Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory" TV show, "Why I have no respect for the social sciences." And, "Bitches be crazy."

It is a little bit of a worry when the most serious commentary on relations between men and women come from Dr Sheldon Cooper's mailman.

What she gets wrong is stigmatizing all men. As is well known, the MeToo movement is a problem with *Progressive* men. It has hit Democratic Party institution after Democratic Party institution. In fact if you bundled millions for Hillary I would be very worried right now. It has shamed prominent figures in Hollywood and the media. Notice who it has left untouched - the military for instance. Which is odd given the history of insane feminist witch hunts against the Armed Forces. The Churches. The Republican Party.

This is not a surprise given how much the Left has lionized people like Bill Clinton - and for generations before that they have pushed people who are not exactly known for treating women well. Consider, say, John Belushi and the way he treats women in Animal House (an open rape by the way) or even The Blues Brothers. Or going further back, I guess a lot of Leftist men have modeled themselves on Alan Alda's character in MASH.

So in fairness she ought to hate on Progressive men.

And as we are really not allowed to say, metoo seems incredibly, disproportionately Jewish men. Isn't it time the Jewish community spent some time thinking about and fixing its own problems? And owning them of course. Blaming us WASPs for the bad behaviour of Weinstein and Co is a bitter pill.

Charlie Rose, Tom Brokaw, Bill Cosby, Ryan Lizza, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, James Franco, Kevin Spacey, the VCs in Silicon Valley and many more are all decidely non-Jewish. You goyim need to try harder to blame the Jews.

Well no one is claiming non-Jews are morally pure - although you have to pull in every single sexual misconduct case you can think of to get the numbers - and invent one in the case of Trump. But by all means let's go with your numbers. You name eight non-Jews. I named one more - Garrison Keillor. That is nine. Ten Jews have been mentioned in this thread.

So about 3% of the population has produced over 50% of the accusations so far.

You know, I would call that grossly disproportionate. Which must mean MeToo is anti-semitic, right? Disproportionate impact and all that.

The best statistics are done with sample sizes you can count on your fingers. We are really saving on computing power here.

But while we are talling non-Jews hit with #MeToo accusations don't forget Roy Moore, that Republican Governor who tried to revenge porn threaten his ex, Bush Sr., Clarence Thomas, Morgan Friedman, R Kelly, Tom Brokaw, Bill Cosby, Blake Farenthold , Charlie Rose, Mike Douglas,

Is the sampling you've selected representative of the population of those accused of sexual harassment or representative of the types of people that register in your head when you hear stuff about them?

You are desperate now. Let's assume that Jews and non-Jews offend at the same rate. There ought to be 97 non-Jewish offenders for every three Jewish ones. You are so desperate that you are naming people over and over again.

Roy Moore? Complaints against him were made up and don't actually exist. No Republican Governor who tried to threaten his ex with revenge porn. Bush Sr. was a good laugh actually. Clarence Thomas was a generation ago and long before MeToo. Morgan Friedman? Hmm, sounds Jewish to me. R Kelly isn't really part of the MeToo movement and claims against him go back decades. Tom Brokaw and Bill Cosby have already been mentioned. Blake Farenthold was not part of MeToo but a more old fashioned pay off. Charlie Rose is your one good example. Michael Douglas is Jewish.

So all you need is about another 4500 such cases and we would be at parity. What chance would suggest. You are nowhere near that. Which suggests that MeToo is massively anti-semitic. It is singling out Jewish figures.

"You are desperate now. Let's assume that Jews and non-Jews offend at the same rate. There ought to be 97 non-Jewish offenders for every three Jewish ones. You are so desperate that you are naming people over and over again."

But you are not talking about offenders but reports about offenders. Is everyone fired for sexual harassment working in the mailroom of mid-size corporations given the same reporting as an A-level celebrity? If you really want to know who offends more or less you have to collect all cases of offending, not just all cases of reporting about offenses.

Right off the bat, take rape convictions. Are 50% of rape convictions against Jews?

You continue to miss the point. Presumably because you want to. The issue is the reporting. By all means let's assume that 3% of rapes are by Jews in line with their population numbers. So when MeToo is almost entirely focused on Jews and homosexuals, it must following that they are biased against Jews and homosexuals.

How hard is this to understand? It has been pointed out to you any number of times and you continue to ignore. Disparate impact.

Jews make up a disproportionate share of the rich/successful progressive types typically implicated in metoo. It seems that they may be offending in proportion to their population of rich Progressives where they are overrepresented.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You also forgot Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and Eric Bolling. I guess that wasn't covered on Stormfront.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"What she gets wrong is stigmatizing all men. "

1. She doesn't stigmatize all men.

2. Do you not understanding "take it seriously but not literally" or do you not understand how to apply it? No person whose ever expressed even moderate sympathy for the Trump administration should not be able to apply that concept aptly.

3. We are being coached to hate Muslims for what is literally a few microscopic terrorist attacks relative to the entire population. Now we are being told to hate illegal immigrants for a 'M13' problem that is even smaller. Yet she has a point, where is or has there ever been a rape free society or a society where women committed more unjustified violence than men? If you think a 25 yr old Muslim man who has visits to Iraq on his passport should be patted down twice in the airport why would this not apply to men as a whole? Likewise should a Jewish person have hated Germany in WWII? A black person the Confederacy? Why? Only a minority of both populations were actually killing Jews or owning slaves. Yet if you had a story of either individual joining the army to fight against them you wouldn't tsk tsk the person for 'hating everyone'.

Reality check, she's absolutely right. Hate is justified and rational. The more important question, which she is clearly aware of, "is hate, though, useful in the long run beyond anything more than just a starting point for a discussion that will lead to solutions with other motivations?".

"Which is odd given the history of insane feminist witch hunts against the Armed Forces. The Churches. The Republican Party."

The Republican Party has also been hit pretty hard by #MeToo, especially in contrast to how the Democratic party has behaved with it (see how they fell on the Hill of Roy Moore while Al Franklin is no longer a Senator). Churches haven't been hit? Keep in mind the Catholic Church was devastated by child sex abuse charges and cover ups. The outing of big time evangelical star preachers has been going on for decades now as well. The LDS hasn't been immune either.

1. She doesn't stigmatize all men.

Yes she does. You may well be so blue balled that you think this is normal, but most of us have some self respect.

2. Do you not understanding "take it seriously but not literally" or do you not understand how to apply it?

Brilliant.

3. We are being coached to hate Muslims for what is literally a few microscopic terrorist attacks relative to the entire population.

There you have it - 9-11 was microscopic. No we are not actually. Everyone is making sure that there is no blame to any Muslims at all.

Now we are being told to hate illegal immigrants for a 'M13' problem that is even smaller.

Who is this "we" you talk about Kemosabe?

If you think a 25 yr old Muslim man who has visits to Iraq on his passport should be patted down twice in the airport why would this not apply to men as a whole?

Obviously it ought to apply to all men. If the police are looking for Islamic terrorist suspects they ought to be looking at, you know, Muslims. For most crime, there is little point suspecting women and police by and large don't. They look to male offenders.

Likewise should a Jewish person have hated Germany in WWII? A black person the Confederacy?

Are men gassing women? Keeping them in chains? That you can buy this over-inflated rhetoric shows how pathetic you are. Grow a pair.

Reality check, she's absolutely right. Hate is justified and rational.

I agree about the hate but not the rest. Because men as a category do not oppress women as a category. Men as a category protect and cherish women. It is actually a tiny percentage of offenders - unlike Islamic terrorism.

The Republican Party has also been hit pretty hard by #MeToo, especially in contrast to how the Democratic party has behaved with it (see how they fell on the Hill of Roy Moore while Al Franklin is no longer a Senator).

Last I checked Roy Moore was not a Senator nor did the Republican party support him. But Bob Menendez is. So the Dem's willingness to go to the wire for people who sleep with under-age prostitutes is still pretty high. No Republican has been caught up in MeToo I know of - except Bush Senior which was cute rather than a crime. But Democrats are falling left right and center.

Churches haven't been hit? Keep in mind the Catholic Church was devastated by child sex abuse charges and cover ups.

They have been hit with mostly faked smears it is true. But not by MeToo. You might think that MeToo was a Republican operation by its entirely one sided approach to attacking the Left.

There you have it - 9-11 was microscopic. No we are not actually. Everyone is making sure that there is no blame to any Muslims at all.

Tell Osama Bin Laden how nice it was to not be blamed for 9/11.

For most crime, there is little point suspecting women and police by and large don't. They look to male offenders.

Which would seem to be what she is saying. If you wake up one morning and find someone has smashed all your windows and set your car on fire last night after the huge 'party' for the winning team, you almost certainly imagine a man or men who did it rather than a group of very excited women.

Are men gassing women? Keeping them in chains?

What proportion of rapes are committed by men rather than women? Murder/suicides? Assaults? What proportion of Germans in WWII actively participated in persecuting Jews?

Imagine a Jewish American in 1942 enlisting and becoming a bomber pilot, hoping to 'kick German ass' over it. If you want to be rational and play by the actual numbers women would have even more cause to feel this way about men. All men? Well no but then the Jewish airman dropped bombs on Germans who attempted to save Jews as well as those who persecuted them, did he not?

"They have been hit with mostly faked smears it is true. But not by MeToo. "

Perhaps Priests who molest children had little interest in harassing women.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It read like the KKK of feminism. But they are clueless to their own "hate".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. I'm going to guess there will be a very high ratio of people only reading the title vs people reading the article. For those who don't read it - it's not actually arguing that women should hate men.

But this needs the proper context - 'and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence'

This article provides a good overview - 'Talkshow host Charlie Rose was fired by CBS and PBS in November after he was accused of groping colleagues and walking around naked in front of them, allegations he denies. Last month, he was reported to have been pitching a new atonement TV series in which he interviews other accused men like him, according to Page Six.

Celebrity chef Mario Batali took a leave of absence after he was accused by multiple women of inappropriate and abusive behaviour. After apologising, he has been “eyeing a second act”, according to the New York Times. Friends and associates say he is “pondering timelines” as to how he might step back into his career just months after it imploded, including by “creating a new company led by a powerful woman chief executive”.

Former Today Show co-host Matt Lauer, comedian Louis CK, and former public radio host Garrison Keillor are also all reported to be looking for redemption. Keillor’s attorney told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “The mission is to get his train back on track.”' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/27/metoo-sexual-assault-claims-accused-men-plot-redemption-charlie-rose-mario-batali

Yep, read it. It really is arguing in the affirmative what the HL asks.

Respond

Add Comment

@Brett,
Yeah, the title is more extreme than the article. But the article isn't that far behind. It could accurately be summarized as, "condemn ALL men, until and unless they completely remove themselves and other men from the levers of economic and political power"

Still insane, unrealistic, and "hate-filled", the way she and other modern leftists define hate? Absolutely.

Who cares how modern leftists define hate? At least in the U.S., where the 1st Amendment still means 'hate,' however defined, is perfectly acceptable speech. As is mocking such modern leftists for their hypocrisy, of course.

@clockwork
Modern leftists defining hate in a dangerous way is highly relevant seeing how they're currently the ones educating the coming generations (at least hi-ed; universities, colleges...).

These are their teachings.

The gospel according to Peterson - and he is wrong. This is like caring about how the American right wing defines 'religious freedom' - after all, churches are the places educating the coming generations.

Nonsense. There is no law forcing anyone to go to church, you are free to attend any church you choose, and the right wing has no dominance in American churches.

There is also no law forcing anyone to go to university.

Not sure if you're trolling but do you obviously have no idea what youre talking about.

This is 2018, not 1762, and education happens in college, not church.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Moreover, most spend a few hours per week at church at most, not 6 hours every week day

People who spend their youth in church are southern white trash for example, who grow up to work some blue collar jobs, if any.

The people who lead this country (politics, media, industry) are from urban, wealthy places and got no time or faith to go to church.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/55ap1u/percentage_of_americans_who_attend_church_weekly/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I did read the article, and that is *exactly* what it is arguing, Brett. It's hate speech, pure and simple. Replace "men" with "blacks" or "Jews" throughout and the parallel is obvious. Of course, a large part of our country doesn't see anything wrong with hate speech as long as it is directed at whites, men, Christians or heterosexuals -- but they should realize that not everyone agrees, and that words that rely on that assumption will be viewed by a substantial portion of the country -- including a lot of smart, reasonable and educated people -- as eliminationist rhetoric personally targeted at them.

'It's hate speech, pure and simple.'

There is no such thing as hate speech in the U.S., thanks to the 1st Amendment. There is simply speech, which anyone is free to disagree with.

'Replace "men" with "blacks" or "Jews" throughout and the parallel is obvious.'

Probably not, because she wrote this too - 'But, of course, the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men — from transnational feminists who decry such glib universalism to U.S. women of color who demand an intersectional perspective — are mostly on the mark. These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies. Growing movements to challenge a masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary. Please continue.'

Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States; I absolutely agree and am not arguing that it should be banned or made illegal, or even that the professor should be fired over it.

I am just expressing anger and disappointment that the Washington Post saw fit to provide a platform for her hate speech.

Respond

Add Comment

She uses that statement as her golden egg to morons like you who then think the theme and actual content of her article--which completely contradicts that one quote--is ok.

'which completely contradicts that one quote'

No, it just says she doesn't care about women of color nor of non-American feminists compared to her desire to hate men. However, substituting another word into that passage makes the parallel untenable, which was the point of citing it.

Basically, she is saying what she hates, while completely acknowledging that a lot of people like herself do not agree with her hatred. There is a difference between saying I hate X, and saying everyone should hate X, as that passage illustrates. Lots of women disagree with her hatred, though they share a common feminism.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"It's hate speech, pure and simple. Replace "men" with "blacks" or "Jews" throughout and the parallel is obvious."

Or replace with "Muslims" or "immigrants" and replace "#MeToo" with "Terrorism" or "MI13" and you can get a job with the current administration.

Boonton:

I'm willing to agree that the author of the linked piece is every bit as calm and reasonable as Donald Trump. I'd probably want to give her opinions and expressed beliefs about the same attention, too.

Except she does seem aware that her stance is not viable taken literally and acknowledges the valid objections her critics raise.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah that is what I don't get with a lot (not all) of the social justice rhetoric. It just doesn't seem good strategically. Regardless of its merits.

The author doesn't seem interested in, nor capable of, strategy. It's her tribes' lunatic fringe. All tribes have this.

The author isn't the problem. She's just your garden variety nut case. The fact that the author is a Professor and The Washington Post published her diatribe is the problem.

Seems like a small problem, we know her field is full of nutcases, and we know the WaPo likes preaching to their choir just like most periodicals.

Those are good points. I stand corrected.

No, JWatts, you were right the first time.

Proof: People who want existing, long-standing border laws enforced are mostly quite sane, but you can certainly find nutcases inside that group who are capable of writing long, hateful rants like this one. If such a rant were written by a Professor and published in the Wall Street Journal, do you think the likes of msgkings would say "seems like a small problem"?

No. QED.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

And in today's episode of two Ms G King's in one we have:

msgkings - June 11, 2018 at 1:36 pm 8

It's her tribes' lunatic fringe. All tribes have this.

msgkings - June 11, 2018 at 2:07 pm 10

Seems like a small problem, we know her field is full of nutcases, and we know the WaPo likes preaching to their choir just like most periodicals.

The lunatic fringe being, it seems, the entire world of academia and the WaPo's readership. That is some fringe. Well I could agree about academia, especially sociology, but I think that perhaps the WaPo's readership is a little more than their fringe. At least based on their current circulation figures, they don't hit "fringe" until 2021.

Her trolling appears to have worked on you, unsurprisingly.

I am not the one tying myself into knots and selling out what little credibility I have left defending it.

That's interesting, who's tying oneself in knots or defending it?

Let's see - I point out the fact that you contradict yourself. Within half an hour no less. You complain that I am falling for this silly woman's trolls.

I don't know Missy G. You tell me.

What contradiction? She's a lunatic, and it's a small matter. What are you talking about?

Perhaps it would help if you read what you are complaining about before you complain about it?

You insisted that this was a product of the fringe of the Far Left. Then you insisted this was the WaPo talking to its customers. Those two can't both be true. Either this is a fringe nutter or it is talking to the very mainstream WaPo audience.

Which is it?

As I said, two msgkings in one half hour.

Man this little gal has you all spun around. You're like a leftist getting triggered by Milo. Which is exactly what she wanted you to be. The WaPo wants clicks just like anybody, are you their 'customer'?

But please, continue. I'm enjoying this one.

Comical to see you deflect criticism of your own statements as having something to do with this article, which it doesn't. Just take it like a man.

Respond

Add Comment

You're just dodging. You never answered the above poster's question:

You insisted that this was a product of the fringe of the Far Left. Then you insisted this was the WaPo talking to its customers. Those two can't both be true. Either this is a fringe nutter or it is talking to the very mainstream WaPo audience.

Really, burner IDs? Come on man, I can't comprehend it for you. I've been pretty clearly not saying what you are attributing to me.

OK, bye now, done here.

Neither of those comments were by me. Although I suspect they are not innocent parties either.

You were done a long time ago. When you first defended the indefensible.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"It just doesn't seem good strategically. Regardless of its merits."

This is a common mistake many on the left make. "This argument is correct, but we shouldn't make it because strategically people aren't ready to hear it". When has Trump ever said "I better not make this argument because people are uncomfortable hearing it"?

If it's right then it is going to hold up. If it's not right then it's not. For example, many on the left tried to avoid same-sex marriage by tossing around 'split the difference' compromises (civil unions, for example). What they got wasn't agreement but instead attempts to burn down the field by the other side (blanket amendments to ban not only SSM but civil unions...even private contracts that might attempt to simulate aspects of marriage). Don't mince the words or try to 'strategically' appeal to a 'sensible center' which can't hold.

So Boontoon, you are quitting your company to allow a woman to take your position?

After you my good man, by all means.

No but I am open to the argument that there's a positive duty on me as a man to act to fix what can be fixed. Not that the two are in anyway equal, I would say to a German living in Nazi Germany they had a positive duty to oppose the regime even if they were a pure 'civilian'.

If mass resignations of men from all above average positions would correct injustice then men would in fact have a moral duty to do so. Reality is that is not going to happen AND it isn't going to fix things.

When we say people should 'do their duty' it is acknowledged that takes many forms. In a war most soldiers do not do a mad suicide dash at the enemy, but we honor those that do and respect those that did their service to the effort in lesser ways.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Concluding paragraph: "So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win."

If your definition of "it's not actually arguing that women should hate men" excludes men-should-be-hated-unless-they-give-women-all-the-power, then... yeah, it's not arguing that women should hate men. But then I would suggest you use the English language idiosyncratically.

You tend not to give ultimatums to people you like. The ultimatum to step out of power or be hated cannot possibly be taken seriously.
And for historical examples, ancient queens tended to be just as harsh, if not harsher than their male counterparts. A gentle man could come to power by birth, but a woman needed to be ruthless to take it. Compare Sophia with Peter the Great and you'll notice that both were guilty of similar atrocities and ruled with similar competency. Peter is remembered not because he was a man, but because he took inspiration from the west.

And Aung San Suu Kyi hasn't been what I would call a friend to the Rohingya.

There's an underlying broken model of morality that forms the basis for the "Why can't we hate men?" piece, and that model seems to me to be very widespread in the social justice/feminism/intersectionality world. The model says that you as an individual bear moral responsibility (and can be legitimately called to account) for the actions of other members of your group, even people over whom you have no power, and even for groups you had no particular choice about joining. I can address "men" or "blacks" or "Jews" or whatever as a moral unit, and make demands of one black guy to make up for the crimes of another.

There's no way to start from that premise and end up anywhere good, morally. It's the starting premise for justifying any level of mistreatment of others you can imagine. It's how you bash in some teenaged black kid's head and justify it to yourself because some other black guy robbed you a couple years ago. (And things get worse from there--this is an idea that honest-to-God tends to lead to mountains of skulls.)

It's amazing that we put people with that set of beliefs into prominent positions, so they can teach others to believe the same things. If someone proposed putting David Duke or Louis Farrakhan in as college professors to help educate the next generation of leaders, everyone in the world would rightly freak out--what kind of lunatic would want those guys teaching the next generation how to think about society or morality? But somehow, we put this woman into that position.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah, that last paragraph was the one where she makes it clear that it's not a political essay, but a tantrum. The last paragraph is essentially letting men off the hook by casting feminism as an unconditional enemy of all men: "We will never accept you as allies seeking to support feminist causes in good faith, so you might as well turn against us now before we meaningfully threaten your interests." Uh, okay then, I guess women are my enemies and I should act accordingly? Way to advance the cause of feminism!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Not a particularly insightful guess since the WP site requires either a subscription or turning off ad blocking. Speaking of only reading the title (guilty as charged). What if we substitute any of the following words for "Men" in the title: African-Americans, Women, the Disabled, Muslims, Police, Protesters, Jews, Christians...seems to me that regardless of content, there are some things which decency precludes as a title. Or instead of "Hate" how about "Rape" or "Kill"? It's just ugly, I suppose it is intended to provoke, but is so clumsy and crude...and obviously so.

It appears the publisher and editors of the Washington Post are quite comfortable with the progressive lunatic fringe.

Respond

Add Comment

If you replaced "men" with "Jews"? Actually one of the odd things about the MeToo movement has been the disproportionally large number of Jewish men affected. Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Al Franken, James Toback, Terry Richardson, Leon Wieseltier, Lorin Stein, and even James Levine. The exception has been a small number of Gay men and Garrison Keillor.

It is starting to look like persecution. Maybe it is. Under the theory of disproportionate impact, it must follow that this can only be motivated by malice, right? It cannot be coincidence, it must be discrimination.

So I think the WaPo has some explaining to do.

Here are a couple of more exceptions, as noted by another commenter - 'Charlie Rose, Tom Brokaw, Bill Cosby, Ryan Lizza, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, James Franco, Kevin Spacey, the VCs in Silicon Valley and many more are all decidely non-Jewish. You goyim need to try harder to blame the Jews.'

James Franco is actually Jewish. Your childish cut and paste doesn't matter because it is still wildly out of proportion to the numbers in the population as a whole.

Which means MeToo must be racist, right?

Well, hopefully this cut and paste meets your stringent Jewish criteria - 'But while we are talling non-Jews hit with #MeToo accusations don't forget Roy Moore, that Republican Governor who tried to revenge porn threaten his ex, Bush Sr., Clarence Thomas, Morgan Friedman, R Kelly, Tom Brokaw, Bill Cosby, Blake Farenthold , Charlie Rose, Mike Douglas'

That governor was Eric Greitens - I am sure we can all rely on you to make sure he isn't Jewish.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I read it and it was arguing that.

Respond

Add Comment

1. Was not expecting Tyler to share that article. I feel like he generally tries to avoid posting pieces that may generate "more heat than light".

Have to agree that the article is pretty worthless, but it isn't as if he needs to worry about most of his readers taking such an article seriously. Except to generate lots of response - why, it might even make a noticeable wave on twitter.

Respond

Add Comment

I imagine he is posting it because it so offensive and such an obvious example of the kind of society acceptable hatred that comes from the Left

*socially acceptable

Phone autocorrect is a glaring example of the evil of the patriarchy

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe he's making money off of ad hits or something.

It's an interesting problem for modern online media - these sorts of articles generate lots of traffic but ultimately risk the long term reputation of the site. I generally ignore them but you can see that it works on many people.

I often wonder if the concept of "long-term" anything applies any longer. In a week, two weeks, a month who will remember this link or discussion in terms of the general audience?

While I suspect there has been some impact (I've never looked for statistics) given the current Wells Fargo ad campaign how just how far down the road of fraud and out-right criminal behavior did they have to go before anyone really changed? What about AIG? Huge bailout a decade ago and now they are pushing themselves as low cost insurers who will be there for the long term for you?

Personally I would not trust either organization given the past but seem like a lot of people will.

In the end reputation as a market incentive seem to be a poor disciplinary incentive.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

4. the next line in the link should also have been added:
"He’d say it was the first time he understood empathy for other human beings.”
Pity that this is in decline and no longer the the Age of Em-pathy.

How does this comment apply to "captured economy" exactly?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1 "professor of sociology/Gender Studies"

And into the bin it goes! It's almost like these departments live up to their reputations as fundmentally unserious ventures that teach hardcore ideology and hatred.

Par for the course for the WaPo. That newspaper is such trash.

Let's be fair. That Op Ed was well below the level of the standard WP column. Indeed, it's a disturbing sign that they printed it. As was pointed out above, it's unlikely that they would have printed such a column if it were about most other groups.

That article was hateful.

Respond

Add Comment

Without explaining why something is trash, your comment becomes trash.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

6. My friend/client visited Singapore several years ago. He and his companion are world travelers and have been to every major city, but he told me he had never before seen the level of conspicuous consumption he saw in Singapore. Even as high end retail is languishing in Manhattan, high end retail is thriving in Singapore. The contrast between Singapore and North Korea couldn't be more stark. If Kim is seeking to augment his hold on power, I'm not so sure Singapore was the right choice for the summit. Imagine the stories his aids will tell when they return to North Korea. Unfortunately, a politically unstable North Korea is a much greater threat than a politically stable North Korea. Cowen may favor disruption, but this might turn out to be disruption of a very unfortunate kind. Certain people have a knack for creating disruption. Cowen might call them innovators, but I call them shit stirrers.

Someone on Twitter had a good joke:

"It's a great time to be a Republican. You can wake up every morning excited to learn what you'll believe by the end of the day."

Communist dictatorships are good, and only progressives would complain?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1: This woman is the head of a University Department and the editor of an academic journal which is significant in its field. Meanwhile, the corresponding male version of her type - the incels - are relegated to 4chan and the like.

I propose we either cut off all funding to these fools or at least start federally funding the incels with journals, university departments, and high social status.

It would only be fair. However, the little darlings need their outlets.

Respond

Add Comment

I had never heard of an "incel" before reading that article. And as far as I know, I have never seen or met one, either.

You're lucky, sometimes they grab a gun and start shooting.

Guns don’t kill people. Incels kill people.

Joking aside, so many shooters have multiple grievances. Everyone has a grievance, sad to say.

'Guns don’t kill people. Incels kill people.'

That is not a joke. The last mass murdering incel used a vehicle, not a gun.

Respond

Add Comment

God of Thunder - June 11, 2018 at 3:07 pm 50

Guns don’t kill people. Incels kill people.

It is interesting how we are not allowed to make generalizations about Muslims or Blacks or perhaps even the Amish from a small number of hate crimes, but we can for the one group everyone hates.

The WaPo is just beclowning itself. As, vaguely linked to this topic, they have an article on what causes so many murders of young Black men in America - apparently it is the indifference of police to Black on Black crime and their refusal to do their job:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/unsolved-killlings-what-do-they-tell-us.php

No sign of the Hands Up Don't Shoot/Black Lives Matter movement.

They have spent years telling the police to back off. Now they are complaining because the police have backed off. Insanity.

That was great, and by “great” I mean ludicrous and alarming but not surprising. The left can’t have it both ways: one, that the Man is insatiable in ”his” desire to arrest and incarcerate black men, and two, that “he” is utterly indifferent to crime rates in black areas.

Reminds me of the Palestinians in Gaza: “Jews get out of our land!”

Israel (under Sharon) leaves Gaza.

Palestinians: “You unilateralists! Now come back here so we can throw you out!”

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1. Not the slightest bit surprising or newsworthy that a female sociology professor and director of a 'Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program' would write such a piece.

But that the WP considers such blatant, unashamed anti-male bigotry to be worthy of publication? OK, sigh, no I guess that's not really surprising either, is it?

Respond

Add Comment

#1 Prof. Suzanna Danuta Walters, you have inadvertently published the first installment of the New Book of Job. Please update us if God responds.

Respond

Add Comment

Washington Post is asking for a subscription or remove ad blocking.

In exchange for what? Serious question. Is this an article written by a hysterical harridan, or is it worth reading? The title and a few things I could see indicate the first, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

I recommend using a Privacy / Incognito setting to read the article. It is hysterical, but it's so over the top that it's probably worth reading it to recalibrate your internal "what is acceptable to print in a major newspaper" meter.

So, this is a woman with a prestigious academic position, and I'd expect her to be a serious advocate for her cause. Suppose I want to find people on her side of the world (SJW/feminist/intersectionality/etc.) who are serious thinkers and have ideas worth engaging with. Where would I find them?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1
1. You cannot hate us just as we cannot hate you, it's nature.
2. There are some ways that we are good.

I do hate plenty of women. I also hate plenty of men.

As I see it, females can only lose by creating a us-vs-them front.

Half my enemies are men, half my allies are women. But also half my enemies are women and half my allies are men. Perhaps with the singular exception that men will on average be *slightly* more sympathetic with my sexual self-interest.

I support human rights for all people because I'm a part of "all people" and so are my allies. If women decide to create an us-vs-them front with me in the outgroup, I will support my ingroup.

Here's a piece of reality:

Men are, on average, as cunning, intelligent, strategic, well-coordinated as women.

Men are, on average, physically stronger than women.

No one benefits from a costly war of the sexes, but if it were forced on us, we would win. The final equilibrium would be one where human rights are men's rights and females are closer to animals. Men could enslave females, breed them industrially and keep them naked wearing ankle chains at all times. We would have sex and labor slaves and females would have nothing but the joy of nonconsensual service to men.

The reason I support women's rights is because I have female allies and women's rights are a part of human rights, and I am human. But I also cannot help overlook that there are plenty women in the media and politics who openly attack my interests. And I don't mean only exploitative interests either, but simple things like the consent principle in sexual and medical ethics. Plenty of women have attacked my right to choose in the question of euthanasia. Plenty of women have tried to leveage antisexual moralism to reduce my (consensual) sexual choice set.

So did men, but it's hard for me to see what feminism does for me, or the people who have benefitted me. Women could have been allies in some of these domains, and sometimes they are. For example, there's a correlation between being pro-choice in abortion rights and pro-choice in euthanasia rights. But I see plenty of women backstabbing my best interests either.

If push comes to shove, I'll coordinate with other men to enslave all girls and women, and we'll have a giant party after the war. Not the best possible outcome, but I'll take it.

Andaro:

Are you trying to echo back the same crazy as the op ed piece writer? Proposing to enslave all girls and women is even nuttier and more evil than hating all men. Unfixably batshit nuts.

I didn't propose that. Didn't you read the part where I explicitly said I support women's rights, and why?

Reciprocity is mandatory. I support women's rights only as long as women support my rights. I facilitate the interests of women only as long as they facilitate my interests.

You were perfectly capable of reading the parts of my post where I explicitly wrote "No one benefits from a costly war of the sexes" and "Not the best possible outcome".

If women treat men as outgroup, we will reciprocate.

By the way, willfully misreading comments is a bad-faith tactic. You too should remember that reciprocity is a thing. If communcation ends, reciprocity won't stop. It will merely translate to the meta-level as well.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. Okay, men are lobsters, seeking dominance in everything including sex. That's also called survival of the fittest. The flip side is that seeking dominance may result in survival of nobody. Why did evolution choose the path of dominance: didn't evolution realize that dominance kills. Reading about the lobster in chief's behavior at the G-7 and his insecurity that he might not appear strong in his meeting with Kim and therefore be unable to dominate Kim only lends support to the views reflected in this op/ed.

Oh my ... sigh. 😕

It’s ok, it’s just par for the course stuff from Rayward. Don’t react and every 30 posts we’ll get something sensible.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Well at least he’s doing better than your hero Hillary would.

Donald Trump got stealth taxes in the form of tariffs raised on you. I'm beginning to think Hillary would have been better at this point.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

6. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
They'll never want to see a rake or plow
And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'

+1

Respond

Add Comment

He's already lived in Switzerland, for crying out loud.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. Was this article written by a closet misogynist? A secret Trump supporter in academia who actually hates campus liberalism? I cannot think of better recruiting material for people who think that Feminism is all about hating men and tearing them down, and advocating for a return to a society of unabashed patriarchy. This is going to be one of the most enduringly cited opinion pieces for the next 20 or 30 years.

Most of you have missed the joke, it's a straight troll like the alt-right/Milo types like to do. Difference is trolls from that tribe have more outlets.

I wish it were a troll, but as mentioned its author and outlet are too credible to make that claim.

I suspect ten years from now people will be using the piece as an example of how silly things became.

Just as Milo and his ilk exaggerate and troll for extra attention, this lady is obviously doing the same. It's all we're talking about after all. Sure she hates men, but to write about it in this manner, she knew what she was doing.

I hadn't thought of the self-promotion angle before, which makes perfect sense. So basically the author is a nihilistic, self-aggrandizing provocateur/huckster of the type you see often on the right in the US. I wonder if she has a book deal or is angling for a cable news show. Or maybe she will post a series of youtube videos of herself and ask for support on Patreon. Is celebrity death match still putting out new episodes? Her versus Jordan Peterson would be a fun match up.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

From the header: "Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs."

She's been writing as a feminist for over 30 years (1985). She's been a professor for at least 14 years.

"In 2004, Walters founded the first in the nation Ph.D. program in gender studies at Indiana University, where she was a professor of gender studies and held positions in sociology and communication and culture."

"1. Was this article written by a closet misogynist?"

Seems unlikely.....

Respond

Add Comment

It will be forgotten by sundown since so poorly written.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1. Alright, men will step aside and let women take the lead. Now, explain how you'll force women to study STEM against their revealed preferences and get high-paying wages. Explain how you'll get rid of the toxic feminity that pervades our society and is propagated by women and almost universally accepted by women. Explain how you'll get rid of the soft college majors like women's studies that create generations of bitter and unemployable women. Explain how you'll talk women into not wanting to have children and not wanting to abandon careers to stay at home to raise those children by doing unpaid labor (and not paying room and board, since you're reducing marriage to a transaction). How long do you need? You got this. We have faith in you.

"Explain how you'll get rid of the toxic feminity that pervades our society and is propagated by women and almost universally accepted by women."

Hahaha. "Mom forced me to brush my teeth, make my bed and do my homework. Moooom!" (Other people's) teenagers are cute.

Respond

Add Comment

Male plumbers should step aside from working for feminists. We'll see exactly how long before they are doing their business in the yard.

Because clearly, women lack the necessary ability to become plumbers. But why stop there? Maybe male pilots should stop flying airplanes for feminists, maybe male doctors should stop treating feminists, and maybe male lawyers should stop representing feminists. Why, that would show those feminists who is boss, right? At least back in 1955, that is.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. My first thought was: we have hit rock-bottom stupidity. Then I thought "Nah, there are probably several levels of stupidity yet to be found."

Then I thought this kind of stupid ephemera can have no staying power. Some kind of catharsis for the author but soon forgotten. Mostly harmless.

Then I wondered if perhaps Tyler could use his platform to elevate more than roll around in the mire.

Like linking to this young fellow, who can actually think and write clearly, the sort of thing that makes you think maybe it ain't all going to hell in a handbasket after all:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/a-tale-of-two-columbia-classes/

https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/

The Quillette piece was good.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. Low hanging fruit, but I'm sorry, this is just exactly the idiotic, bigoted crap that I'd point to when asked "Why don't you consider yourself a feminist".

> So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong.

Not even 28 years old and somehow I'm culpable for millennia of collective wrongdoing. And... who is crying crocodile tears here? The people saying this is wrong, or the people whining and insisting like this person is that people ought to view the world through this collectivist lens?

4. is excellent, really nice and clean presentation

Respond

Add Comment

#1. Yes, I read it. “Oh I don’t hate men. But I had the institution of men.”

I’ll bet ya a dollar she is a thoroughgoing social constructionist: manhood, masculinity, men ... these are all created by patriarchy. To some extent that is true. E.g. I have no interest in muscle cars or NASCAR, which I might have if I were brought up in Carolina, say.

But this is just what allows, nay requires, us to reply to immoderates like her: just what “men” are you referring to? Jackass gropers? Fine. Punish them. Rapists? Fine. Let’s jail them. Why tar us all with your broadstrokes brush as if we are all birds of a feather?

Respond

Add Comment

5. Back to the real world.

A frightening number of years ago I was driving between Quebec City and Chicoutimi. It was between christmas and new year, winter driving conditions. I came over the crest of a hill to see a gentleman walking in the middle of the lane the same direction as me. I can still remember every decision and action I took. Fortunately he jumped out of the way. The time was fixed by physics; my speed, the distance, the braking potential, etc. It all happened very slowly in my recollection. I have experienced situations where my hand seemed to move very slowly in reaction to something. We seem to switch into a hyper aware mode.

Respond

Add Comment

2 to 7 : Almost no comments on Item 2 to 7. Guess the article in Item1 has achieved its aim.

Respond

Add Comment

#3. After watching the youtube video, I have decided to join, follow, and support the Intellectual Dark Web. It is the cause I have been looking for. I picked my profession based on the premises they put forward.

Respond

Add Comment

1. “We have every right to hate you.”

The complaint is about the pathetic mama;s boys, can't live without mommy. But these idiots are universally disgusting to both men and women who don;t suffer the disgrace. And further, bad mom's perpetuate the disease.

Respond

Add Comment

On #4 - I'm working on an exact copy of capturedeconomy.com, using as many misspellings of the name as I can come up with. Only, it will include advertisements and cat memes, so, should be a nice cash cow.

On a serious note, any historic data about NPE's that stop in 2011 is purposefully misleading. NPE activity is way down since the American Invents Act in 2012, so the website is lying to you.

Respond

Add Comment

4. On zoning, it's free lunch economics. Promising benefits without costs, nor adherence to the laws of nature.

Restrictive zoning laws make housing unaffordable and prevent migration into high-productivity cities.
.
Restrictive zoning laws make housing unaffordable and prevent migration into high-productivity cities.
.
"Increasingly restrictive land-use regulations are driving up housing prices in many of America’s biggest, most productive cities. In Manhattan, San Francisco, and San Jose, for example, this “regulatory tax” accounts for an estimated 50 percent of housing prices. In addition to exacerbating problems of housing affordability at the local level, these regulations are undermining economic growth at the national level via a growing misallocation of the work force. Specifically, U.S. GDP is lower than it could be because people are being priced out of moving to those metro areas that disproportionately produce GDP. In addition, income inequality across metro areas and regions of the country is higher than it would be if people were free to move to where jobs and opportunities are most plentiful."

How would eliminating zoning, etc end up increasing the number of single family homes with yards?

And how is it that zoning has inhibited millions of people moving into California where the jobs are over the past few decades? Isn't the rapid increase in housing prices caused by the immigration to California metro areas to take high income jobs allowing them to bid up prices of real estate, often to reduce the number of people housed on each parcel of land?

If cheap land is what fuels high GDP growth, why aren't a dozen States won by Trump and the GOP high GDP growth areas. Are the coal mining areas low GDP growth areas because of restrictive land use laws and excessive zoning? Are former rust belt cities in decline because of restrictive land use law, tough zoning laws?

I find it ironic that those who blame zoning, etc for high real estate prices attack policies to promote high density cities by eliminating the real estate costs of infrastructure like roads, highways, by replacing cars with public transit, walking, biking, and small lots in favor of public parks.

The greatest irony is California has lots of affordable housing. You just can't afford to go back and forth to the jobs in California, thanks to laws like Prop 13 and 218. Better that Howard Jarvis be blamed for high housing costs because it pretty much insures that anything needed to increase the supply of housing requires a two-thirds vote of the existing residents, who are likely to refuse to fund higher taxes that will increase the number of people competing for real estate in their community. A higher price and taxes for something you intend to hold onto for decades, is not attractive to most people.

Tanstaafl.

You can't get something for nothing. Eliminating zoning will not reduce the desire of rich people to buy up land and reduce the number of people living on it, if the land is desirable to rich people. Eliminating zoning will not increase the infrastructure needed to support more people living and working in a region.

Eliminating zoning does not eliminate the laws of nature.

Respond

Add Comment

I'm going to just repeat my statement that if you think women and men are enemies, you're destined to have a really unhappy romantic life. Unless you're a lesbian. Or gay.

it would be nice if men and women just thought of other men and women as people and not diplomatic representatives of their sex.

Yeah. I wonder how people start wrong. Raised in broken homes, without reference to normal (responsibile) men and women?

My parents were fairly unemotional (Lutheran), which did set me back half a step. Not the American mean. But I found a practical partner (Buddhist).

It starts with collectivist thinking. If people are members of groups first and individuals second then they are responsible for the actions of their group, and are now positively obligated to stop other members of that group from doing whatever evil thing they are supposedly doing. Like not having sex with "omegas".

I question your timeline. Or your causality.

I would say people have to come from a bad family background, with no intergenerational stability, to look for belonging in a questionable group.

Why the heck would you say that? ISIS is full of middle class engineers

Interesting question. Why isn't their family finding them a nice girl? Bad ratios with rich-man polygamy?

Bin Laden had five, by some accounts six, wives.

Now there is a society with an authentic "incel" problem.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah, I don't see what family background has to do with it. I don't think there's necessarily any connection between lack of family cohesion and adherence to a tribal group. After all tribes are sort of (very) extended families. Sometimes they might be substitutes for families but sometimes they might literally be extended families. Ethnic and race based nationalism is more like the latter, while religion is more like the former. People can form identity groups around any collective unifying characteristic, whether it involves genetic relationships or not. Christian conservatives from stable families are certainly not immune to thinking about themselves and others as members of collectives in which they share moral responsibility and blame for the actions of other members.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I was watching something the other day where there was a college protest against a gay man. He asked what was the problem and these young people spoke as if they were afraid to walk outside for fear of being attacked. There was systemic and widespread danger, and they were visibly shaken and afraid.

Someone like this as your professor or instructor would do that to an impressionable mind.

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe Proud Derek should describe his broken home, and how it led him to support Americans asking Canada to bend over.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

5. For what it's worth, the one time I was in a car crash, as a passenger, I thought we had stopped.

And then I marveled as the passenger window exploded in slow motion.

It's true.

As opposed to mountain bike crashes, where you only have time in the air to think 'this will be bad' and then Bam!

Respond

Add Comment

Eight seconds passes very slowly for really good rodeo riders.

Respond

Add Comment

Interesting article, I had not heard of this CFF concept before. Time seeming to go slow when you are in crash always seemed likely to be a memory thing - when you experience a lot of things in a short period it retrospectively seems like time has slowed down. I think this works at a larger scale as well - when I go on a busy vacation after a few days it seems like I have been away for ages, when I am working in my normal routine the week seems to pass in a flash.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Why is Larry Kudlow using tax payer funded healthcare at Walter Reed? Shouldn't we let the free market do its job?

I hope Larry is doing well, and will recover, but I got to say is Larry is really really smart he is faking and this is his way out.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I didn't think it would take him dying to make me dislike Schelling. How odd. Please, stop giving money to those scammers

Respond

Add Comment

2. What Accounts for the US Ascendancy to Economic Superpower by the Early Twentieth Century?

Getting thousands of acres of virtually free land from the previous owners may have had something to do with it. After all, the land grant universities were built on the sites of what were once native American property.

Respond

Add Comment

1. In Brittney Cooper’s book Eloquent Rage, she has a chapter on her father titled “The Smartest Man I Never Knew”. It describes her contentious relationship with a father who could beat her mother on one hand and have empathy for Africa’s children on the other. She doesn’t hate him but wonders “about a world in which you can be kind to everyone but the people who belong to you”. I too had flawed men and enabling women in my life. Should I hate my grandfather for ditching my grandmother with six children? Should I hate my father for his rages? How silly.

Cooper’s feminism is distinct because it resists “the posture of burning shit down” which to her “feels decidedly masculinist”. I understand Walters’s inclination but it is ultimately destructive. Instead we should focus our energy on empowering the crouched girls, those bullied and demoralized. The sisterhood is our way forward, not the obliteration of manhood.

3. I do not know Mr. Weinstein or why he is part of IDW. The drama surrounding all this is curious. Reason backfires on even the best of us. You are not the first and will not be the last. http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason.

How enlightened was the enlightenment really? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/taking-the-enlightenment-seriously-requires-talking-about-race.html. It behooves us to begin to tell the truth instead of accepting the myths we have been handed.

Respond

Add Comment

#7 virtue signaling?

Respond

Add Comment

"3. Eric Weinstein video explains the Intellectual Dark Web."

So over this. Have fun on your Dark Web. I guess I'll notice if or when ideas pop into the light.

I guess "Intellectual Dark Web" makes for more exciting headlines than "online communities where a moderately out-of-the-mainstream intellectual movement hangs out and discusses stuff, while occasionally being called mean names by various more-in-the-mainstream intellectuals."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Re # 5 -- forget where I read it but one study into the time slowdown during crisis situations (such as a crash) suggested that what was happening is we start paying attention to a lot of details we usually ignore. Seems like much more is happening but we're aware of the "duration" so it seems that time is slowing perceptually.

Respond

Add Comment

RE 1

When are we going to face reality and start arguing from empirical observations? Lesbians like Walter wish they were men. They are trying to assume male roles due to their internal psychosis. Look no further than her photo. Every male she meets is a reminder of what she is not and of what she desparately tries to be.

The narcissistic rage we see on the paper of the WaPoo is the logical consequence of society nuking her ego at every turn.

She should be in a mental institution (well one other than the one she is already in.)

The Last Psychiatrist was prescient regarding the modern state of America. The dude called it straight up.

Respond

Add Comment

Read "Smokey" as a boy; it was in my Dad's library; still have his/my copy.
Along side "Bob, Son of Battle"; "Wild Animals I have Known"; "Camping on the Great Lakes"; "Camping on the Great River". "Tales of the Fish Patrol" and a beautifully illustrated "The Cruise of the Cachalot" have gone missing....

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment