Tuesday assorted links


1. Plausible explanation: older people haven't been as exposed to the mind virus rampant in social media. Also older people can more easily see a fugazi.

3. LOL they are going to be apologizing soon.

5. Vox -- LOL.

8. Robespierre would be proud.

Yeah, Vox is a joke. Tell you what, Vox people. How about you shadow a beat cop on the night shift? Then come back and do a write up on your actual experiences. I'm willing to bet if you're honest, you might actually come out of the experience with a little more empathy about what actual cops go through.

-5 for tribalism all around

1) It’s literally an article about an ex-cop now researcher explaining his research.

2) His research consisted of....shadowing cops from LEOs across the US.

He interviewed former cops. Not at all shadowing cops all across the US.

Try again.

It’s somewhat poorly written, but they’re addressing multiple outputs of “research” that he’s (a former cop with 20 years of exp) done. The piece begins with an anecdote from part of his research: ie shadowing cops:

Rizer tells a story about a time he observed a patrol by some officers in Montgomery, Alabama. They were called in to deal with a woman they knew had mental illness; she was flailing around and had cut someone with a broken plant pick. To subdue her, one of the officers body-slammed her against a door. Hard.

Then it goes into multiple surveys he’s done of LEOs:

Rizer, the former officer and R Street researcher, recently conducted a separate large-scale survey of American police officers. One of the questions he asked was whether they would want their children to become police officers. A majority, around 60 percent, said no — for reasons that, in Rizer’s words, “blew me away.”

FYI I think you're wrong about this... it's not "an article about an ex-cop now researcher explaining his research." The article seems to be written from the point of view of the VOX writer, who happens to cite Rizer's research just a few times in the entirety of the article.

The main of the article is clearly not from an author with any actual police experience.

I’m not implying the author is the cop:

1) It’s literally an article about an ex-cop now researcher explaining his research.

2) His research consisted of....shadowing cops from LEOs across the US.

If your point is that the author inserts his viewpoint to be the main thrust of the article instead of the research, then yes... it’s Vox.

"If your point is that the author inserts his viewpoint to be the main thrust of the article instead of the research, then yes... it’s Vox."

+1, it's hard to get past that point.

Also, a far more minor point, the author describes a libertarian think tank as conservative. Generally speaking there's a divergence between libertarians and stock conservatives with regards to policing and thus the description is inaccurate. Granted, this is Vox, so the author was probably actually ignorant of this fact.

The mentally disturbed person thrown to the ground was lucky. If it was in Fairfax County, VA (home to GMU), she could have been shot to death. Note, it only took five years before the video was released: https://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/fairfax-county-police-release-video-of-2009-police-involved-shooting/

are you referring to the mentally disturbed person who injured someone with a plant pick just before being thrown to the ground?

Yes. The killing of David Masters, btw, was the first of three shootings of unarmed citizens by the Fairfax County Police in a relatively short amount of time. Optometrist Sal Culosi was shot "accidentally" by a SWAT officer who was running with his finger on the trigger of his pistol. John Geer's hands were up and he was negotiating with other officers who did not perceive him as a threat when he was shot.

there seems to be a few details you omitted
masters was apparently mentally ill and had vandalized a business.
"An officer stood in front of the Blazer as it was stopped at Fort Hunt Road, another stood behind, and Ziants was alongside Masters, Morrogh said at the time of his ruling in January 2010. But rather than emerge from the vehicle, Masters rolled forward.
Ziants mistakenly thought the officer in front had been hit, though he had turned to walk back to his own car, and Ziants also wrongly thought Masters was reaching for a gun, Morrogh said. The prosecutor said Ziants did not have criminal intent in shooting Masters."

The bottom line is that the officer unnecessarily shot and killed Masters. The car was moving slowly; the officer's partner was not hit; Masters did not have a weapon. The officer was fired for his actions.

he had a weapon.
The weapon was a motor vehicle

#1 I would anticipate that older people are generally less pessimistic about everything. It's hard to be as dour as a modern 20 year old when there are fewer years ahead than there are behind. It also explains a lot about economic fundamentals too.

#5 That piece literally starts, is filled with, and ends with assumptions piggybacked on 21st century buzzwords that beg the question. Not good. Not relevant. Not representative. And certainly not even remotely close to revealing anything 'general' about policing behavior in the USA. Another miss Tyler.

"when there are fewer years ahead than there are behind"

Which is ironic because as a 30-something, the same is starting to become true of my career. These are my prime income-increasing years. I need to keep getting raises (and keep my job) so that I can eventually be one of those not-pessimistic-retirees. I'm already playing catching from graduating into the GFC and now I'm expected to put my career advancement on hold for #staythefhome? No thanks.

That was precisely the point of my 'economic fundamentals' comment.

The 'good years behind' vs. the 'better years ahead' for an entire cohort is being squeezed ever further into a smaller and smaller segment of your life where your earning potential during that critical phase is A) supercritical to your ability to continue making jumps and B) inability to 'make the jump' will ultimately strand you - even put you at risk - for the remainder of your time. Now that sounds pessimistic, but people in this cohort, myself included, can also see more money than they've ever seen during this period, even wildly out of proportion to the older generation. It simply needs to be quenched by the realization that it may be the maximum from here on out, and the time period you're going to be blessed with it is definitely finite, so plan accordingly.

The level of prosperity the baby-boomers have enjoyed in the USA will not - will never - be enjoyed again without a commensurate political, economic, and military victory of the magnitude of the second world war. Period.

Apparently, some missed Harvard geneticist George Church tell 60 Minutes last December about genetically reversing aging in humans:

"That [age reversal] veterinary product might be a couple years away. And then that takes another 10 years to get through the human clinical trials."

Sort of shakes up the life-cycle hypothesis.

Trick is knowing when to stop. :-)

Do you ever keep track of these predictions over time? Anti-aging treatments seem like they have been just 15 years away since about 1995. It may have been Karl Popper who argued the business of predicting scientific advances is nonsense because the work required to accurately predict the year when a breakthrough will become available (no confidence interval, even!) is the same work that is required to actually come up with the breakthrough and scale it up.

" It's hard to be as dour as a modern 20 year old when there are fewer years ahead than there are behind. "

You're right, but there's another factor in play.
My dad isn't overly worried about COVID because he realizes that, at 78, COVID won't significantly shorten his lifespan. He's close to the end and not getting COVID isn't going to change that. Which isn't to say that he's being foolish about things. He's just not worried about them.

But another strong factor is that once you've racked up a few decades of life you start to put things in perspective. Sure, COVID sucks. But then, so did being homeless. Having a baby I couldn't afford to feed anymore because my employer found a legal way to cut my pay by about 25% wasn't great. A year of unemployment wasn't what I'd call a lot of laughs, either. Point is, you start to realize that life sucks sometimes, you can't do anything about it, and that if you make yourself miserable every time life sucks you mainly end up being miserable all the time. That and once you realize that a bunch of sucky things in life are survivable you're less inclined to believe that the sky is, indeed, falling.

I don't know that age brings wisdom, necessarily, but it does bring perspective.

#8 - Wow, I'm guessing this person would like to give them gold stars and maybe shepherd them to a new part of the country?

He beat McCarthy by 46 names...[ https://speakola.com/political/joseph-mccarthy-i-have-in-my-hand-west-virginia-1950 ]

"maybe shepherd them to a new part of the country"

Why not? After all, Concentration Camps are – as the name indicates – good at facilitating one's cognitive abilities.

"How does one explain this apparent anomaly? Why would scholars support a [...] movement that attacks the very foundations of their professional careers?"

See, with better thinking skills, they would self-correct their degenerate science. What a clean solution it is, pure, final one might say.

#5 the "good and highly relevant piece" is one of the worst articles I've ever read. Not even "not even wrong." Vox journalist contends that dumb-dumb policeman dumbly thinks "the world is a profoundly dangerous place." It is so not dangerous that the hundreds of urban murders that have taken place since the police have stepped down in the wake of the riots totally didn't happen. Sometimes I wonder whether "Straussian" is supposed to be code for "delusional."

In this particular case, "Straussian" is code for "whooosh".

I presume Tyler's real, esoteric, "Straussian" message is that academics perceive themselves as a besieged, misunderstood, and unappreciated minority.

I particularly liked, “The mission and practice of policing is not aligned with what we know about how to keep people from acting on the kinds of implicit biases and mental shortcuts,” he says. “You could design a job where that’s not how it works. We have not chosen to do that for policing.”

Let's say instead of policing it's daycare, and children every now and again are randomly killed due to 'bad apples'. How long before we come up with a daycare system that ensures 'bad apples' can't result in dead babies?

Looks to me like the same problem of police killing an apparently disproportionate number of black citizens. Not only are the police afflicted with structural racism, but the rest of the country seems prone to favor deaths of children in day care :


Police shootings by race are roughly in line with arrest rates by race. I don't think the main problem here is the police being extra eager to shoot blacks. It's quite plausible that their training and equipment lead them to shoot more people than they should, though.

The Washington Post database shows something like 1/4 of the people shot by police were mentally ill. My guess is that most policemen aren't really trained for how do deal with those folks, and they may not have the manpower to show up in enough force to deal with a violent crazy person without using a gun.

We haven't done that for the much greater problem of medical errors killing about 300k a year. Probably for the same reason as police, there are lots of tradeoffs that make improvement difficult.

Yeah, could be ageism, or perhaps, illness-ism.

Defund the medical establishment! :-(

"How long before we come up with a daycare system that ensures 'bad apples' can't result in dead babies?"

Roughly forever. Give or take. Because such a system doesn't exist and can't exist. Now, you may think I'm being pedantic in making a distinction between "can't result in dead babies" (which is impossible) and "reduces the risk of babies dying", but that's actually the crux of the problem.

The whole issue is one of risk management. You can't prevent police abuses. Can't be done, it's impossible, so it shouldn't be a goal. After all, "perfect" is the enemy of "good". But what we can do is ask ourselves what our risk tolerance is (zero is not the answer), what we can do to achieve that level of risk, and at what level is the effort to attain a certain risk reduction no longer worth the effort. The last one being particularly important.

Problem is that these questions will never be addressed, much less answered, as long as we are clamoring for the emotionally-driven impossibility of "zero police abuses". Our desire for the unattainable is what will prevent us from solving the problem.

#8 https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/joseph-mccarthys-list

In my opinion our universities, which are among the most important American institutions, are thoroughly infested with Trumpists. I have in my hand one hundred and three cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Trumpists or certainly loyal to Trump, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our educational system.

Are you or have you ever been a Trumpist?

I'm not sure the Maoists now will make the same mistakes that the liberals (in the classic sense) did then and stop trying to uproot the entrenched communists looking to overthrow the system.

8. If there are over a hundred professors in academia (in addition to another 100+ economists who publicly supported aspects of Trump’s economic policy not included in this paper’s count) that are willing to publicly support Trump, that shows that pro-Trump views are not in fact censored or “cancelled,” even in academia, but are in fact widely available and even broadcasted to the public. The fact that some people do not find these views persuasive, argue against these views using intemperate language, or do not allow these views to be broadcast in some of their private spaces, does not mean these views are being censored.

103 out of how many? If that represents, say, 1% of university professors, that would certainly argue against your conclusion.

How many Trump supporters have been canceled? What's the ratio? If 80% of Trump supporters get fired, that again would argue against your conclusion.

I'm pulling random numbers out here; I have no idea. The point is, raw numbers out of context don't tell you much.

Underrepresentation can have many causes; I don’t think it’s reflective of censorship. There are many views that are underrepresented in academia for reasons that have nothing to do with censorship. For example, according to polls, 40% Americans are creationists (https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx). But I doubt you’ll see many creationists in academia, even though there don’t seem to be any allegations that people are being fired for being creationists.

Firing academics for their political views would indeed be censorship, but it must not be that prevalent if we have hundreds of academics willing to publicly take the position that is allegedly being censored.

Keep denying the evidence as much as you like. I work in academia, I am a professor and chair of a major department in a research university on the East cost, and I can tell you there is actual censorship, combined with
fear of retribution for non-conform speech, and that they are a major determinant of what scholars say publicly and what the general public hear coming from Academia.

There is also, obviously, a political biais in the way academics are hired. Not in mathematics, not in hard science, but certainly in social sciences and in the humanities. The subject and the conclusions of your research in these fields is explicitly used in committees to infer your political
opinions, which in turn are explicitly used to decide hiring and
promotion. There are also, in all fields, obviously and explicitly, racial biais.

+1, thanks for speaking up.

what do you think are the possible uses for mandatory diversity statements in academia other than as a ideological filter?

First, you have to get hired. Firing isn't the mechanism For keeping colleges politically to the left of the rest of the country.

Initial search suggests approximately 1.5 million professors in the US. Much less than 1% represented on this list.

-1, massive logic fail

" that shows that pro-Trump views are not in fact censored or “cancelled,” even in academia,"

First, Just because every pro-Trump view is suppressed, doesn't mean that there's not an attempt to suppress pr-Trump POVs.

Second, the "Cancellation" isn't specific to pro-Trump POVs. Plenty of people are being punished or cancelled for having anything that's not a Woke POV.

Should be: just because Not Every pro-Trump POV.

-1 reading fail. I said that pro-Trump views are not being censored, not that no one attempts to censor such views. Perhaps some people are attempting to censor pro-Trump views, but those attempts are clearly unsuccessful as seen by the fact that hundreds of academics are willing to openly and publicly speak out in support of Trump. If a view is censored, that means people are too afraid to express that view. People are not afraid to express pro-Trump views.

I wouldn’t say 103 is “hundreds”. Censor is probably the wrong word.

Probably closer to “deny tenure” if the wrong opinion is expressed.

speech codes & bias response teams would meet the definition of censorship

"Perhaps some people are attempting to censor pro-Trump views, but those attempts are clearly unsuccessful as seen by the fact that hundreds of academics are willing to openly and publicly speak out in support of Trump."

No, that's just wrong. You are committing an All or Nothing logical fallacy.

You can have suppression of ideas going on and still have it not be 100% complete. Just because it's not 100% complete doesn't mean it's not happening.

"If a view is censored, that means people are too afraid to express that view."

That's not what censoring/cancelling means at all. Cancelling Ben Sapiro at California State University doesn't mean he was afraid to speak his view. It means that there was an attempt to suppress his platform of speech. Indeed, he showed up anyway, and had to be escorted out by police because of threatened violence from the Left wing crowd.

same thing happened to charles murray at a liberal eastern college
and a professor accompanying sustained a head injury

It seems that there is what Scott Alexander dubbed a motte-and-bailey fallacy here. People claim that cancel culture is pervasive and people are afraid to speak out in favor of Trump for fear of losing their jobs. This would indeed be alarming if it were true. But when I point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that many people do in fact speak publicly in favor of Trump, cancel culture gets redefined down to mean Ben Shapiro didn’t get to speak at a particular university (but remains one of the most influential people in the world). That does not seem problematic to me at all. No one has the right to speak at whatever platform they want, particularly if they have and use plenty of alternative platforms to reach millions of people and make millions of dollars.

Shapiro was invited to speak. he was prevented from speaking by violent threats
why doesn't he have the right to speak at a university after he is invited to speak? what gives violent protestors the "right" to prevent him
from speaking?

Colleges enabling the heckler's veto is a problem, but it's a *different* problem than cancel culture.

-cancel culture is a broad term that is inclusive of the hecklers veto.
-"hecklers veto is however an obfuscatory euphemism for violent threats and wreckoning stuff. ala the Shapiro example
-hecklers veto is mostly just yelling over a speaker
-censorship is the end result of of cancel culture, hecklers veto, arson &wreckoning stuff/people
-zuasists sophistry is that canceling Shapiro at a leftist (not liberal) university is not the same as censorship. it is censorship.

It absolutely is true that "cancel culture is pervasive and people are afraid to speak out in favor of Trump for fear of losing their jobs." Your weak argument against this is more proof that it is true and I have updated accordingly.

You deliberately twist 103 (a tiny number) to be "hundreds". You ignore the survey evidence and explicit statements from academics that they are afraid to speak their views. You seize on an attempt to censor the last remaining hold-outs as proof that censorship does not exist. Keeping in mind that academia has many tenured professors who are maybe the most difficult people in America to cancel. You interpret 103 people who some researchers inferred expressed some opinion supporting Trump to be broadcasting their views openly. Astounding logic fail on your part.

we think you might be talking to somebody besides Mycroft and got your thread twisted

That Zaua for you. Nice guy, smart. Hell of a lot nicer and smarter to deal with a lot of MR commentators (probably including me). But also openly "No enemies to the left, under any circumstances" and largely by inference from his posts "No enemies in China, under any circumstances", and apparently pretty willing to make some arguments that he probably doesn't really believe or find credible as long as they suit those ends.

(There are a few of these libertarians on here who by 2020 have unfortunaetly devolved to being mere economic anti-nationalists, who will take a position that is simply contrarian on every issue against Trump/economic nationalism, and remain almost totally silent on libertarian issues of deregulation and smaller government *except* where it's deregulating things that probably largely benefit native working classes or "the nation". Never almost speak up against Progressive expansions of government and regulation, or Progressive/Woke politicisation and takeover of the public sphere. Unlike someone like Joel who seems pretty much a consistent libertarian in every respect someone whose views I might have wrongly laughed at as naive a few years ago, but who now seems to me to have overall integrity and consistency of belief that is admirable in these times).

An example of a Zaua position is that he'll somewhat half-heartedly defend mass sterilization of Chinese women, which may fall particularly severely on minorities due to different demographic transition, as ultimately necessary for the greater good of Chinese nation, whatever the impact on the individual freedom to pursue a larger family... but he'll decry limiting travel on student visas during a frigging international pandemic as a terrible abuses of freedom. It's hard to imagine such a position being pursued from a viewpoint of consistent libertarianism, but easy if you model the motivating principle as simply more about being anti-American economic nationalism and developmental protectionism and pro-Chinese economic nationalism and developmental protectionism.

My respect for Zaua dropped appreciably when I read those posts defending Chinese policies in favor of coerced / forced sterilization and incarceration.

Clearly they are suppressed to such a degree that someone can write an academic paper expressing astonishment at their very existence.

There are about 1.5 million college faculty in the U.S. and you think that 103 professors is somehow significant?

Two of the colleges cited in article as being significant are Claremont and Hillsdale, which are tiny outposts in the land of academic wokedom.

The fact that there is any rational person willing to publicly express a viewpoint and does not suffer consequences for it shows that the viewpoint is not censored. Do you think you could find 100 academics willing to 100 academics willing to say publicly oppose Xi Jinping in China, or who would publicly support communism at the height of McCarthyism? That’s what censorship is.

And the fact that conservative schools exist again shows that there is no censorship because conservative professors have the alternative venue of conservative universities if they are not able to teach at liberal universities. If conservative views were being censored in America, such conservative universities could not exist. By analogy, if Salon refuses to run conservative writers, that is not censorship because conservative writers can work for plenty of other publications.

"Do you think you could find 100 academics willing to 100 academics willing to say publicly oppose Xi Jinping in China"

If your claim is that the Federal government is not actively censoring Conservatives, then yes, to that point you are correct.

The only way censorship can be maintained in the long run is through government mandates. If schools were all letting progressive dogmas get in the way of education, they would gradually lose prestige and status in the job market and among peers, allowing competing universities not beholden to such dogma to gain. Yet US universities retain their high degree of prestige, even compared to global universities that presumably do not follow these progressive dogmas, and remain highly attractive to international students who presumably aren’t coming to learn progressive dogmas. This suggests that progressive dogmas do not in fact play an all-encompassing role in universities, at least to the point where they would interfere with the universities’ core missions of scholarship and teaching.

The Catholic Church maintained censorship for thousands of years, I doubt any government mandates were a deciding factor.

I fail to see how progressive dogmas would interfere with rent seeking activities whatsoever. In fact, it would appear to be the opposite. As the US moves to a low trust rent-seeking society, anti-reality dogmas will have less and less of a feedback mechanism to correct them.

Yeah, but the Church was a highly liberal institution, compared to the Left of any generation. :-)

"if they are not able to teach at liberal universities. "
that meets the definition of censorship

You conveniently switch between being "censored" and "cancelled." Winnie the Pooh censors. American academia cancels, and a handful of colleges open to conservative views does not gainsay the existence of a general atmosphere in academia that has a very strong chilling effect against uttering anything that could be construed as blasphemy or heresy against woke dogma.

censor and cancel in the university setting have very similar meanings
because the "suppression" is done by administrators, academics (often
postmodern gender theorists and their ilk) &student groups.
it is not random suppression

"The fact that there is any rational person willing to publicly express a viewpoint and does not suffer consequences for it shows that the viewpoint is not censored. "

Simply false. It only means that the censorship is not completely effective.

"Do you think you could find 100 academics willing to publicly support communism at the height of McCarthyism?"

I don't know. I think it's quite possible.

"That people are willing to publicly denounce repression means that repression does not exist. It doesn't exist where people don't denounce it, either."

Such is libertarian thought, Zaua style?

8. Professors, like anyone, are allowed to believe in what they want. But there is an implicit line between "belief" and "delusion". At this point, unwavering support is a major flaw for a Professor or anyone in a managerial/decision-making role. Skepticism is healthy.

8.the knitting study (103 names!) suggests skepticism is heresy.

"criticism of the academy has gone well beyond the debated policies of affirmative action and political correctness to the very status of expert knowledge itself, questioning what is legitimate knowledge. Claims of “false data” and “alternative facts” parade in the public" arena..blah blah
bizarro sociology world

"At this point, unwavering support is a major flaw "

Whoever said 'unwavering' support?

"Skepticism is healthy."

I heartily agree. If only academia did likewise. Would it be healthy/safe for an academic's career to express public skepticism of Black Lives Matter? Of the diversity & inclusion initiatives at their institution? Of the concepts of intersectionality or 'institutional racism'? Of climate change? Of the rules of evidence and due process in the campus star chambers that rule on sexual assault allegations?

8. There are about 700,000 f/t post-secondary teachers in this country. He has identified 103 who publicly support the elected President. From all over the country. You can get that many signatures from faculty at a single institution in favor of some tawdry and malicious cause du jour.

#5 "The number of police killings across the country has been falling for decades; there’s been a 90 percent drop in ambush killings of officers since 1970." Dumb cops. When they treat the threat as a threat and police killings go down, they continue to treat threats as threats. Fox Butterfield anyone?

There's a discussion in the middle of #8 about GMU and the heteronomous influence of the Koch brothers and business interests that doesn't seem entirely relevant to the question of Trumpism in the article. Part of this is plainly partisan social science writing that is vaguely reminiscent of concerns from (among other places) https://philarchive.org/archive/ALGRAT.

As someone largely unfamiliar with Bourdieu's thinking and how sociologists use it, I wonder if activism that skews left is similarly a heteronomous influence on academic fields or not.

"Officers are conditioned to see themselves as constantly in danger and that the only way to guarantee survival is to dominate the citizens they’re supposed to protect."

I don't see how they can not have such an attitude as long as certain drugs that so much of the young male population want to use are illegal. Too many young males hate the police because they do not want to busted. Young men talk about narks as if they are foreign spys.

The except below is what I call school teacher behavior:

"Because officers are hyper-attuned to the risks of attacks, they tend to believe that they must always be prepared to use force against them — sometimes even disproportionate force. Many officers believe that, if they are humiliated or undermined by a civilian, that civilian might be more willing to physically threaten them.

Scholars of policing call this concept “maintaining the edge,” and it’s a vital reason why officers seem so willing to employ force that appears obviously excessive when captured by body cams and cellphones.

“To let down that edge is perceived as inviting chaos, and thus danger,” Moskos says. "

I don't think police need to have this attitude but teachers do so maybe they do. A teacher who losses that "edge" will be torn to shreds, figuratively.

Legalize all victimless crime. Work incrementally to improve police systems.

Life would be easier under 'No harm, no foul'.

What happens when teachers don't maintain the upper hand. https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/public-educations-dirty-secret/

Also this is the best example of systemic racism I've seen,

8. I had to take the old dog to the vet today. Sad. But on the way back I saw a yard festooned with signs. "No justice no peace" on a $5M house is slightly weird, but I think I also saw "science is violence"

2020 has gotten too weird

And five months still to go!

5. The never should have taken Andy Griffith out of rotation.

#8 is an not-at-all-veiled threat.

It's threats like these that force Tyler to write with 15 qualifications before he dares write anything true-but-wrongthink.

David L. Swartz - Didn't he have a role in Animal Farm?

Is science violence?

That “science is violence” sign doesn’t mean what you think it means. I believe it’s in reference to this:


The underlying thesis being Objectivity itself is violence, to include science

Special place in hell for diversity trainers.

The reason I quoted it is that it might have more than one meaning.

I Googled the author and saw no indication that he’s out to threaten Trump supporters. He hasn’t written any overtly leftist stuff that I could find. To the contrary, he wrote a paper in 2008 titled “Social closure in American elite higher education.” Seems he is genuinely interested in diversity in academia.

Long time ago. In 2008, Obama was against gay marriage.

"How do they justify their support of Trump?" is a wife beater frame.

What climate change "scientists" have done in in the name of science deserves scorn. They literally changed the official record of the underlying data of the past to make it cooler. Check out "Smoking Gun Of Temperature Fraud" on Youtube.

Well gosh, is this the conservative view?

Or does anyone right of center want to step up?

Well gosh, is this the conservative view?

Don't be intentionally obtuse, it's obnoxious. Is "science is violence" and "Objectivity is white supremacy" the liberal view? No, it's not.

Outgroup homogeneity bias is a more viral illness than Corona-chan apparently.

It was a simple question, and rather than answer it, you decided to go with tribal protection.

Thus confirming the thrust of the question.

No, that's a tactic of Boomer level stupidity. It's not even my tribe you Boomer, I'm addressing your incoherence and lack of logical arguments. Unless you're claiming the tribe of Stupid Boomer who doesn't understand the outgroup homogeneity fallacy.

People of all types say stupid things, like you do every day. Individuals saying stupid things who happen to be part of X group should not be assumed to be representative of X group. That's such an obvious logic fail it's almost unfathomable that you could spout so much anti-outgroup idiotic vitriol.

In other circumstances that's called racism or sexism. Or ageism I guess, but meh.

As I said.

You could have simply endorsed climate science. That would have been very.

Instead you wanted to attack the idea that anyone could not support climate science while not supporting climate science!

What do you call it when the historical record is falsified, contrary scientists are sued in court, and climate models fail completely at prediction?

Settled science.

Are you seriously suggesting an entire (global) scientific field conspired to "falsify" some "historic record?"

Conspiracy is a big word. I do think that there are scientific and political entrepreneurs, plural, self-coordinated over time, out there who have a good racket going -- for themselves.

To the extent that warming is a real danger, instituting a carbon tax and letting the market work, would be all it takes. Yet,this simple solution, which would work, is not propagated by the warmers. Why? Cause it ain't about the warming; it's about gaining power! :-)

"Warmers" .. what an idiot.

On the carbon tax, is your own commitment real or is it a canard?

Are you and the GOP out there campaigning for it? Or is this yet another cycle of you demanding the Democrats do it, while you oppose them as much as you can?

(I asked some time ago for a link to the GOP climate plan.)

Why don't you go to the video I talked about, https://youtu.be/-JkEEq3k8yM there and come back and help me see the light?

It's only 11 mins and then you could correct my wrongthink.

Even if some people are due to conscious non-conscious bias exaggerating the harm from CO2 accumulation, isn't the best strategy to get on board with promoting a tax on net emissions of CO2, to form coalition against those, if any, just want "poser?"

3. This might relate to idyllic 50's television as well.

Eddie Haskell as moral warning.

4. The idea of a 3 year timespan for this seems crazy. Not in the sense of vaccine development. 3 years seems more realistic than 1.

Rather, in the sense of how long people will tolerate heavy-handed regulations. The slow spread of the virus across different regions has kept anxiety high. If the virus burns out in the South, as it has in the northeast, I don't think they'll be able to keep it up. People want to get back to work. Even people who are anxious about the virus want their kids to go to school in the Fall. They don't like masks.

I expect we'll be back to normal by November, regardless of medical advances.

Regulation is one thing, behavior is another. The lockdowns were implemented under the condition that most people were more than willing to curtail their own activity, and so were happy to see it enforced on others. Those conditions will re-occur periodically for a while.


Ahh the social science where conclusions and theories come first, supporting evidence last and mumbo jumbo lingo in between.

Sociology is the social proof that we let too many non intellectuals into the academy. Once they realize their extreme intellectual inferiority, it’s no wonder they run with open arms into Neo Marxist race politics. It allows them to speak a mumbo jumbo language that nobody of importance takes seriously enough to understand.

“White fragility or intersectionality” are code words for “I wasn’t smart enough to do old school Hegelian dialectic so I went into color by numbers race politics.”

One of the

#1 Older folks have seen worse than this, so no need for panic. I'm early 50s and haven't seen nearly what they have and I think people are being overwrought. This is what ignorance of history brings you.

#8 is orwellian as all get out. I agree with andrew that it's a barely veiled threat.

And the bullet points, talk about gish gallop?

Speaking of #5, it's not bad, but it's not totally good either. I mean, at least twice it links here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/) with statements like:

> are arrested and roughed up by cops at wildly disproportionate rates, relative to both their overall share of the population and the percentage of crimes they commit.


> While policing has changed dramatically since then, there’s clear evidence of continued structural racism in American policing...

And that's fine, except the link is a washington post opinion piece that list hundreds of links that make often weak claims. For example:

> A 2019 study of 11,000 police stops over about four weeks in the District found that while black people make up 46 percent of the city’s population, they accounted for 70 percent of police stops, and 86 percent of stops that didn’t involve traffic enforcement.

Suppose for a moment that blacks in DC are lower-ses and have an elevated odds ratio of violent crime -- shouldn't any study control using some objective measure like (for example) death-by-murder rate or death-by-driver-miles rate? Of course, those studies do exist (hi Roland Fryer) but there's not a hundred of them.

Anyways, it always smells a little when an POV necessarily uses bad links to back up claims -- but it's ok because #5 has redeeming value as well, e.g. Dinkheller video.

At the end of the day, it should be obvious what the issue is: the cops are not held accountable. Qualified Immunity, civil asset forfeiture, loose use-of-force laws are the problem. Increasing the cost to police officers individually for engaging in discretionary use of force is obviously the way forward. Pray we don't subject them to diversity training and pretend it's problem solved.

Agreed that this is not even the best piece I’ve read recently on this subject. The Baffler has an excellent piece, with solid statistical data, up now: https://thebaffler.com/latest/brutal-force-al-gharbi

#1 is obvious, right? Right?

#1 I for one am not at all surprised that Americans over age 70 have a more realistic perspective of the risks associated with this virus, given that at various points in time, they've lived in a world where seat belts were optional and drunk driving was common; smallpox, polio, measles, and TB still existed, HIV/AIDS emerged, and the world saw three flu pandemics; the US fought multiple foreign wars with conscription; 40%+ of Americans used tobacco regularly; nuclear proliferation dominated geopolitics; and a number of other risks that carried a very real risk of death to them or their immediate friends and family. This is all illustrated by the fact that the US life expectancy is now 15% greater than it was in 1950. Bottom line, Americans used to be exposed to much greater risk.

Contrast that with my demographic in the survey (18-34), which really hasn't lived through any realistic fatal risks in our lifetimes, has no appreciation for such risks, and pretends like this is our D-Day. We're just not a very resilient generation.

"which really hasn't lived through any realistic fatal risks in our lifetimes"

Clearly you have never been referred to by the wrong pronoun.

After age 72, you know you're flying through the asteroid belt. One of those suckers is gonna hit you and soon. Heart attack, stroke, dementia, cancer, Parkinson's. Now add covid-19 to the list. You make your peace with this knowledge and get on with life.

Most people that have made it to 70 actually have pretty decent odds of making to 80. Just looking at the SSA actuarial life table, 70-year-old males and females have 70% and 78% probabilities of making it to 80, respectively. Those numbers seem surprisingly high to me, but I guess those who have made it to 70 already lead healthier lives and have good genes.

Your 80s though are where that all seems to go out the window. Women have a 46% probability of making it to 90, while men only have a 36% probability.

I was talking to an elderly friend recently. She said that in April 1945 she was, as a young girl, travelling home from Washington to Britain. Two of the ships in the convoy were torpedoed.

A while ago I asked an older colleague whether he'd ever visited the Isle of Man. Yes, he said, very exciting. The machine gunner on the ferry had shot at a German bomber.

A more realistic assessment is that having a forward life expectancy of 65 years is different to having 10 or 15 years.

That's an input, not an assessment. An assessment is determining expected years lost based on probability of death.

Someone with 65 years left has an approximate fatality rate of 0.05% per the CDC, and it's probably a lot less because that's based on 0-49 age bracket. That's 0.03 expected years lost.

Someone with 10 to 15 years left has an approximate fatality rate of 1.3%. That's 0.195 expected years lost.

Obviously there's no such thing as "expected years lost" but the thinking behind, "I have so much life left, I should avoid this very, very small risk" is not a realistic assessment.

Not to mention, both of these people have a much higher probabilities of dying from any cause other than COVID in the next year, per actuarial charts. Some ages are roughly 4-5x more likely to
die in the next year from anything other than COVID.

1. I live in an area with lots of seniors, many widows and widowers. What I've noticed is that they have continued with their lives during the pandemic. Not sure of the best explanation. Fewer years to lose if they die doesn't impress me. A good if not perfect explanation is that seniors don't have broad social networks: they no longer have jobs, so what's the largest network for the working age population doesn't exist for them. They cherish the social networks they have left, whether it's the network of friends meeting for coffee or breakfast, or the network of grandchildren and great grandchildren. People with broad and growing and contracting networks don't cherish them like seniors do. It's rational. Loneliness is for losers.

4., 6. The coronavirus is like global warming: drip, drip, drip. Modern man and woman prefer their crises in one fell swoop, not drip, drip, drip. I'm reminded of The Turn of the Screw. Now that's scary. Maybe one day someone will write The Turn of the Pandemic.

Brazil’s President Bolsonaro Tests Positive for Coronavirus

He is faring pretty well and is perfectly able to discharge his duties. The continuity of government operations has been provided for. The situation is under control.

Yeah but it's just a little flu.

#5 Every single policeman (over 15) in the photographs were white men. Given the demographics of police in the United States, you'd expect about 5 of them to not be white men. Chance of that is about 1/500. Don't trust the article.

Yes, you are being lied to.

5. “ To understand how the police think about themselves and their job, I interviewed more than a dozen former officers and experts on policing. ”

Well, then. Irrefutable.

Didn’t read, but: “more than a dozen” = 13. 14 would have been “more than a baker’s dozen.” And: “former officers and experts on policing.” It’s very easy to pre-select the experts who conform to your point of view. And the two or three “former cops” are likely disgruntled former cops. Just parsing a sentence.

Is there an undated ling for #8 ? Thanks a lot.

#8. The author makes it sound like it's a crime for a professor to support Trump. 103 out of how many professors in the pool?

I have found #8 -- behind a gate, unfortunately.

While perhaps the abstract, and the context we live in, may make it seem the author is after Trumpist professors, this is actually a genuine paper trying to understand what is big paradox in the Bourdieusian framework
that the authors adopt: how can some academics support a politician who attacks the very institutions (university) that make their living?

In his own words: "[...] a certain number of academics supported Trump during his presidential campaign and continue to do so in spite of the political attack on the very institutional base of their careers. How does one explain this apparent anomaly? Why would scholars support a presidential candidate and populist movement that attack the very foundations of their professional careers—expert knowledge and science?"

Of course, as a Bourdieusian, the author has no knowledge of what science really is.

Is the WHO science?

No, it's an international political body.

I don't think SCIENCE(tm) would insist that Taiwan doesn't exist. Nor would it end any interview in which Taiwan is mentioned.

By your fails, we will know you.

"Don't call us anti-science." "Don't say we are anti-intellectual."

(Trump withdraws from the WHO)

"Don't say we are the problem."

This definitely relates to #8 and the reaction here to it. You want Trump & co. to get a free ride, even as you invoke your sense of victimization.

Punting again on any kind of responsibility.

"Don't call us anti-science." "Don't say we are anti-intellectual."

Who's we? This is outgroup homogeneity bias at it's most insipid and Boomer level stupid. Address the person directly, there's no need to be a partisan moron and try to taint by incorrect association. That's what a child would do, it's f'ing cringe from a 70 year old.

You want Trump & co. to get a free ride, even as you invoke your sense of victimization.

I don't particularly care if Trump gets a free ride for anything. I certainly don't care if his "Co" gets a free ride for anything. I didn't vote for him and don't plan on voting for him this year. Buying into your insanity is on a different axis altogether.

The WHO is not a science organization, it's an international political organization. It claims Taiwan does not exist. It stops short any interview in which the interviewer asks about the Taiwan approach to the virus.

Since you're not literally retarded, I assume you can understand that the WHO is primarily a political organization, addressing the political concerns of its stakeholders rather than publishing the unvarnished truth.

"The WHO is not a science organization, it's an international political organization."

Pure. Trumpian. Insanity.

It's both, but we want it to function better, not worse.

but W.H.O was more science less politics when china had less political control over W.H.O

Mostly agree, certainly not simply a scientific organisation, because it does not pursue pure scientific research, without regard to policy.

It's specifically an attempt to make a functioning global public health authority which issues policy. But it's obviously in practice subject to fairly corrupt political processes, as more corrupt countries have economic power and influence within it. The policy it issued in this pandemic at all stages seems largely fairly poor and not just because of "Fog of War" but actively being corrupted by attempts to maintain Chinese cooperation.

I would venture it's probably worth liberal democracies retrenching on a sort of independent, shared set of public health institutions. In which we could probably benefit from an outsized voice for Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, tentatively strong performers in this crisis who are not ideologically corrupted by baizuo nonsense.

Perhaps retain cordial relations with the WHO as a residual body monitoring health policy and emerging threats in the developing world, but any sort of body that takes cues from China is not going to be fit for purpose. Decoupling our international institutions from China, since China is unwilling to be a rule-taker within them...

(Of course you may say this is doomed to fail, as "public choice" / "trust" would simply determine outcomes in future pandemics.)

Btw, in the wider context of the argument here, you're absolutely right. Whether WHO is well-characterised as a political organisation. Withdrawing from WHO and criticising it is absolutely not an indicator of being "anti-science" at all. Silly and funny to suggest it is.

" how can some academics support a politician who attacks the very institutions (university) that make their living?"
the author of the paper seems to miss the point that leftists are both attacking & wreckoning these very same academic institutions

Revolutions eat their children. I suppose the Leftist losers will qualify for Social Security this time around. :-)

8. Lets be charitable and assume that the author is not compiling a list he will then release and threaten the careers of the 103 professors he cites. That that is not his intention. Fine.

But the paper itself reads like ... the author, fundamentally, lacks an understanding of why people believe what they believe. He applies his personal framework to others beliefs and then is like, how could anyone possibly believe ... without understanding that different people approach problems in a different way and with a different framework. He doesn't even attempt to try to understand that.

I suppose college as an institution is disappearing anyhow with the next year or so being online, so the personal stakes are ... whatever. I'll sit back and watch idiots fight over the pieces. Someone should call Joe McCarthy. He'd be proud.

If you read the article, he does actually break things down a bit further. I do think the article is unfair on some points, ideological in a way that decreases trust in sociology, and its main point seems to try to sort out some academic status games. I don't think it's fair to say that the author is clueless as to the ideological framework of the academics he's studying, nor that his brief summaries of what they believe are wrong or even consistently uncharitable.

How does one explain this apparent anomaly

I work for a hospital, and it is full of people, doctors, etc., who support politicians and policies who hate the current business model and want to see it changed to an extent that will probably lose them much of their income income, if not their jobs.

See, I'd have found a paper exploring why a group so putatively bright as academics, as peculiarly well represented by that fellow, should be so inexorably drawn to ideology - more interesting.

Is it a category mistake? Have they been corrupted by being told they're bright, when they are not? But we're all prone to that sort of error.

Too thorny for me, but I am certain this is the crucial question.

Your impulse (being told they're bright) is not that far from Nozick's idea in his essay on why intellectuals ("wordsmiths") lean left.

8. "We use right-wing for movements that focus specifically on race/ethnicity and/or that promote violence as a primary tactic or goal"

Who is focusing specifically on race/ethnicity? It wouldn’t be the people claiming America = white privilege, or that science must stop using White Power theories of objective knowledge in favor of indigenous cultural knowledge, or that the primary objective of the academy, the corporation, and the nation should be “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” would it?

They don't qualify as right-wing?

The quote is out of context. Here is the full, 'For example, Blee and Creasap (2010, p. 270) make the following distinctions among conservative, right-wing, and rightist movements: “We use conservative for movements that support patriotism, free enterprise capitalism, and/or a traditional moral order and for which violence is not a frequent tactic or goal. We use right-wing for movements that focus specifically on race/ethnicity and/or that promote violence as a primary tactic or goal. We use rightist as a generic category.”'

Obviously, even this full quote must have some wider context around it as the authors are clearly trying to take ideas and movements on the "right" side of the political spectrum and further categorize them. You would have to read the actual paper.

#2. The abstract equates "black arrest rates fell" with "improved treatment of minority groups by police." The implication is that arresting fewer blacks is desirable. If so, there is a much more direct and effective mechanism for achieving this: race-based standards for arrest (and make them explicit).

The question not asked: What SHOULD the black arrest rate, white arrest rate, be?

#5 - I don't typically read Vox for obvious reasons. I gave this article a chance based on the recommendation. I will continue to not typically read stories from Vox.

O/T. res ipsa loquitur


#7- My favorite current essayist . Love everything Amia writes (see I avoided the pronoun)

comment tyler? "At least three — Arizona, Mississippi and Texas — reported their highest daily death totals of the pandemic.

4. Any discussion of the social impact of COVID that doesn't take into account that the fatality rate for non-retiree-aged people is vanishingly close to zero, is not trustworthy.

yet another satirical tiramisu+1
todays funniest, ironic & least self aware headline from the newwoketimes.con that has been waging a culture war for the last 4 years

"Maybe This Isn’t Such a Good Time to Prosecute a Culture War"


Add me as number #104. Trump’s a narcissistic goof but he’s will you fight back, which wasn’t true of Republicans from Bob Dole to Mitt Romney. If it’s a question of who — Biden or Trump — is to be the bulwark against the woke Maoists, I’d choose Trump.

Also, Pierre Bourdieu, you must be joking. His claim to fame, repeated in many books, is basically this nugget of Sociological Marxism: no matter what you believe about the provenance of your most deeply held and personal aesthetic or moral or indeed any other values, they originate in, and only in, your class position.

It will be interesting to see what Trump prioritizes in his second term.

I mean, I know the economy is #1 (and we all thank God) but what comes after that? He won't get far with the border, if the Dems keep the House. Should be interesting to see what else he comes up with.

he could quit the UN

and drop the pretense about Russia

The pretense about Russia?

I can assure you that a 245 pound belligerent man under the influence of drugs, as in the case of George Lloydd, can inflict serious injury, even if he is "unarmed" (and of course, LEOs are supposed to know for sure who isn't armed in the USA?).
Reducing avoidable deaths during arrest scenarios is a worthy goal, but people need to be more realistic about how easy it is to arrest belligerent, fighting, non-complying large males. Even arresting non-complying, fighting, small females and yes even children, is not easy without using some degree of physicality.
If you know of a way to do it, and you have tested it out yourself, please don't keep it a secret. Educate us.
The problem is not all on the side of LE. The arrestee has some impact on outcomes. Activists could address that.

We have all seen how belligerent Floyd was as he was killed. And how concerned the cop was about it.

did you see the part of the video where he was resisting arrest while being placed in the police car? many people haven't because it was edited out by cnn.con

And maybe you haven't seen the CCTV video either - "NEW footage shows George Floyd looking calm in handcuffs moments before his death after a white cop knelt on his neck.

The 46-year-old died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after being arrested for allegedly trying to use forged documents at a local deli.

Police said they were forced to restrain Floyd after he resisted arrest.

But newly emerged footage appears to show him calm and compliant has he is led to the sidewalk by officers.

The CCTV clip shows him already in cuffs as he seemingly obeys commands to sit down on the ground.

Police said in an earlier statement that Floyd "physically resisted officers" after getting out of his car." www.the-sun.com/news/890465/george-floyd-new-cctv-calm-handcuffs-before-death/

Who are you going to believe - your lying eyes, or the lying police?

we are not gonna believe your eyes because
-you seem to be having trouble admitting that parts of the video shows him resisting arrest
"Police said in an earlier statement that Floyd "physically resisted officers" after getting out of his car."
this statement is consistent with the video.
-there are times when he was not resisting arrest.
- he was restrained for resisting arrest
-it is alleged (mebbe probable) that the restraint was a causal or contributing factor to his death but there are 2 conflicting autopsies,
heart disease and potentially fatal drugs in his bloodstream

I assure you that after 8 minutes with a cop kneeling on his neck, the only thing he was, was dying

It is also a truism that expecting everything to be a gunfight leads to more gun fights.

sometimes with people who don’t even have guns

to mycroft below

It is also a truism that expecting "everything" to be a gunfight leads to more gun fights
your currently sophistry is in the use of the word "everything"

#5. Literally exactly what I had been thinking myself, over the last couple of weeks - that cops had an internal culture which reinforces the belief that they are constantly threatened so that they must be ready to use extreme force at a moments notice. Nice to see there is emphircal evidence of it.

this is a little reductive " cops had an internal culture which reinforces the belief that they are constantly threatened so that they must be ready to use extreme force at a moments notice."

there is a mostly truism with self defense that the first person who gets a gun drawn on another person usually wins the gunfight.

It's the idea that every encounter is a potential gunfight that's the problem. You have a bunch of cops conditioned to think that every time they make a traffic stop that there's a significant risk of death, they're going to be always trying to be the first person that draws a gun.

"It's the idea that every encounter is a potential gunfight that's the problem. "
are you certain that is a valid theory of the "internal culture norm"?
it very could be another flawed theory in a field where most studies
do not reproduce

Don't literally exaggerate, Hazel Meade. "They" don't feel they are "constantly" threatened. It depends the time and place. The "force" is not always "extreme" and it is not always "at a moments notice" (or should they wait until they get shot or stabbed?).
We can literally agree that there are some cases of excessive force and that if possible something should be done to minimize them. It doesn't help to exaggerate. It doesn't help to focus the spotlight solely on the police. It takes two to tango, as the Americans say. Literally.

You do understand that I used the word "literally" correctly, right?

It was, in fact (literally), exactly what I have been thinking.

Also, yes it does help to focus the spotlight on police culture. That's the point of the article. It's not a few instances of excessive force. It's an internal culture within police forces which teaches cops that they need to be ready to used extreme force in order to protect themselves from what they perceive is a constant state of threat.

Not just internal culture - most Americans believe that cops are under constant threat, which is simply not true.

Only the uncharitably sly would suggest that this cop culture is a matter of projection. Or suggest that militarization as a framework reinforces an us versus them perspective, a reason why soldiers are very bad at law enforcement, as successful law enforcement is not based on the equivalent of occupying enemy territory.

the threat is not necessarily constant but it is often unpredictable and it is real (not imaginary)
last week somebody around these parts asserted that
throwing a water bottle at police "is purely a symbolic act"

How many cops have been killed by a water bottle?

not the point. although antifa anarchists are apparently freezing water bottles before they throw them. it is certainly possible to be injured by a thrown object.
can you think of a scenario where a stranger hit you with a frozen water
bottle &you wrote it off as "purely a symbolic act"
that's a pretty big shift in the overton window for most peeps

How many cops have been killed by being hit by a frozen water bottle?

#5: Re; how "fear" drives greater police violence, on record I obviously think most of the gap in ethnic experience of police violence is mainly driven by crime rates... but it's possible that greater ethnic minority fear of the police and less trust in police (recently enhanced by BLM myths) drives ethnic minorities to behave sketchily during interactions and a cycle of police being more wary around EM which reinforces mistrust, etc.

So some work at rebuilding police and EM trust might benefit things.

Just probably don't expect it to result in the large residuals of reductions in gaps that many think are are possible.

(Somewhat distinct from the position of someone like Alex T who believes there's a lot of excess police violence but seems to somewhat evasive on the role of ethnicity in this.)

"...he found that the risk of violent death occupies an extraordinary amount of mental space for many officers — far more so than it should, given the objective risks." Academics explaining what people *should* be feeling, given the "objective data" - hmm.

Black and white police in America seem equally excessively violent.

The article suggests that black officers behave excessively violently because they are trying to fit in with the dominant police culture.

that is a pretty bold & convenient claim
what is the evidence for the claim

5. I want to know the relationship between the evolution of police training and court precedent. Was it a deliberate policy move by police departments to incorporate this kind of fear and tactics into their training to make them more defensible in court? In situations like the Daniel Shaver case it came down to a matter of whether or not his actions were in line with his training. If how they are trained determines the legality of their actions then who decides what is reasonable training?

it remains highly interesting that some of the most outspoken would-be defenders of “freedom” and “liberty” are also the most rigidly willing to accept militarized authoritarian police.

almost as if they have literally no idea that police powers are the spear point of government oppression. and that police abuse (in the form of an occupying army and its agents) consumed a great deal of ink in our founding documents

thats a little melodramatic
the phrase " militarized authoritarian police." is often used as a meme
define your terms


These same people also seem to be against making Juneteenth a national holiday celebrating the abolition of slavery.

Go back to Russia, George.

My work is everywhere. As long as a man with heart disease is being killing by knee hovering over his neck for 8 minutes or more, I will be there. As long as a child goes to bed with an empty belly, I will be there. As long as a man is judged by the color of his skin rather than his character, I will be there. Russia is only a name on a map. The revolution recognizes no borders. I am everywhere. And I know who you are. You can run, but you can't hide.

#8: The entire abstract is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

"Indeed, criticism of the academy has gone well beyond the debated policies of affirmative action and political correctness to the very status of expert knowledge itself, questioning what is legitimate knowledge. "

I think the movie The Princess Bride summed up my response to this quite well.

Inigo Montoya:
I hate waiting. I could give you my word as a Spaniard.

Man in Black:
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.

#6 : The 43/44 outpatients who had antibodies were cases who had been to an outpatient clinic with symptoms, not a random sample of people who have been exposed to the disease (such a sample, of course, does not exist). Of course people who had a serious enough infection to go to a clinic had antibodies. The hypothesis is that most people are very mild or asymptomatic, and that these people are not susceptible but do not have antibodies.

Not wanting to be incorrect I recently began applying the pronoun round drill, asking everyone which pronouns they preferred. They looked at me suspiciously, like I had a hidden agenda. Was I wrong? Maybe I'm too old? Or maybe I'm a sexist racist and haven't come to terms with my deviance/aberration.

Comments for this post are closed