My Photo


David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Emotional Guidance | Main | Thick Carpeting Should Fix It »

May 19, 2014

Comments

Anna

Another feminist academic turns out to have fascist tendencies. I'm shocked.

Also, creepy smile.

David

Also, creepy smile.

Heh. It does seem a wee bit insincere. But then, Alice McLachlan’s capacity for evasion and dishonesty is quite striking. Around 5:30, regarding the footage of Fiamengo’s thwarted lecture and discussion, she says: “What I saw warmed me. I saw people who cared very much about gender issues… vigorously, whole-heartedly and determinedly engaging with each other.” Yes, the feminist protestors cared so much they made disagreement impossible and then applauded themselves for having thwarted a discussion that others had travelled to take part in. The only voices heard were the protestors’ own.

And this, remember, is from a professor of philosophy, a supposed intellectual – one who thinks that drowning out disagreement by shrieking abuse and banging on tables - until those who might disagree give up and leave - is a legitimate and admirable form of “debate.” Apparently Ms McLachlan “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her.

Rafi

If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.

David

If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.

Quite. But we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy.

David

And then there’s Ms McLachlan’s disingenuous manoeuvre (around 13:1o) in which an objection to mob tactics, intimidation and shutting down discussion is waved aside as an attempt to “control” the debate. Because expecting students – tomorrow’s intellectuals – not to behave like emotionally incontinent morons is somehow dastardly and oppressive.

Note too just how often she projects and inverts, or plays bait and switch, whereby an incongruous or irrelevant example is used to excuse much more obnoxious tactics. (Tactics, incidentally, that are favoured predominantly by one part of the political spectrum.) And so thuggish behaviour and persistent breaches of university policy - policy to which students have agreed as a condition of their welcome - are excused by Ms McLachlan because to object to such behaviour is supposedly an attempt to “control” the particulars of what students may say.

It’s risible, non-reciprocal and nakedly dishonest.

Tim Newman

Fortunately I have avoided this sort of thing my entire life by doing engineering at university and then getting a proper job. I feel sorry for the poor fools who have made interacting with these sort of clowns the source of their income.

David

Capitalism causes racism. Marxist revolution now!

And nothing says intellectual gravitas like purple hair.

WTP

And this, remember, is from a professor of philosophy, a supposed intellectual

There's a fundamental problem with modern philosophy that drives much of this behavior. Have you noticed how modern philosophers have evolved very thin skin? They’re all for attacking and finding fault with what functional society is, but when that society bites back in even the most gentle way, they are stunned to find how little they really understand. Which of course can be quite a shock to their sophisticated temperaments. The reflection and introspection needed to use criticisms to understand why the world is different than how you perceive it and thus to change one’s ways for the better is a bridge too far for them.

Our philosophers are good at talking about things. About how important some things are. About what is right and what is wrong. The latter based mostly on waiting to see the results of someone else’s efforts and then passing judgement as if they knew all along what the right thing to do was. But when it comes to putting real-world action to their words, they freeze up. When you think about it, this is the very thing that makes them philosophers. What they fail to understand is that all of us (well, most of us anyway) who build things, sell things, make things, provide services, run banks, install sewer lines, etc. practice one form of philosophy or another. We think about how the job should be done and then we do it. What makes the rest of the world different from philosophers is that the philosophers stop at the thinking part. They feel that their job is all done at that point and the details are for the little people.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

By Baldur's sweaty codpiece, this is why I don't have much time for talking about feelings. Is there any sentiment more pathetic than "I'm offended"?

When the Singularity comes and human life is assailed by murderously intelligent vending machines and self-aware roombas, we'll deserve everything we get.

Expecting a troupe of Womens Studies snorlaxes to behave like the Oxford Union seems naive though. Would you give a lecture to fifty cats and then be surprised when they started purring and frolicking adorably instead of politely listening to you?

This isn't 1968 or even 1998, when the behaviour of the Grievance Studies menagerie might still have come as a surprise to some. You only need to fire up the internet and you can see them hooting and crying all over Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Comment is Free, Gawker, Reddit, the Hufflepuff Post, et cetera.

#diecisgenderedpatriarchalchristofascistsnackshamingvajazzlingscum

You can't debate these people. The best option is to mock them till they burst with rage, like Mr Creosote after too many petit thin wafers of social justice indignation, splattering their bile and ambergris over shocked onlookers.

Social Justice Warriors need to feel terribly important, so when you decline to take them seriously and joyfully dance over their trigger warnings while flicking them V-signs hilarity is bound to ensue.

Until the sentient killer roombas - with cats riding on top of them, because kitties owe no loyalty to their human servants, bless their vicious little hearts - begin their long-overdue reign of terror, laughter is our best defence against the cabbage patch Trots.

Lars Sundling

In Denmark we recently had the ”joy” of yet a group of anti-democratic lefties, that had decided to shut down the rights of free speeches and democratic order, by blowing whistles during the May 1th speech from our Prime Minister, Mrs. Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

These radicals got a lot of attention from our dinosaur media and was even invited to The Danish Public Television (DR) for an interview, where this anti-democratic group would be given the option of explaining the logic, fairness and reason behind this ”brilliant”event.

And then things escalated quickly!

The interview begins with the journalist, holding a whistle in her hand, asking the young spokeswoman: ”Why is it that you will use these (whistles) during the coming speech from our Prime Minister in Copenhagen?”.
The young woman starts answering: ”It is because we have tried to get in contact to our politicians, but….”

Watch 2 minuttes of fun - No language skills are required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGqEDla7ps

TDK

There's a fundamental problem with modern philosophy that drives much of this behavior.

I think your point is undermined by the blanket generalisation. Take Steven Hicks for example - a modern philosopher who writes books about the problems with Post Modernism. My experience (and my degree was Maths and Philosophy) is that Pure Philosophy is far less narrowly radical than other subjects like sociology. Certainly there is a bias to the left but not sufficient to prevent say Nozick being taught.

Dom

Lars, great video. I always wondered when that sort of thing was going to happen, not surprised that Denmark was the first.

Did you notice that the leftist didn't seem to learn anything from it?

WTP

Yes, I was generalizing. As to my point. BTW, it's Math not Maths...I thought we'd already covered this. Settled science and all that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA

David

Ah. Looks like Typepad is back up after another big DDoS attack.

If feminists and leftists were the ones being shouted down I think Prof McLachlan would soon change her tune.

For someone who claims to care about free speech “a lot,” Ms McLachlan doesn’t seem at all concerned that the behaviour she champions shows utter contempt for anyone not protesting – i.e., anyone who’s there to learn. The behaviour she considers “warming” shows contempt not only for Fiamengo but for those watching online and everyone else present, some of whom had driven for over an hour to get to the lecture and were then kept waiting another hour by the protestors, before both the lecture and planned discussion had to be abandoned. Someone else’s time, someone else’s money, someone else’s opportunity – all wasted. How proud they must be. All that thwarting.

What McLachlan is defending isn’t virtuous or heroic, and it certainly isn’t an attempt at “debate.” It’s malignant narcissism. That Ms McLachlan can’t tell the difference - or pretends she can’t - tells us something about her too.

Freshverbal

Has your blog been attacked because of this post? I couldn't even view it last night and Typepad has been iffy today.

svh

Because feelings.

David, feminists need more Emotionizations©.

http://youtu.be/T2cdPQ5lof8

David

Freshverbal,

It’s a Typepad-wide problem. Another huge DDoS attack.

Nikw211

Another feminist academic turns out to have fascist tendencies

the feminist protestors cared so much they made disagreement impossible … The only voices heard were the protestors’ own.

More on Professor Machlachlan.

In a paper available online called Forgiveness and Moral Solidarity, which I've just given the very skimpiest of skim reads, Machlachlan puts forward a case which argues for admitting acts of 'third party forgiveness'.

What she appears to be saying in a nutshell is that 'third-parties' who are neither the victim or the wrongdoer but basically bystanders to 'a grievance' are also morally implicated - they cannot do nothing and choosing to do nothing is an abdication of responsibility.

You've seen the video above so I imagine you can already see where this line of reasoning about 'third parties' is leading to …

She argues that the third party should be careful not to cause further offence when insinuating themselves into a grievance issue as that might end with the third party talking too loudly over the victim's own right to speak and act for themselves about their own life:

    There are moral risks associated with even the most well-meaning efforts to third-party forgive[ness], … Where there is a significant power imbalance between victim and third-party, moral solidarity may take a back seat to moral deference.

That moral deference is presumably one reason why both Machlachlan and Décoste find the kind of inquiry that Fiamengo does absolutely intolerable.

However, despite these moral risks the third party might carry, Machlachlan goes on to argue that should a victim have the temerity to choose to forgive their oppressor contrary to the wishes (and virtue?) of the third-parties, then those same third-parties can intervene to make the 'right' decision for the good of the community as whole:

    … the victim’s decision to forgive does not necessarily eliminate the third party’s need to make a similar moral choice […] the most respectful thing that others who identify with the victim may be able to do is meaningfully to withhold their forgiveness and to continue to hold the wrongdoer accountable. [The] value [of the third-party's right not to forgive] can only be wholly accounted for when we acknowledge that the power to forgive is not limited to immediate victims of wrongdoing.


Does this line of reasoning surprise anyone who follows this blog?

Nikw211

It’s risible, non-reciprocal and nakedly dishonest.

This really does appear to be quite a classic of the genre.

    I care a lot about free speech … [the] consequences [of free speech] can even mean the the debate doesn't happen.

Whuh?

Nikw211

Fløjteaktivisterne fløjtes ud

Quite.

bilbaoboy

Lars

Fantastic. I speak Danish better tha I thought!

I wonder what they thought afterwards: 'What fascists they are. They wouldn't even let us make our point' perhaps?

I would have loved to have been a mind-reader

David

Nikw211,

It’s curious just how often those who invoke Marxoid “power imbalances” are determined to excuse or ignore their own abuses of power, even when those abuses are vividly obnoxious, practically Maoist, and even when their excuses are incoherent, non-reciprocal and transparently self-serving.

To pretend, as Ms McLachlan does, that an aversion to mob tactics is an attempt to “control” debate is laughable. Just as it’s laughable to pretend that the screaming and whooping protestors had no power, and no delight in abusing that power, thereby silencing people with whom they disagree. Punishing them. Of the people in that lecture hall, who went home frustrated and out of pocket? Who went home without the chance to speak, or to listen, or debate? And who went home swollen with self-satisfaction? For some, the power to thwart is intoxicating. The goal. The rest is mere pretext, window dressing. These middle-class students aren’t behaving like arrogant, emotionally incontinent shits because they’re not being heard or are somehow being oppressed. They’re behaving this way because it pleases them, because they rather like “power imbalances.” Because that’s who they are.

And again, these aren’t just first-year ingénues; they’re being excused and encouraged by professional educators, grown men and women, supposedly trained in “critical thinking.”

Patrick Brown

Nikw211:

"Machlachlan goes on to argue that should a victim have the temerity to choose to forgive their oppressor contrary to the wishes (and virtue?) of the third-parties, then those same third-parties can intervene to make the 'right' decision for the good of the community as whole"

Interesting. Don't know if you've been following the Richard Scudamore scandal. The press are demanding his head over a joke made in an exchange of private emails about a female colleague who has said she's not offended by it.

The emails in question were leaked to the press by a temp, who apparently shouldn't have had access to them. I'm struggling to understand how, morally and legally, this is any different from the phone hacking that has half of News International on criminal trial at the moment, but that's another issue.

Freshverbal

Gotcha :)

Jack

But we mustn’t expect consistency and logic from a professor of philosophy.

Thanks, David. First laugh of the day. I'm a long-time lurker and a big fan. Keep it up.

*hits tip jar*

Freshverbal

As for the video, I'm glad you found it of use, I thought you might find it interesting.

The contradictory nature of the feminist stance is plain for all to see (whilst these particular feminists didn't mention online "harassment" of people like Rebecca Watson or Anita Saarkesian) a prominent feminist cause (I'm sure they both agree with) is that people who disagree with (lampoon, satirise or poke fun at) feminists on line are engaging in "bullying" and "harassment", yet here we see feminists coming out in favour of silencing tactics and even physical intimidation to silence dissent.

If calling a feminist online a "twat" is evidence of widespread misogynistic harassment but blockading doors and physically attacking men whilst vehemently calling them "scum" and "rape apologist" constitutes a wonderful flowering of free speech and political engagement then words cease to mean anything.

How can one seriously claim to be for free speech and against harassment whilst supporting physically blocking access to speeches and the shouting down of speakers?

If physical blockades to prevent access to speeches and noise creation to drown out speakers does not count as a far more egregious example of "harassment" and "bullying" than having feminists statistics challenged or god forbid someone calling a woman a rude word online, it is hard to see what does.

As a heretic of the left myself I have seen this type of contradiction many times before, from equally lettered and established folks.

Whenever I challenge a contradiction I am almost always told that the contradiction doesn't exist, either because "we are right and those engaging in identical tactics are wrong because we are right" or "we are moral and those engaging in identical tactics are immoral, therefore they are wrong to use similar tactics because they are immoral"

Circular reasoning in action!

In the wake of Lee Rigby's murder I pointed out that those on the left who were saying his murder was caused by Western foreign policy were engaging in identical tactics to those on the right who said Anders Brievik's rampage was caused by unbridled immigration and forced multiculturalism.

A good friend of mine (who is a card carrying member of the Labour Party and a human rights lawyer) said that the two were not even remotely similar because, the left are against war and for equal rights and the right is pro war and against equal rights.

EG: We are good, they are bad so what is wrong for them is right for us.....just because!

The feminists above have opened themselves up for similar treatment. I wonder if they will rethink their views in the face of being silenced (as they suggest to Janice Fiamengo) or will they scream "harassment" and stick to their ideological guns?

One thing is for sure as feminists, they can be sure the evil patriarchal police and university management will be keen to take their claims of victimhood far more seriously than the claims of MRAs

David

Jack,

Keep it up. *hits tip jar*

Thanks, much appreciated. Hitting the tip jar is a very good way to motivate me. So yes, I probably will.

David

This really does appear to be quite a classic of the genre.

What’s funny, I think, is the conceit that such delinquent behaviour is only indulged in under duress or because of some alleged “power imbalance.” As if it weren’t a choice and actively pursued – something that excites a certain kind of person and makes them feel powerful and important. As Ms McLachlan demonstrates, it takes determination and quite a lot of manoeuvring to not consider, even briefly, this rather obvious possibility.

As I’ve said before, this kind of behaviour is regarded as a credential by many students on the left, as something to be proud of, as practically self-validating. It’s something that elevates them within their own immediate peer group. They’re achieving their own in-group status, their imagined radical chic, by imposing on others – people about whom they simply don’t care or for whom they show outright contempt. It’s not a reciprocal dynamic; it’s essentially parasitic. And the scope for, and pretext for, intimidation and thwarting other people is hardly coincidental. That’s what makes it fun. For a certain kind of person.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Freshverbal - "We are good, they are bad so what is wrong for them is right for us.....just because!"

It's all about Who/Whom.

Abuse, intimidation, and violence are OK when Oppressed Victims use it.

I'm glad you namechecked Anita Sarkeesian. I've been playing computer and videogames for more than 30 years (not non-stop though, I don't have to wash the Dorito dust out of my folds with a sponge on a stick), so Sarkeesian's story fascinated me.

For the benefit of anyone who might not have heard of Sarkeesian, gather round, children...

Once apon a time, there was a young feminist called Anita, who noticed that a lot of icky boys like to play videogames instead of undertaking more mature pursuits, like being lectured about feminism.

The games these boys play are often sexist, which is to say, they're about shooting things or rescuing princesses, instead of being about strong, empowered women smashing the Patriarchy.

A plan hatched in Anita's mind to turn her feminism and vague awareness of videogames into profit.

She started a Kickstarter to raise money so she could produce a series of YouTube videos about how games are sexist.

So far, so pointless. But Anita was cunning.

She decided to troll 4chan with her feminist message, with predictable results. Armed with the usual rape jokes and "Tits or GTFO" responses one would expect from 4chan, Anita went crying to the sensitive side of the internet about the terrible misogyny she was an innocent victim of.

As a result, White Knights and confused social justice warriors poured $160,000 into Anita's Kickstarter. These were going to be the most epic and lavishly produced feminist YouTube videos evar! Take that, Doctor Robotnik--I mean, Patriarchy!

Well, the videos appeared... eventually. Boring, stupid videos of Our Heroine playing Super Mario Brothers and such while complaining that Princess Peach is proof of... something or other.

Backers started to wonder where that $160,000 went to. Well, probably "research". Yes, "research". That seems plausible. And it costs money to buy a webcam and some old games off eBay.

Anita has since attempted to parlay her awesome feminist videogame skills into being a professional talking head feminist of the Laurie Penny variety.

Now, there are a number of lessons we may draw from this story.

1) White Knights and SJW types deserve to be parted from their cash.

2) No pastime, however seemingly trivial or innocent, will ever be a safe space from deranged lefties who want to politicise everything.

3) Useful people are creative. They, for example, make video games that entertain millions. Sometimes in a crude, throwaway manner like Flappy Bird. Sometimes lavish fusions of art and entertainment of art like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, or Red Dead Redemption.

Feminists aren't creative. They produce nothing of value. While Miyamoto and David Cage and John Carmack dream up new ideas to dazzle us with, feminists have nothing to offer except finger-waggling criticism.

$160,000 could have funded a feminist video game, but making things is hard. Demanding that other people - men - cater to your tastes instead of their own and their customers' is easier.

Patrick Brown

Re Sarkeesian. The irony I particularly like is that she got showered with cash by positioning herself as a damsel in distress, and what video game trope did she criicise in her the first video? The damsel in distress.

rjmadden

What’s funny, I think, is the conceit that such delinquent behaviour is only indulged in under duress or because of some alleged “power imbalance.” As if it weren’t a choice and actively pursued – something that excites a certain kind of person and makes them feel powerful and important.

You're so sceptical, David. Image-conscious people in their late teens/early twenties are *never* underhand about their motives!

I wonder how many of these academics are parents of teenagers.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Patrick - excellent observation. Yes, she knew exactly how to reel in the white knights and masterfully played the role of a princess needing rescuing (with cash, thanks guys!xxx).

It's a curious dichotomy in feminism. Are feminists butt-kicking empowered womyn, hear them roar, or are they simpering little girls who need special protection from things like vagazzling and hair removal product ads?

Notice that the real oppression women face around the world - gang rape in South Africa, honour killings in Pakistan, female genital mutilation in Sudan, infanticide of girls in China, etc. rarely garners much mindshare among feminists, who'd much rather talk about how hard it is to be a university educated middle class white woman with a career in academia or the media.

Those girls in Nigeria are a rare exception in having captured some attention for more than five minutes, but even then, what is the Western feminist response? To raise funds to hire some mercenaries to get them back? Putting pressure on the oil-rich government of Nigeria to defend its citizens? Campaigning against Islamic #rapeculture?

No, that would be silly. Instead they're making selfies and putting them on Twitter. Take THAT, Boko Haram!

David

Instead they’re making selfies and putting them on Twitter. Take THAT, Boko Haram!

This seems apposite:

Imagine, if you can, the abjectly juvenile state of mind necessary to contemplate the hundreds of Nigerian girls taken into slavery by a fanatical Muslim anti-education militia — whose characteristic activity beyond slave-taking is setting fire to children — and, in the face of all that horror, concluding: “You know what this situation really calls for? A cutesy picture of… me!”

Kevin Williamson (again) on the narcissistic creed. His end of page quote, from Fredrik deBoer, is also somewhat relevant.

Freshverbal

Having grown up in a multicultural North London enclave populated with Greenham Common feminists, right on "Rock Against Racism" yoof leaders and black activists like Darcus Howe (of whom, despite disagreeing with on much, I have a rather soft spot) my Facebook feed is populated by some of the most pious politically correct social justice tosh known to man.

When Boko Haram first kidnapped the girls most of my feed was filled with accusations of racism against the media for not giving the story sufficient airtime.

"If 200 blonde haired blue eyed girls had been abducted this would be front page news"

Then when it became front page news the focus shifted to the West's lack of action.

"if 200 American girls had been abducted the Navy Seals would be deployed"

When Michelle Obama did her #BringBackOurGirls selfie, everyone posted pictures of Muslims holding up signs saying

"Your Husband Has Killed More Muslim Girls Than Boko Ever Could #BringBackOurDead"

The more Americans spoke out in solidarity with the #BringBackOurGirls campaign the more talk changed from outrage at the Wests inaction and onto sinister talk about how American solidarity for the campaign was a prelude to a Neocon war of aggression.

Whilst everyone has rightfully condemned Boko it seems the left and concerned politically radical PoC commenting on this are far more interested in searching for hidden racism or American imperialism than they are about Bringing Back Our Girls.

Jonathan

I was trying to think who the deeply sinister Ms McLachlan reminded me of. Then it came to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onm5gjgL97Y

Patrick Brown

I'm afraid when I hear "Boko Haram" I think someone's "updated" PG Wodehouse with a token Muslim character. I obviously deserve to be hounded from whatever office I hold.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

David - that's a great article, thank you.

Freshverbal - I always knew Barack Obama hated black people :(

I love their other points:

"if 200 American girls had been abducted the Navy Seals would be deployed"

Um, yes. Because the US government generally frowns on its citizens being kidnapped by rapey slave gangs. Unfortunately these girls aren't American, and their government doesn't seem bothered. In fact, I get the impression they wish everybody would shut up about "our girls" and let the Nigerian government concentrate on its important work of stuffing the oil money into Swiss bank accounts.

"Your Husband Has Killed More Muslim Girls Than Boko Ever Could #BringBackOurDead"

As usual, the lack of Muslim condemnation of this latest atrocity by their co-religionists is striking, isn't it? I'm only surprised they haven't blamed The Jews yet.

Why, it's almost as if it's not a religion of peace after all.

witwoud

Thanks for the 'whistle' clip, Lars. That's absolutely hilarious. I'm impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can't really imagine the BBC doing this.

David

I’m impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can’t really imagine the BBC doing this.

It did make the necessary point as directly as possible. Though I can’t help thinking the protestors will devise some enormously self-flattering way to miss it.

And in much the same way, does anyone imagine that Ms McLachlan will watch herself in the video and rethink her assertions, any of them, even slightly? Does anyone here believe that the absurdity of her claims, their incoherence and glaring dishonesty, will be recognised and processed - at all? Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt it. She’s just not that kind of girl.

[ Edited. ]

matt

You can in Ms Décoste's pretentious opening gambit ("drivel" etc.) she just waves off the findings and statistics cited by Prof Fiamengo as wrong and worthy of nothing but contempt. The condescending hubris is epic. Paikin is a great interviewer (his show "The Agenda" is highly regarded by everyone and he deserves a much bigger pulpit) and he senses that and immediately pushed her for a specific example. Décoste is at least able to handle that to a modest degree. But the contempt and condescension are, I think, a pose that all leftists adopt to try and put their opponents as completely outside the bounds of respectable discourse as a starting point, which means you are not really having a debate, but a re-education session. The condemnation of someone and their views. The contempt takes the place of what would be an opening statement denunciation rendered into a pro forma pose of ridicule after which you just merely yell your point of view without having to defend it from counter-argument. Totally self serving and nice work if you can get it, as well as being totally immature, as the host points out.

Dr Cromarty

The preening western narcissists posting #BringBackOurGirls (btw what's with this 'our', Kimusabe?) must know somewhere in the back of their brains that realistically the only way that they'll #BringBackOurGirls will be through the actions of #SAS #NavySeals or#DeltaForce.

In which event don't expect any selfies saying #ThankYouSpecialForces, because, ermm, Teh Patriarchy.

present & correct

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Alice McLachlan physically attractive?
I feel dirty and ashamed :D

Jonathan

@Dr Cromarty
Of course if, say, Michelle Obama was really serious about doing something rather than just posing, she could always offer to exchange herself for the kidnapped girls. What's that you say? She's not that serious?

Nikw211

It’s curious just how often those who invoke Marxoid “power imbalances” are determined to excuse or ignore their own abuses of power, even when those abuses are vividly obnoxious, practically Maoist, and even when their excuses are incoherent, non-reciprocal and transparently self-serving

David,

You've said it more clearly than I could (though perhaps you've had plenty of practice with this Blog!), though on the general topic of incoherence …

While on the one hand Machlachlan vigorously supports the protests against Dr Fiamengo on the other she complains that the very same protests have lead to Dr Fiamengo's views getting a much wider audience than they might ever have done otherwise.

And she's not wrong there. I almost certainly would never have come across Dr Fiamengo (or Karen Straughan either for that matter) had the Maoist Borgoids not so completely disgraced themselves with their third-rate canrnival sideshow histrionics.

So while for me I suppose it's had a good result, why, when from her own point of view the protests have not only failed but failed so spectacularly that they have achieved the complete opposite of what they intended, do they giver her a 'warm' feeling?

Also, the Maoist thing is spot on as Machlachlan proves here when she says to Fiamengo:

    I think that, perhaps, a productive use of your conversation with the protests would be to rethink some of what you're saying

That's right. When someone sets of fire alarms, blows horns in your face, stamps their jackboots feet etc. you should immediately capitulate and beg forgiveness for the sin of having a different point of view.

And in much the same way, does anyone imagine that Ms McLachlan will watch herself in the video and rethink her assertions, any of them, even slightly?

Puh-wha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaa … No. No, I don't.

Also, that Williamson piece on Narcissism was excellent and I loved the paragraph comparing Bishop Berkeley with this ' 21st-century epigones'.

Nikw211

Patrick,

Re: the Richard Scudamore scandal (or 'scandal') – I've only just heard about that story today and so don't really know anything about it.

However, from what you're saying it does sound like another instance of what happens when people with a paranoid conspiracy-theory mindset leap on something fairly trivial as evidence that finally the mask has slipped and that the real 'Evil' underneath the surface has finally been unveiled. Context, that it was a private email for instance, be damned naturally.

Nikw211

For the benefit of anyone who might not have heard of Sarkeesian, …

Heh.

Saw Sarkeesian on a documentary on the BBC last week and probably would have forgotten all about her until I came across that thunderf00t guy's video series Femism vs Facts on YouTube. Can be worth a watch if you have the time spare and haven't seen them.

Parts one, two and three

Nikw211

I'm impressed that it was Danish Public Television that pulled the stunt — I can't really imagine the BBC doing this.

This is, word for word, I s**t you not, how Jon Snow started yesterday's 19 May edition of the UK's Channel 4 News:

    Labour's shadow Home secretary Yvette Cooper describes UKIP leader Nigel Farage's comments about Romanians as racist […] and UKIP's rise is far from unique: tonight we report on Greece, where Golden Dawn is prospering

I'm not a fan of UKIP or Farage and find both him and their ideas frankly rather daft, but all that said I was gobsmacked that Jon Snow, on prime time news, actually made a direct parallel between Farage/UKIP and Golden Dawn – Golden Dawn! A bona fide extreme ultra-nationalist group complete with paramilitary boot boys and a Hellenized swastika as a flag. What the f… ?!?

I nearly spat tea all over the telly when I heard Snow do that. Surely that was so libellous that it would be actionable in court?

Curiously, I note that this evening's C4 news led with a 20-minute long report devoted to the lives of Bucharest's 6,000 homeless drug addicts about whom Snow commented:

    Our report tonight exposes the failure of the fast assimilation of Romania, one of the EU's newest members. It also helps explain why so many across Europe fear their arrival.

What could possibly have prompted such a spectacular volte-face just 24 hours later I really can't imagine.

Chris

Hi David,

Long time reader and a lad in his late 20s currently undergoing a wrenching separation with the Left. What I would like to know is if it is just a function of the way my values have changed over the past year, or if it really is the case that the narcissism, self-promotion and irresponsible grievance mongering of the liberal left has been entrenching itself at an exponential rate.

In addition to the 'debate' up the top, i have in the past few hours seen

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/exposed-richard-scudamore-sexist-emails-premier-league-chief-executive?commentpage=2

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/the-boko-haram-terrorists-are-not-islamic.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/its-official-at-dartmouth-the-word-fiesta-is-racist-and-white-people-cant-use-it/

amongst much other drivel. It's like somewhere between W1 and the Lower East Side there's a giant, sentient Imac churning out an endless procession of confused, wilfully ignorant sentences before sending in the nanobots to fill up 500 disqus comments with outrage and blame. Most striking of all is the rigor with which these organs (heirs to a storied liberal tradition which informed much of my political education as a youngster) so completely erase or mock the very tenets that ideology.

Worst of all, I'm finding it very difficult to ignore just how neatly this development has correlated with the presence and leadership of women in the media. I don't want to be that guy, not at 28, but the censorious scolding, brittle indignation, and argument from authority ('of course I value free speech, I teach John Stuart Mill') that characterizes the new frontier of new media is too obvious to ignore.

I don't want to be melodramatic but now the that Whiggish conception of infinite historical progress has been pushed out of my mind it's like the scales have fallen from my eyes and I despair.


To paraphrase Conrad:
'The drivel...the drivel...'

David

Chris,

Welcome aboard.

What I would like to know is if it is just a function of the way my values have changed over the past year…

I don’t think the various tics and vanities that I describe here are particularly new in terms of leftist psychology; plenty of examples predate me. But I do think they’re becoming more… obvious and pervasive. The long march through our institutions has apparently had some effect. Is having some effect.

MikeG81

I'm sure the usual 'cultured' suspects will roll their eyes...

But it's these same disgusting people with their 'style' of 'debate' that also want to totally disarm people.

Carry that to its logical conclusion.

Andi Lucas

Have no Eastern European students tried complaining that they find aggressive assertions of leftist dogma and demands for political conformity 'triggering'?

I would give it a year at most before they decide that the word 'trigger' is 'triggering' because of its association with firearms.

dicentra

You can in Ms Décoste's pretentious opening gambit ("drivel" etc.) she just waves off the findings and statistics cited by Prof Fiamengo as wrong and worthy of nothing but contempt.

That really got me: their cocksure belief that they are reliable, objective arbiters of what is contemptible, false, or beyond the pale. Not only that, they begin by classifying decked-out strawmen as contemptible and justify their mob mentality from there.

Whatzzerface said that Ann Coulter's schtick is to blame everything on minorities and therefore stopping her could only be right.

What the what? Since when does Coulter do that? Just reading the titles of her books you can see that she blames everything on LIBERALS and liberals only. I have never heard Coulter blame "minorities" for ANYthing, much less everything.

It was like listening to a pair of Nazis in 1930 discuss why Jews shouldn't have the floor because they only engage in Big Lies. Nazis, they can speak at length for as long as they want, but if a Jew tries to deliver a speech, they have to accept the consequences.

They can't even hear themselves, I reckon. This kind of thing tends to cycle around in human history regardless of whether the new crop of perps is aware of the previous iterations.

dicentra

The reflection and introspection needed to use criticisms to understand why the world is different than how you perceive it and thus to change one’s ways for the better is a bridge too far for them.

That's because their end game is not "getting it right" with respect to reality; it's "getting power and keeping it." Their bad notions about how the world works are a deliberate lie that flatters the intellectual with "intellectuals ought to be in charge" and strips the rest of our humanity, all the better to herd us as cattle.

The Left uses language not to say what they believe to be true but what they believe to be useful. Words, ideas, emotions — they're all weapons to destroy their opponents. They'll continue to use words and ideas to meet their ends, but as soon as they feel their oats (starting about now, I'd say), they'll stop using words and avail themselves of brute force.

Been nice knowing ya.

dicentra

She decided to troll 4chan with her feminist message, with predictable results.

She waded into a 'gator farm wearing a raw-chicken jumpsuit, IOW. Hard to feel sorry for someone THAT stupid.

who'd much rather talk about how hard it is to be a university educated middle class white woman with a career in academia or the media.

Look. Those kidnapped Nigerian girls are ROOTING for their white sisters in academia to place trigger warnings on Mark Twain. Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag's last words will be "Please can't victims of oppression on American campuses find a safe space to express themselves?"

Connor

does anyone imagine that Ms McLachlan will watch herself in the video and rethink her assertions, any of them, even slightly?

£20 says no. As a professor of philosophy will she appreciate the irony?

David

As a professor of philosophy will she appreciate the irony?

What struck me is how the debate revealed differences not just in politics but in character. Based on what I’ve seen of Janice Fiamengo being interviewed, it would, I think, be possible to argue with her in good faith. Facts could be exchanged and arguments bashed about to see which bits fall off. Coherence and realism would be in the mix as mutual values. But I’m not at all convinced the same could be said of Ms Décoste and Ms McLachlan. They don’t seem terribly interested in coherence and realism. Or honesty.

In my experience the kind of person who can invert reality to the degree Ms McLachlan does - carefully ignoring unflattering motives, projecting wildly - is unlikely to make it back to this side of the mirror. I mean, a little self-awareness would probably be quite damaging to her ego and anything built on it. Confronted with her own inversions and obstinate dishonesty, her political persona would begin to seem ridiculous. For someone like Ms McLachlan, what would there be to gain from that kind of self-awareness? What’s in it for her?

David

Ace on academia’s ongoing descent into farce:

Oberlin College recently considered a draft of its new rules about issuing “trigger warnings” for college materials and for sensitivity generally. This document -- the student pressure groups’ list of demands they would impose on professors and other students -- has been withdrawn for further work, I guess because the document is diagnosably insane.

This document instructs professors that they are to “learn” from their students, and should accept their unprompted political speeches. Aren’t [academics] being (over)paid to stand at the front of the classroom based upon the assumption they, get this, have something to teach the 18 and 19 year old superannuated children sitting in the lecture hall?

I don’t have too much sympathy for the professors (you brought this on yourselves, guys). However, I do wonder about the other students, paying between $100,000 and $150,000 for a four year degree, and how they may now feel that they’ll be “learning” from an ad hoc committee of Student Truth Vigilantes who will be teaching class, displacing the professor whenever the urge to disclaim overcomes them.

If you think Ace is joking, do read the whole thing.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Nikw211 - good videos, thanks. The man makes a powerful case.

Sarkeesian, like most university educated feminists, talks a lot about "research" and "studies". But she doesn't seem to understand or care what research and studies are for. Rather than relying on empirical evidence and observation and then trying to construct a theory around the known facts, Anita and other feminists believe "research" means declaring your own theories first and then torturing or selectively quoting data, often shoddy data at that, to back them up. It's why feminist "research" never results in conclusions that challenge the theories they presumably set out to test.

Now, why might this be?

According to Wikipedia, she has degrees in "communication studies" and "social and political thought".

And here's her problem. The poor woman has been swindled into believing that she's educated after going through two - probably expensive - degree programmes of zero academic benefit or real-world relevance. Small wonder she's trying to establish herself as a professional feminist, she's literally not qualified for any real jobs in the productive sector of the economy. If she can't make a living out of talking about feminism, her other plausible career options are waitressing or the dole.

Unlike students of the more traditional subjects, who will have had the importance of facts and logic hammered in to them before being allowed to graduate, Anita was subjected to cargo cult education. A hollow facade of knowledge where an institution is assumed to be a place of learning because it is called a "university". Where gobbledygook is mistaken for "research" because it uses big words and footnotes. Where a scroll of parchment is mistaken for an education.

The essential difference between actual research and feminist research is integrity. Ms. Sarkeesian's academic background left her denuded of even the intellectual vocabulary to understand that. It's the Dunning–Kruger effect transmitted by way of lecture theatres.


Dicentra - "She waded into a 'gator farm wearing a raw-chicken jumpsuit, IOW. Hard to feel sorry for someone THAT stupid."

Yes, but she wasn't being stupid. She knew exactly which buttons to press and the best forums to do it in. I wonder how much of the $160k she raked in got spent on paying off her student loans.

WTP

dicentra:They can't even hear themselves, I reckon.
DT: For someone like Ms McLachlan, what would there be to gain from that kind of self-awareness?

I have a hard time taking such extremes by these kinds of people at face value. I suspect they know exactly what deceptions they are using. Many are not so stupid an unaware of themselves. They know exactly what they are doing. I see them as falling mostly into one of two categories, those who are jockeying for position in the new ruling class Come The Revolution and those who are afraid to be left out and jumping early onto what seems to them to be the winning team's bandwagon.

Have you noticed how much of their arguments are usurpations (is that a word?) of conservative arguments, restated while (I would say willfully) ignoring how they've shifted the context? Cock sure that no one will either notice nor challenge them. Perhaps I missed it or forgot it (watched this video two nights ago) where was the challenge from the moderator, the rational leftist gentleman, or Dr. F pointing out that leftists say many hurtful lies, 9/11 truthers and such as well. Would it be right for them to be shouted down? I understand from drive-time radio this AM that Angela Davis is to speak on a college campus somewhere (too busy to look it up now).

matt

Chris: thanks for The Daily Beast article on Boko Haram. That's the funniest thing i've read in a while. Note that he never mentions the video of the leader pointedly and repeatedly claiming that Allah/the Koran commands him to take the prisoners. That pretty much makes it an Islamic issue right there, regardless of the fact it may be a twisted interpretation of Islamic teachings, Boko Haram believes it is doing God's work. Taking them at their word is hard i guess. He gets some rote denials from some of the usual "nothing to see here" hand-wavers - something we don't see enough of and something we see a lot less of when the victims are Jews. Some nice pushback in the comments, including some actual citations from the Koran itself.

Funny thing too that "Haram" - a Koranic injunction - is right in the group's name.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

WTP - I thought you meant the actress who played Tina Turner in "What's Love Got To Do With It".

So I googled her and find that's an entirely different Angela.

Incidentally, what happened to the giant 70's afro as a fashion statement?

I really liked The Jackson Five when I was a boy, but in my naivety I thought their haircuts were a gimmick. Because they were singers, I assumed they deliberately styled their hair to look like microphones. I thought it was called "The Microphone Head", and all the other Microphone Head guys were copying The Jacksons, and nobody had a bloody clue what I was talking about.

Still, "Ben" is a top quality song, and I sometimes sing it to my cat, with the B-word changed to "Fluffy". The things that cat will put up with to get freeze-dried fish treats.

Anna

Because they were singers, I assumed they deliberately styled their hair to look like microphones.

Snork. ;D

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Matt - "Funny thing too that "Haram" - a Koranic injunction - is right in the group's name."

Or they could just really like that song "A Whiter Shade of Pale".

I'm sure if those girls really had been kidnapped by a rogue sect of Muslims, the media would be full of prominent mainstream Muslims condemning Boko Haram and demanding the immediate release of their victims.

Right?

Freshverbal

After reading that Ace blog about Oberlin's trigger warning campaign, it just dawned on me.

The current social justice establishment in higher education are creating an in group out group dichotomy which is destined to expand exponentially.

As victim groups gain elevated status more categories of victim arise and more perceived oppression is detected.

As victim categories expand, new outrages are manufactured to bolster the oppression Olympics then more political power and social capital is gathered by those who have carefully cultivated a victim identity.

Victim identities are elevated at the expense of oppressor identities (white, male, heterosexual etc) as this happens the social and political pressure for "oppressive" identities to identify as something (anything) other than white, male, heterosexual, cis etc must be overwhelming.

It makes you wonder how many of these snow white people who claim to be genderqueer otherkin with native American/African roots and transsexual headmates are actually as straight and white as George W Bush.

Either way the whole thing is a kind of collective mass hysteria chewing up the scenery and spewing out deluded, dogmatic, inquisitorial, pious fools like a secular Vatican.

Spiny Norman

matt,

Funny thing too that "Haram" - a Koranic injunction - is right in the group's name.

That's just their "short name" in the local dialect, the full name of the group is even more Islamic:

Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad

Which roughly translates as "The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad." Their symbol has the black flag of Jihad (as used by Al-Qaeda and their affiliates) atop a Koran above crossed Ak-47s.

Jon Powers

Why are we still talking about Boko Haram? They were destroyed by the #bringbackourgirls twitter campaign! Weren't they?

svh

They were destroyed by the #bringbackourgirls twitter campaign! Weren't they?

Close.

http://kaching.tumblr.com/post/86338139953/happyacres-northern-nigeria-in-an-attempt-to

Nikw211

Steve 2: Steveageddon (I prefer the title in full as I never know when you might switch back to Steve 2: The Stevening)

I found your comments really interesting, not least because if you hadn't reminded me that Sarkeesian was bound to be on Wikipedia I wouldn't have found out that her MA in social and political thought is from the very same University, York University in Canada, that has made Dr Machlachlan an Associate Professor of Philosophy(!).

Glad you enjoyed the videos; they're kind of crude and homemade but surprisingly entertaining in exactly the same way that pipe bombs aren't even remotely.

The poor woman has been swindled into believing that she's educated […] Unlike students of the more traditional subjects, who will have had the importance of facts and logic hammered in to them before being allowed to graduate, Anita was subjected to cargo cult education

This may not have been your intention, but I felt stung to the quick when I read these comments – though please note, I don't consider that to be a negative and neither am into Winfrey- / Kyle- / Springer- style confessions but that said my own educational experience largely fits the description you give Sarkeesian's, only worse.

Worse because through some personal failing – probably a mild form of autism – I put an inordinate amount of faith in something my High School English teacher told us – that we could have any opinion we liked so long as a) we could justify it and b) even after justifying we understood that other people still had a right to disagree with it. I still vividly recall when she said that, right down to where I was sitting when she said it.

Unfortunately, it took me rather longer to work out that the significance of this Volatairean-like statement amounted to absolutely F**K ALL in the context of a failing comprehensive school in Leeds. It was only through trial and more often than not error that I finally came to realise that 'Hang on a minute, this stuff about education being democratic-meritocratic is 90%+ f****ing bulls**t'.

I really hope this isn't coming across as a case of 'poor-me-ism' because that's really not my intention – the point I'm trying to make is that I really understand what it's like to put a naïve amount of faith into 'educated' people and into what Thomas Sowell has marvelously described as people with 'the vision of the anointed'.

If I remember rightly, you've said before that you used to serve in HM forces (for which many thanks BTW), so I don't want to overstate the potential snowflakery of what I'm describing, but, caveats aside, … when a professor in an HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences) subject puts you down for stepping out of line it can be quite a soul-destroying experience. It takes quite a while – in my case at least the best part of 20 years – to realise that most of their criticisms are based on ad hominem attacks – or more often, weirdly, ad hominem passive-aggressive defence, false dichotomies, straw men and, not infrequently, the many flavours of bulls**t that is PoMo- and PoCo-speak. Oh, and of course the brute force of the caste system – i.e. I am a professor, you are a student, therefore you know nothing (Jon Snow).

I'm not suggesting here that students should willie-nillie disregard anything that their professors of 20+ years experience say … but what if your professor is professional bulls*****er like Homi Bhabha, Slavoj Zizek or Benita Parry? I mean they're all nigh on total f***ing arses whose only sensible comments (when or if they make them) are so obvious as to be barely worth making in the first place.

Anyway in short, there's a part of me feels sorry for Sarkeesian that she genuinely believes, as Thunderf00t points out in one of his clips, that it is 'of course' a patriarchal conspiracy that dares to suggest that men (on average) are likely to be stronger than men. Even the most intelligent people can be come to believe in all manner of b******s of they are surrounded by enough weighty intellectuals all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Bloody hell! I've written more than I meant to – excuse: got up at 2.30 am to meet a deadline, didn't finish work till 7 pm and am writing this from a pub. End message.

Nikw211

a patriarchal conspiracy that dares to suggest that men (on average) are likely to be stronger than men

Bollocks, Clearly, that's supposed to read "a patriarchal conspiracy that dares to suggest that men (on average) are likely to be stronger than women" otherwise .. ah fuck it.

David

Bollocks

Perhaps more beer would help.

Nikw211

Perhaps more beer would help.

Ah, oops. Apologies - please feel free to delete the previous two messages of mine *red face*

Henry

Chris

Worst of all, I'm finding it very difficult to ignore just how neatly this development has correlated with the presence and leadership of women in the media. I don't want to be that guy, not at 28. , but the censorious scolding, brittle indignation, and argument from authority ('of course I value free speech, I teach John Stuart Mill') that characterizes the new frontier of new media is too obvious to ignore.

It's awkward, isn't it? When I was a lad, I believed that women helping to run everything would be good for the world. I still do, really.

But look at where it's taken us... I think it's partly a result of what feminism has done to women - persuading them to see men as the enemy, to conduct a war against men by "winning" every debate (even using whistles, blowing horns, shouting, anything, just to get the last word)

..and then to deny that they're doing any such thing... I can't remember who said to me that feminism had done even more harm to women than it has to men. I wonder.

dicentra

Letting women run things is worse only because the typical male-type screw-ups are now compounded with female-type screw-ups.

I was going to suggest that if Teh Matriarchy were the only game in town, that would be 50% less screwed-up than what we have now, but somehow that sounds wrong.

Henry

the typical male-type screw-ups are now compounded with female-type screw-ups

It's true. We all know men screw up. But nobody is afraid that they'll be accused of "misandry" for pointing it out. No moderators will be worried about whether it's "hate-speech"

But try posing as a man and saying "actually women can be a little bit touchy and over-emotional, sometimes" on CiF or on any other mainstream newspaper forum (UK, I don't know the US ones)...and see what happens.

Is this important? I don't know. Seems so to me. What did Voltaire say? "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise"

dicentra

Here is what the rape statistics in the U.S. have been doing.

Hint: plunging.

XRay

Just as a slight change of pace, and no intent to offend... but a stark reality is not just distant from our supposed betters with all those letters behind their names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vjlpg9i2Bg&feature=player_embedded

Though yes, a nice voice.

Freshverbal

Trending topics today in social justice interweb land.

BREAKING NEWS.

BONG!

1.Marissa Alexander convicted to 20 years for firing warning shots (and harming no one) in the same state which acquitted notorious white racist murderer Zimmerman. Racist oppression see!

BONG!

2.Rapper Mos Def refused entry to his own country (America) because he is black and criticizes Guantanamo Bay. Racism, imperialism and torture see!

BONG!

3. UKip are evil, stupid Nazi stock brokers who eat babies, hate brown people, foreign white people and women. Racism, fascism, Nazism, sexism and white privilege see!

The privilege and oppression is everywhere, if you know where to look with an uncritical eye

Pubes McDuck

Lars, great video. I always wondered when that sort of thing was going to happen, not surprised that Denmark was the first.

Pfft. Once again, Australia was ahead of the curve:

I remember back circa-2005 there was a controversy involving the then-Health Minister Tony Abbott, and some students "protested" a speech of his. You can probably guess at the nature of the protest; the speech had to be abandoned.

The next day, I was listening to Triple J - Australia's #1 youth-oriented government-funded hipster douchebag radio station - and one of their reporters, Steve Cannane, was interviewing one of the students. I imagine that their politics are probably quite similar, but that day Steve Cannane was on the side of the angels, making all the arguments outlined upthread and asking this fellow where he got off inhibiting someone's free speech.

Said the student, "You're talking about this in the abstract, and I want to focus on the concrete. Tony Abbott hates women's bodies, blah blah blah..."

...at which point you couldn't hear him anymore, because Steve Cannane had turned the fader down.

Said Steve: "Mate, just stop for a second - I've just turned your volume down, and now I'm the only one who can hear you. You're not going out over the radio. How does that make you feel?"

[silence]

---

I really wish I could find the audio, it was absolutely magical

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Nikw211 - I knew what you meant fella :)

And no, thank *you*! Nobody's ever thanked me for having been in the Army before. (I didn't do any heroic stuff or win medals or anything. But it's not my fault there isn't a Victoria Cross for having a big mouth that gets you into trouble.) You do get the odd NCO/comedian who'll thank you to do guard duty while everybody else is down the pub, but that's about it.

Being shouted at is definitely a thing in HM Forces, but it's not that bad. I got worse stick from teachers when I was playing rugby at school. The thing is, if you get a bollocking from a sergeant or a corporal it's usually for your own good, delivered by a plain-speaking man who just wants to make you better at your job, and rarely with any lasting hard feelings. Unlike in civilian life where quite often it's because your boss/lecturer/what-have-you is an egotistical twat who enjoys that sort of thing.

So I know exactly where you're coming from. I think academia attracts more than its fair share of predatory personalities. There's probably more cruelty being inflicted in a typical day at the average university campus than in the average regiment.

Glad you enjoyed the videos; they're kind of crude and homemade but surprisingly entertaining in exactly the same way that pipe bombs aren't even remotely.

I liked them so much out of curiosity I googlised the guy who made them. Unlike Anita, with her woeful grasp of "research", Thunderfoot's a real researcher with a PhD in Chemistry. No wonder he's so prone to sexist badthink!

Maybe those new feminist biologists can branch out into chemistry after they prove that women are just as strong as men and discover the Rape Gene.

That would make me happier than a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster served by Eccentrica Gallumbits.

sk60

"Piketty appears to have added random numbers to certain formula to bend the data toward his hypothesis."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ft-accusation-against-piketty-2014-5

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll