Cancel culture discussion thread II

by Judith Curry

Some additional articles and events to discuss.

This is a bit thin, but we needed a new thread and I am short of time.

Cliff Mass fired by NPR from his local radio show [link]

The cancel culture checklist [link]

Peer review, politics and pluralism [link]

The mob comes calling for a music theorist [link]

Why I don’t publish in peer reviewed journals [link]

China Scholar Xu to Sue to clear neame in soliciting prostitute charge [link]

Prof Xu’s real “crime” was penning essays denouncing removal of the two-term limit for China’s leader and accusing Xi of trying to bring the Cultural Revolution back to China. Also, he called for freedom of speech. bit.ly/2P5KPFx

Yes cancel culture exists – Colin Wright [link]

The climate left attacks Nobel laureate William Nordhaus [link]

Honoring the dishonorable [link]

Why university search committees need to emphasize ideological diversity  [link]

On Schellenberger being censored by Forbes [link]

Schellenberger gets cancelled during Congressional testimony [link]

Joshua Katz: I survived cancellation at Princeton [link]

In praise of negativity [link]

The Washington Post settles with teenager Nicholas Sandmann [link]

Discourse wars [link]

 

236 responses to “Cancel culture discussion thread II

  1. I enjoy reading Cliff Mass’ blog. He’s one of the few moderate AGWers around but retains a healthy amount of logic about the issue. Being under
    fire by the CCs–and being fired–is nothing new for Cliff. I expect he’ll be just fine. Being on NPR is nothing to brag about.

    • The Philadelphia Statement
      – A solution to Cancel Culture. Extracts:

      Social Media mobs. Cancel culture. Campus speech policing. These are all part of life in today’s America. Freedom of expression is in crisis. … Is this the country we want? Surely not. We want—and to be true to ourselves we need—to be a nation in which we and our fellow citizens of many different faiths, philosophies, and persuasions can speak their minds and honor their deepest convictions without fear of punishment and retaliation….
      the idea of “hate speech” exceptions to free speech principles is foreign to our free speech ideals, impossible to define, and often used by those wielding political, economic, or cultural power to silence dissenting voices. That is why we must favor openness, to allow ideas and beliefs the chance to be assessed on their own merits; and we must be willing to trust that bad ideas will be corrected not through censorship but through better arguments.
      If we seek to change our country’s trajectory; if we desire unity rather than division; if we want a political life that is productive and inspiring; if we aspire to be a society that is pluralistic and free, one in which we can forge our own paths and live according to our own consciences, then we must renounce ideological blacklisting and recommit ourselves to steadfastly defending freedom of speech and passionately promoting robust civil discourse.

      I encourage you to read, sign, and promote it.
      https://thephillystatement.org/read/

  2. “One of many reasons Donald Trump is a menace to democracy is that he views truth instrumentally, as something to use, abuse or ignore depending on the needs of the moment. He repeats discredited assertions again and again—or shifts ground to another when one assertion is definitively debunked. Cancelers often play the same kind of rhetorical Calvinball.”

    The cancel culture checklist

    The above paragraph comes out of nowhere. Cancel culture is of the Left. Yes, the Right plays it but at about 20% the rate the Left does so.

    The reason Trump won is because the Left was canceling people. Now he’s highlighted.

    The author must be afraid of getting canceled so included the paragraph. To restore some balance to the situation, don’t count on the author.

    • I would hypothesize that it is more difficult to cancel someone on the right. The right still mostly doesn’t care if others agree on every issue. You are still allowed a seat at the table even if ideological alignment isn’t complete. The right does play gotcha with people on the left though. More a case of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals…make them live by their own rules.

      Some of the last ones to die in the Guillotine during the French Revolution were revolutionaries, like Robespierre.

  3. I wish people stopped calling it “Cancel Culture” because the word “culture” gives it a dignity it doesn’t deserve. Cancel Mobbing is more descriptive, even if it doesn’t alliterate.

    • Mobbing is apt though it conjures up: ‘mob mentality’ and we know there’s not much reason going on in a mob.

      Remember when social media created ‘flash mobs’ resulting in videos of people dancing at a mall or something? Evidently, it’s taken a more nefarious turn.

      When I was a child, twice I observed something like mobs.
      Fortunately, in neither case did harm occur to anyone, but the experiences were instructive. Words were spoken, but I recall the resonating emotion more than anything. If this happened with children, it represents a troubling capacity within all humans.

    • Brilliant! Or maybe “mob cancelling” works a little better. Either way.

  4. In these times, truth is not our friend, as Cliff Mass found out.

    “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.“ George Orwell

    “Mass continued “Block after block of boarded up stores, restaurants, and other buildings. A city in lockdown and afraid.” Mass wrote what many Seattle residents have noticed but do not express out loud for fear of being targeted for speaking the wrong narrative.“

    It’s not just Seattle residents. The entire country is being intimidated into having only pure thought.

  5. “The King has NO Clothes ON”
    Apply this to Covid Response or Climate Change.

  6. The Cliff Mass episode is particularly troubling. Cliff pointed to a media narrative that is hyper partisan and simply denies reality, viz. that the “protests” peaceful. It’s a big lie. Large parts of New York, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle look like Beruit. The media are simply lying to us.

    • Don’t know where you’re getting your information, but “large parts” of Portland *do not* look like Beirut. You’re lying to us.

      • Maybe you can get a job with the visitor’s bureau or the chamber of commerce.

      • If a single block in those cities look like Beirut, it’s a disgrace. Since when does any level of government accept the level of criminal behavior that went on unabated there for weeks.

      • Unclear why anyone would visit Portland. The place is not safe because it is ruled by the leftest mob. Ditto for a business considering locating in Portland. The place is more like a third world country.

      • I work a block from the Justice Center in Portland. Large part of downtown Portland look like Beirut. Not sure where you are getting your information.

      • CBB: Large part of downtown Portland look like Beirut.

        In Beirut, blocks and blocks of buildings were leveled by the explosions. Which buildings a block or so from your work place have been leveled?

      • David A. is deploying the standard tactic of deniers. CBB below has first hand experience.

      • Randomengineer de Leather

        A good sized portion of Minneapolis does in fact look that way. The only national media I’ve found that has reported on the reality of this in any reasonable detail is fox news on tv shows like “Hannity.” If you are not also including fox news segments in your video feed, then it is incumbent on you to ask if you’re actually the one being lied to.

        And yes I’m well aware that my willingness to intermix fox news segments with other outlets shows that I am a gullible sheep therefore I will be canceled. You may be the one to pull that trigger, so go ahead — go for the low hanging fruit, and put me down for including a Hannity reference. That’s how the tribalism and the canceling starts.

      • Matthew R Marler

        randomengineer de LeatherAnd yes I’m well aware that my willingness to intermix fox news segments with other outlets shows that I am a gullible sheep therefore I will be canceled.

        I apologize if I seem to be taking this even farther off-topic than Savo Island, but has anybody ever tried to make a systematic case that Fox is consistently more error-prone than, say, CNN or PBS? In my readings of criticisms, Fox covers events or details of events that the other channels ignore or downplay. They all make mistakes, but I have not come across anything like a systematic comparison.

      • Matthew, the Harvard Kennedy Center does comparisons all the time. They find Fox to be balanced with a slight tilt against Trump for example.
        Fox appears “conservative” only when compared to media outlets that have gone insane.
        Fox’s coverage of Trump’s first 100 days was 52% negative. CNN’s was 93% negative (and that 7% must have been during whatever show they run at 4 a.m. on weekdays). Plus, if you remember your timelines, we now know that 99% of that 93% negative coverage was about a completely made up fairy tale about Russian collusion.

        https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/example-of-media-bias/harvard-study-reveals-media-bias/

      • BLM organizer says looting in Chicago is considered reparations. Trashing the Gucci store in the loop helps to feed people.

        That mentality sets back the rule of law and civilization a few thousand years.

      • jeffnsails850: Matthew, the Harvard Kennedy Center does comparisons all the time.

        Thank you.

    • It’s called a metaphor. Here is the definition: A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

      there are blocks and blocks of boarded up buildings here. Like a bomb went off. Get it?

      • cbb: It’s called a metaphor.

        What I quoted was an analogy, using “like” or “as”. Nothing in Portland looks leveled like the bombed-out portion of Beirut.

      • I was referring to Beirut pre explosion. There were lots of burned out and boarded up buildings. That’s currently true in Portland and in New York too.

      • jungletrunks

        The manifestation of an Orwellian dystopia would be apropos; which is worse than a superficial look, it’s an environment.

      • Nothing in Portland looks very much like the leveled the bombed-out portion of Beirut, so move on. Nothing to see here.

        Most of Beirut looks better than significant areas of Portland and other major U.S. cities that are being deliberately and systematically destroyed and looted, while local left loon authorities encourage it by their acquiescence and groveling to the mobs.

  7. We have left “speak now or forever hold your peace” territory; it’s now time to build and *coordinate* with competing institutions or forever withold our dissent. The debate is no longer about correct policy or truth, but instead whether official policy or official truth can even be challenged. If there’s one thing to take away from Curry, McIntyre, Linzen, et al’s fight over the past decade, it’s that those that are established in existing institutions don’t want to listen to objections or alternatives. Yes that includes NASA, NOAA, large portions of the USG and pretty much the enitrety of the Ivy league, even the engineering schools, and almost all NGO’s.

    Dissent to the official narrative is a direct threat to an institution’s power and will be suppressed from the top. Decades of bureaucratic darwinism have selected for this. Meanwhile at the entry level, intense pressures and competition abound. But climate change investigation grants and diversity officer positions are two “bright spots” which provide opportunities to those otherwise struggling to establish a foothold in our prestige industries. For this reason, the newest cohorts also fight to keep the narrative as sacred. This high/low strategy is quite potent: dissent will meet a toothy adversity from every level of an institution, and that is the formidable Cancel Culture we’re discussing today.

    But this suppression of truth, refusal to even debate, and the committee “pork” compromises it necessitates are also inefficiencies and degrade societal-return-on-investment the prestigious industries [are supposed to] provide. Already we’ve started to see stark examples: NASA has gone from a monopolist in space launch to a third rate player against SpaceX, a decidedly non-woke entity. Big name schools have seen graduates flounder in the job market while being saddled with unprecedented amounts of debt. In contrast, coding bootcamps have a developed a 3 month program to get people a better starting salary, with a pay-us-only-after-you-get-a-job financing plan. These are the seeds of resistance, and this is what fighting cancel culture must look lik:. not another righteous letter to the editor, but a distinct entity with a better answer.

    Feel free to throw your own ideas or examples in below.

  8. No true opponent of cancel culture could cancel a commenter who laughs at the absence of contrary commentary on WUWT.

    Over to you, Rotter.

    • They do reply a lot to the few contrary posters. Insulting from the majority towards the minority is common there. It is a low degree of cancel culture. I am going to throw out 1/10th. No one’s losing their jobs. The response to the attempt to cancel Watts if that occurred is what? It’s not to cancel others. However, is Watts allowed to cancel whomever he pleases from his blog? Yes. The world would be a better place if more warmists posted at WUWT. Someone should write a paper about WUWT.

      • You need to read ‘Still SUT’ above especially “this suppression of truth, refusal to even debate” refers to alarmists not climate realists. It’s also official policy with many famous (alarmist) climate scientists saying “we will not debate”. There are few alarmists at WUWT because they have nothing to say beyond the “consensus” which requires one to square the circle. That just messes one’s head up. If one can’t make a career out of it what’s the point in messing one’s head up?

        I’ve actually given up thinking that climate alarmists “believe in” their position. It’s more realistic to understand the alarmist either (a) getting paid to say that, or (b) believing in consensus group-think – in which case: they believe it because others do – they “believe in” belonging to their clan.

    • If you want contrary comments go to CFACT, for example here:
      https://www.cfact.org/2020/07/18/is-peer-review-bad-for-science/

      Unfortunately the strenuous debate is generally simple minded.

  9. We have left “speak now or forever hold your peace” territory; it’s now time to build and *coordinate* with competing institutions or forever withold our dissent. The debate is no longer about correct policy or truth, but instead whether official policy or official truth can even be challenged. If there’s one thing to take away from Curry, McIntyre, Linzen, et al’s fight over the past decade, it’s that those that are established in existing institutions don’t want to listen to objections or alternatives. Yes that includes NASA, NOAA, large portions of the USG and pretty much the entirety of the Ivy league, even the engineering schools, and almost all NGO’s.

    Dissent to the official narrative is a direct threat to an institution’s power and will be suppressed from the top. Decades of bureaucratic darwinism have selected for this. Meanwhile at the entry level, intense pressures and competition abound. But climate change investigation grants and diversity officer positions are two “bright spots” which provide opportunities to those otherwise struggling to establish a foothold in our prestige industries. For this reason, the newest cohorts also fight to keep the narrative as sacred. Theis high/low strategy is quite potent: dissent will meet a toothy adversity from every level of an institution, and that is the fromidable Cancel Culture we’re discussing today.

    But this suppression of truth, refusal to even debate, and the committee “pork” compromises it necessitates are also inefficiencies and degrade societal-return on-investment the prestigious industries [are supposed to] provide. Already we’ve started to see it stark examples: NASA has gone from a monopolist in space launch to a third rate player against SpaceX, a decidedly non-woke entity. Big name schools have seen graduates flounder in the job market while being saddled with unprecedented amounts of debt. In contrast, coding bootcamps have a developed a 3 month program to get people a better starting salary, with a pay-us-only-after-you-get-a-job financing plan. These are the seeds of resistance, and this is what fighting cancel culture must look lik:. not another righteous letter to the editor, but a distinct entity with a better answer.

    Feel free to throw your own ideas or examples in below.

  10. Alan Longhurst

    The ‘Riskmonger’ piece concerning science publication is the saddest thing I have read for many a month. There’s no fix for what he describes…

  11. Global warming alarmists followed Al Gore — a fantastic figure whose documentary renditions of reality call to climate porn merchants like a pied piper — the Left’s preacher of over-the-cliff self-defeatism. Dead & dying old Europe has been the incubator of a Leftist ideology, socialism and fear of capitalism that has grown from a hair to a thumb in the eye of Western civilization. Academia sold-out America which has become a Leftist, liberal-Utopian, banana republic manufacturer of hairshirts for the productive to wear.

    • Meanwhile, the Earth’s surface is still warming at 0.2 C/decade.

      • Mayor of Venus

        That might indeed be a problem, but not for at least 100 years. Therefore, it’s for people then to decide how much of a problem it is, and what to do about it. Meanwhile, the mild warming of 0.2 degrees C is probably net beneficial. That’s my position as a luke-warmist.

      • … whereas, humanity has oftentimes seen a lot warmer Earth than it is now and many millions of years ago — long before the first human footprint – the Earth was even, sweltering!

      • Oceans are 71% of earth’s surface. Please do me a favour – cite the scientific source for oceans warming at 0.2 C.

      • Oceans are 71% of earth’s surface. Please do me a favour – cite the scientific source for oceans warming at 0.2 C/decade.

      • Especially when you ignore the lack of warming from 1940 to 1975 … Although that is gradually being adjusted away by your fellow climate alarmists, Mr Appleman.

        Also, a nearly flat temperature period from 2003 to mid 2015 while CO2 levels rose rapidly.

        And warming between the 1690s and 1940 that seemed unrelated to CO2 levels.

        You leftists are never happy with the climate, which you somehow think was perfect on JuNE 6, 1750 at 3:06pm and any change since then is a crisis.

        Only gullible people like you, Mr Appleman, could live in a wonderful climate and think it was a climate crisis.

  12. While it is tragic that the city if lived in for 10 years of my life burned, the state of Minneapolis is an example. When those in power take things too far from reality and they do such a poor job, warning signs and signals do occur. The answer to looniness is more looniness until the thing collapses upon itself. The Minneapolis City council is beyond reasoning with. They are reimagining. I want puke at that shallow shtick of a word.

    They want to have solar power and electric vehicles. They get homeless encampments. They get people bailing out the looters. They want bike lanes. They get burned out vehicles. Their downtown is turning into no-mans land before the rioting happened. They had effective cuts in the police force before the anarchy. People are avoiding Minneapolis.

    The city canceled the Republican party a long time ago. They welcomed the Green party though. If the major league sports ever return after getting us to pay for the facilities while kneeling to China, us rednecks aren’t going down there to pay $10 for a beer. So that B.S is also collapsing as it should. And all the made up economic arguments about major league sports teams and their economic benefits.

    Trump didn’t cause Minneapolis to go down this losing path. He didn’t make the decisions that led to Lake Street burning. The rot is deeper. Trump did not cause Minneapolis to do about the worst job in educating minority students. But they did to do a great job renaming Lake Calhoun, who was some racist.

    Our Governor who served in the National Guard, managed to insult the Guard as un-prepared. That’s leadership. The Mayor of Minneapolis is blaming the Governor and trying to not get canceled. As he’s retained enough brain cells so as not to want to cancel their police.

    Where’s the optimism? Perhaps they’ll learn some day they are pursuing the wrong things. They are listening to wrong people.

  13. Alan Longhurst

    Second thoughts on Riskmonger – In fact, there are large tracts of the ‘soft’ sciences where these problems are perhaps not serious, at least no more serious than disagreements between scholars in Antiquity: what about classification (and therefore relationships) of natural organisms, or stratigraphy and the evolution of land forms? Have the predatory journals invaded these subjects, too?

  14. These may have been referenced on CE before, but I recently read this one:

    America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare

    Speaking of this tendency in context of ancient Greek assemblies, Madison wrote:
    “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

    Reading this prompted reading the The Federalist Papers : No. 10 .

    Madison noted the propensity to mob but the safeguards in the Constitution:

    The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.

    Unfortunately, the flames of identity politics seem to ignite on social media with the speed of reptile brain emotions in a widely dispersed manner. This is human failing, not Constitutional failing, but how does one limit the cancer without limiting freedom?

  15. Sorry but this whole issue seems like mostly to be obnoxious idiots whining because someone challenges their views. Every one can express any belief they like but nobody is required to listen to it. Everybody isn’t required to node their heads, for example, and say “oh, that’s nice you think that protesters in Seattle are like [and I can’t write the word because the cancel culture on this blog]”.

    • Cancel culture in action. My last comment went to moderation.

    • I think there are legitimate issues here. But they come in a context:

      Identiy politics and cancel culture are as old as time, or at least as old as the country.

      What has changed, to some degree, is the framework for who gets to asset Identiy and cancel whom.

      This change takes place in the context of a larger trajectory – i.e., a wider variety of people have more agency than ever before. It stands to reason that those who had a more exclusive access to power would find it uncomfortable that the disparity in power they previously enjoyed is dissipating.

      The selectivity in how people deal with this, and the “outrage mining” is not the least bit surprising.

      I think there are legitimate concerns. Slippery slopes do exist. On the other hand, so does noise amidst a signal. The over-reach by some, causes real harm to certain individuals. It is a kefomiste concern, but it does come in the context of more people having agency than ever before.

    • When the question is gender, scientists are being canceled. When it comes to women in sports, some of the women are being canceled by biological men. I think it’s at the worst when something of value is taken from someone. Something they worked at. And people’s fear of not being able to discuss certain things, is a negative. Free speech is important for a number of utilitarian reasons. We can see what happens when you lose it. China.

    • …. are like Maoist red shirts?

  16. “You are not demonstrating, you are attempting to commit murder,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said in hastily called news conference alongside Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell. … “You are creating the B-roll film that will be used in ads nationally to help Donald Trump during this campaign.”

    Burning 20 police is a bad thing, but what makes it really wrong is that it may help Trump.

  17. People writing about cancel culture should check out Wikipedia’s entry on Extremism, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism “Extremism” is no longer talked about as much as it was before 2000, but the topic is now more relevant than ever, as a frame for what is going on. Here are two paragraphs from Wikipedia:

    “Laird Wilcox identifies 21 alleged traits of a “political extremist”, ranging from “a tendency to character assassination” and hateful behaviour like “name calling and labelling”, to general character traits like “a tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil”, “a tendency to substitute intimidation for argument” or “groupthink”.”

    Robert F. Kennedy said “What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

    IOW, extremism is a matter of temperament, exemplified by Jacobinsm. Conservatism is primarily a matter of temper too—of the opposite, anti-fanatic, anti-enthusiast temper.

  18. KNKX said, “We turn to our regular commentators for their expertise and points-of-view when it comes to sports, food and the weather. But if a commentator, even on his own independent platform, delivers rhetoric that is offensive and inaccurate, we cannot support it.”

    So will it dismiss leftist commenters for “rhetoric that is offensive and inaccurate”? To ask the question is to know the answer, as the French are wont to say.

    BTW, KNKX isn’t just a Tacoma station; it has about five affiliated stations elsewhere in Washington that merely rebroadcast its signal.

    • PS: Of course Maas’s near-equivalencing of the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP occupiers to 1937 brownshirts was quite a stretch—one could even call it “extreme”—because ALL the brownshirts were extremists and were PRIMARILY “looking for trouble.”

      • A radio station, as a media enterprise, is legitimately concernwd about the opinions of their audience.

        If someone they’re affiliated with makes a facile comparison to N*zis, in a way that’s likely to offend a significant portion of their audience, it’s understand able that they think it’s appropriate for them to respond. Part of their very existence hinges on their appeal to their audience.

        Cliff Mass knows this when he speaks publicly. It’s his choice to say what he wants to say, and as an adult he gets to face the consequences. It’s a different situation if the government censors his speech. But that’s not what we have here. He can go on comparing people to N*zis on his blog to his heart’s content. I see no reason why a radio station should be expected to assume responsibility for his decisions.

        It’s fascinating that so many people think that he should be protected like a snowflake from facing easily predictable consequences for his actions.

      • Roger Knights

        Joshua: “Part of their very existence hinges on their appeal to their audience. Cliff Mass knows this when he speaks publicly.”

        But did he? The station didn’t cite any contractual language obliging him to be discreet, or mention any informal “understanding” to be so.

        “It’s fascinating that so many people think that he should be protected like a snowflake from facing easily predictable consequences for his actions.”

        The consequences were not “easily predictable.” AFAIK, he hadn’t engaged in that sort of comparison before (i.e., he wasn’t a repeat offender), he wasn’t broadcasting his opinion to the KNKX audience, he hadn’t been warned not to do so elsewhere, and probably less than 5% of the audience would have learned of what he blogged.

        And Maas’s main criticism was sound—it was of the authorities for backing down in the face of rioters who were attacking buildings and people (and police stations). His criticism of the rioters as acting like anti-democratic bullies was not far from mainstream opinion of them, and shouldn’t have been a firing offense.

        So I don’t think the station itself would have dismissed him if it hadn’t been threatened with (donation-diminishing) abuse by activists if he had been let off with only a warning, although that would have been an appropriate response. I think what’s happened is a lamentable example instance of the power of cancel-culture Jacobins to cause a dismissal for stretching an analogy too far.

        “It’s fascinating that so many people think that he should be protected like a snowflake from facing easily predictable consequences for his actions.”

        Besides not conceding that dismissal was easily predicatble from the making a Kristalnacht (sp?) analogy, my other objection, in common with the objection of many others (of those who are objecting), is that this standard of punishment will not be applied even-handedly. I strongly suspect that many of NPR’s regular commenters have repeatedly characterized others as fascists—not just of acting like them—but that they will not endure any consequences. THAT’S what’s predictable. And annoying.

      • Joshua: If someone they’re affiliated with makes a facile comparison to N*zis, in a way that’s likely to offend a significant portion of their audience, it’s understand able that they think it’s appropriate for them to respond.

        Was it “facile”? Antifans are more like the National Socialist thugs than anyone else in the US in recent memory (Weather Underground, maybe? Symbionese Liberation Army?) A region of Seattle is more like German cities after Kristallnacht than any other historical tragedy that comes to mind (Hiroshima? Warsaw, 1939? LA, Cleveland, Detroit, Newark after the riots of the mid-late 60s?) The plain description of the actual damage in Seattle would have been enough to get him fired. The radio station’s claim to represent diverse viewpoints was self-contradictory on its face if it rejects comparisons of the Antifans to the National Socialist thugs — I am sure that by now the analogy is recognized by thousands of people of Seattle who know anything of Germany in decade of 1930-1939.

      • Joshua is just childish in his thinking. NPR is publicly funded and should be interested in diversity of opinion. What really happened here is that this station’s management is woke or sympathetic to the woke independent of what their audience really thinks. Reality, which is what Mass was describing, is heresy to cultural Marxism which is a position of reality denial. This is exactly analogous to Germany in the 1930’s. Denial is a powerful force for Josh and his woke comrades.

      • Another disgusting feature of Josh’s comment is his ad hominem attack on Cliff Mass. He is not a snowflake as anyone who reads his blog knows. Reality is a harsh mistress for childish fantasies.

    • A radio station, as a media enterprise, is legitimately concernwd about the opinions of their audience.

      If someone they’re affiliated with makes a facile comparison to Nazis, in a way that’s likely to offend a significant portion of their audience, it’s understand able that they think it’s appropriate for them to respond. Part of their very existence hinges on their appeal to their audience.

      Cliff Mass knows this when he speaks publicly. It’s his choice to say what he wants to say, and as an adult he gets to face the consequences. It’s a different situation if the government censors his speech. But that’s not what we have here. He can go on comparing people to Nazis on his blog to his heart’s content. I see no reason why a radio station should be expected to assume responsibility for his decisions.

      It’s fascinating that so many people think that he should be protected like a snowflake from facing easily predictable consequences for his actions.

      • Steven Mosher

        “A radio station, as a media enterprise, is legitimately concernwd about the opinions of their audience.

        If someone they’re affiliated with makes a facile comparison to Nazis, in a way that’s likely to offend a significant portion of their audience, it’s understand able that they think it’s appropriate for them to respond. Part of their very existence hinges on their appeal to their audience.”

        you mean like comparing Trump to Hilter?
        or calling senator X a fascist?

        What about comparisons to Pol pot? or Lenin?

        This is not a simple thing.

  19. In praise of negativity

    I may not be right, but I know for sure that you are wrong.

    “…we are more likely to be closer to the truth when we are trying to figure out why others may be wrong, than when we are trying to figure out why we ourselves are right.”

    In order for this to work, we have to listen to each other. This does relate to cancel culture. Not a lot of listening going on with that.

    So we want to cancel Thomas Jefferson as he owned slaves. More precisely, cancel his statue. Which is a symbol of him and his ideas. In the neighborhood of being speech.

    So I thought, in what ways are the fact that he owned slaves important? I don’t think it invalidated his most important ideas and words. Some of his words were used by Blacks to argue for their liberty.

    But was it a moral crime for him to own slaves? We will never know. We can make arguments why it was. But we were not in his place. We are also to forgive. There are many arguments as to why we should. And we do not know on their behalf, his slaves, if they forgave him. That we could not forgive the all ready forgiven. There are a material number of Blacks without vengeance in regards to Jefferson and his words and his deeds.

    So the problem with your criticism is that I am criticizing it. All statues are about words. There are no leaders without them. Words are the primary weapon that leaders have. Columbus did not navigate and brawl his way the new world. His words brought it all together into a coherent thing.

    Tearing down statues is not too far removed from burning books.

    • Ragnaar *

      > So we want to cancel Thomas Jefferson as he owned slaves.

      As long as you don’t define “cancel” you can make such banal statements and now one can prove them false – becsuee they could essentially mean anything.

      It’s like when owolw make the inane argument that tearing down a statue runs the risk of “erasing history.”

      I don’t see where anyone wants to “cancel” Jefferson. Quite to the contrary – they want the full measure of the man to be considered. He was a racist who impregnated black women, presumably by forcing them to submit becsaue of the power afforded him by akin color. He knew that slavery was immoral, but formed a bargain with his sense of morality for political expediency and his own economic interest.

      Tearing down a statue to honor him doesn’t “cancel” him, it doesn’t “erase” him. It simply says that by full measure of the man, some people don’t think he should be honored. Some people want to honor him nevertheless. In fact, they also want maintain statues erected by racists during reconstruction, during a period when black Americans were lynched in the the public square and denied the rights win during the Civil War, to honor men who unlike Jefferson, have basically no legacy other than that they fought in a war to preserve the institution of treating human beings as animals to be whipped and raped and murdered.

      > tearing down statues is not too far removed from burning books.

      I say it’s not even close. But again, as long as you make your statements banal and vague enough, no one can prove them wrong.

      • A statue of Thomas Jefferson is one of his words. Not of his marksmanship, his clothing style, or his ability to throw a beer keg. You can’t divorce the statue from him. You can rename a lake, like Lake Calhoun. You can argue that you’re not canceling Calhoun, but that’s the point of renaming the lake. To associate him with evil. Not canceling you say. Toppling a statue is toppling a summation of him. It is symbolic of a dethroning.

        Your stark portrayal of his crimes. Those crimes that he committed are not the problem. Jefferson is not the problem. That is elsewhere.

      • Joshua, You are quite ignorant. It is not clear that Jefferson was a racist. He had qualms about slavery like many of the founders did that were unusual for the time. One could argue they were better than most of their contemporaries. To consider Jefferson worse betrays profound ignorance of the times. Of course, Howard Zinn has created deep ignorance in a whole generation of Americans. It’s insane and dangerous to deny the uniqueness of the American founders.

        The biggest lie of course is that Western civilization is uniquely evil. Slavery was a universal feature of human civilization and widely practiced in Africa as well. It was the West that banned, first the slave trade, and then slavery itself.

      • > You are quite ignorant. It is not clear that Jefferson was a racist.

        -snip-
        . .. it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.. .
        -snip-

        Indeed

      • -snip-
        … Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course….
        -snip-

        Convenient that he felt that the people he enslaved and owned were less intelligent and didn’t grieve as much as whites, that they soon forget afflictions, and aren’t inclined to reflect…

        But only an ignorant fool would equate that with racism.

      • just keep moving along. nothing clearly racist here.

        -snip-
        … yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait, of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. — Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar r&oe;strum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination
        -snip-

      • and most assuredly, nothing racist here:

        -snip-
        I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.
        -snip-

        How could someone who “suspected” that black people are inferior in both body and mind to whites be a considered racist?

        Why it defies all logic!

      • Josh, Are you really this dense? Your quotations from Jefferson are meaningless and do not respond to my overarching point which trumps yours. For his time, Jefferson was more enlightened than most.

        Are you drunk again tonight? It is a Friday evening.

      • David –

        It seems he was prolly less racist than some whites, and certainly most other slave-owners, in his day. He was also certainly more racist than some other whites, although prolly not many other slave-owners in his day.

        None of that means he wasn’t a racist. Again, I’ll quote what you wrote:

        > You are quite ignorant. It is not clear that Jefferson was a racist.

        His writing makes it abundantly clear that he was a racist.

      • Josh, Your point is not important. Jefferson was much more enlightened than most people of his time. Vastly more enlightened than Arabs and Africans. Most blacks who had contact with Europeans were illiterate and so the conclusion that they were intellectually inferior was an almost universal conclusion.

      • This looks a lot like cancel culture: You go through his writings, and judge him a racist. Who wasn’t a racist by the standards you used above? Jefferson was a representative of his time. Yes, we had a bunch of racists. In a world with a lot of racists. Jefferson is not here to defend himself. And his victims are not here for us to talk to.

        Racism is not the most important thing. It is being taken so far, people are re-segregating. They are ignoring MLK’s words. They are trying to frame many things as the result of racism. They are turning us against each other.

        You should watch the full version of the Floyd bodycam video. Not the edited ones. There’s a more than 25% chance this had very little to do with racism. He could not breath many minutes before the knee. Our grandstanding AG isn’t going to make the most serious change.

        People that see racism almost everywhere they look are not moral. Or they’re stupid. They are problem makers.

        ——————————-
        Bigoteering
        Originates with Tim Ferriss, describes tagging someone (or someone’s opinions) as “racist”, “chauvinist” or somethinglikeit-ist in situations where these are not warranted. This is a shoddy manipulation to exploit the stigmas accompanying such labels and force the opponent to spent time and energy explaining “why he/she is not a bigot”.
        Note that it is the true victims of bigotry that are insulted by virtue-peddling bigoteers.
        Example: The Lebanese government is always accused of racism by first order bigoteers whenever they discuss the case of Syrian refugees (close to 20–30% of thee population), then put on the defensive having to explain that “we are not racist, but”. Lebanese officials fail to use the argument that foreign bigoteers should have some skin in the game and try to settle some Syrian refugees in their Washington, Parisian, or London backyard. They are the one who are racist by not doing so.
        ——————————–

        You are the racist. You have no skin in the game. You haven’t made up for Jefferson’s failings. You’ve only pointed them out. And you can never make up for them. You are cursed to forever atone for them. You have not hitched your wagon to the Black’s fate. You have failed. Get to work.

      • > Who wasn’t a racist by the standards you used above?

        Millions of slaves? Interesting that why don’t even exist in your mental checklist.

        Here’s a white dude:

        –snip–
        During the mid-18th century, Philadelphia schoolteacher Anthony Benezet laid the foundations of the trans-Atlantic abolitionist movement. The kindhearted Quaker first took up the cause in 1754, when he joined with fellow activist John Woolman in writing a text titled “An Epistle of Caution and Advice, Concerning the Buying and Keeping of Slaves.” Over the next 25 years, Benezet published countless other antislavery tracts that drew on enlightenment philosophy, religious doctrine and economics to make a case for emancipation. Having taught many African children in his school, he also espoused the then-provocative idea that blacks possessed the same intellectual capacity as whites.
        –snip–

        Try reading about the Quakers.

        That Jefferson was equally or less racist than other whites in his day, doesn’t make him not a racist.

        Why are you trying to cancel his racism?

      • Ragnar –

        > People that see racism almost everywhere they look are not moral. Or they’re stupid. They are problem makers.

        Thsnks for this. This is truly, beautifully ironic.

        I’m this sub-thread, we have (1) i say that Jefferson is a racist, (2) David saying that I’m ignorant because I don’t know that Jefferson wasn’t clearly racist. (3) I post Jefferson’s writing that unambiguously demonstrates that he was a racist. (4) David saying that Jefferson’s writing is irrelevant, and then (5) you get the vapors about immoral, stupid people who are problem-makers who see racism where it doesn’t exist.

        What names do you have to call people who don’t see racism where it clearly exists?

        I srsly love me some that kind of irony.

      • Ragnaar –

        Here’s some more material for you to try to cancel:

        How did they resist?
        FEIGNING ILLNESS
        “I find Doll at the Ferry is constantly returned sick; the Overseer at that place ought to see that this sickness is not pretense.” –George Washington, 1794

        WORKING SLOWLY
        “Muclas [spent] six days paving, & sanding the Cellar which a man in Philadelphia would have done in less than as many hours.” –George Washington, 1794

        THEFT
        “I wish you could find out the thief who robbed the Meat house at Mount Vernon, and bring him to punishment. And at the same time secure the house against future attempts.” –George Washington, 1795

        BREAKING TOOLS AND SUPPLIES
        “Enquire what is become of the Corn Tubs…It is a most shameful thing that conveniences of this sort which ought to last for years are suffered to go to destruction after once or twice using, & then new ones are to be provided.” –George Washington, 1793

        if…any…of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means—or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered.

        – GEORGE WASHINGTON, 179

        …if his pride is not a sufficient stimulus to excite him to industry have him severely punished and placed under one of the Overseers as a common hoe negro.

        –GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1793

      • “…that I’m ignorant because I don’t know that Jefferson wasn’t clearly racist.”

        Coherency is a virtue. By today’s standards, and with the help of your cancel culture behavior digging through the past, he was a racist. But you’re applying today’s standards. He was a man of science. You weren’t there, you weren’t him, you didn’t live through those times.

        The Blacks are not asking you to speak for them, and his victims aren’t asking you to speak for them. Some Blacks drew inspiration from his words and used them.

        The question is what can you do? Call for the removal of his statues. But if you care so much about racism, do something about it beyond virtue signaling. You know there are things you can do that are better than tearing down Jefferson.

        “…that Jefferson’s writing is irrelevant…”

        You went through his writings and judged him a racist. I didn’t indicate they were irrelevant. I will say that between the writings I am promoting and the ones you are, mine are the ones that should be given more weight. They are valued more.
        ———————————-
        RETROSPECTIVE BIGOTEERING
        1) no law is retrospective
        2) you cannot blame people of a violation of a moral rule (or law) if they could not be possibly aware of such a rule, if such rule came AFTER their actions.

        https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1200913604524101632.html
        ——————————–

        We got a new phrase. You can say there was a moral rule then. I say there was not. There was divided opinion. If there was a moral rule, that moral rule violated the rule of law at that time.

        The above Retropective Bigoteering quote is hard to track down. It may not be Taleb. One should not cite him as the source. The logic is sound in my opinion.

      • Joshua is really disingenuous. He finds a single Quaker who was an abolishionist. Quakers were a small minority and held lots of shall we say “unusual” beliefs. Jefferson was exceptionally enlightened for his time. That’s obvious to anyone who isn’t dishonest.

  20. The cancer culture eats away at the body organ, invading, occupying, destroying the purposed entity and stealing sustenance. The cancer culture metastasizes to other regions of the body and thus injury to the body whole. The cancer culture is nourished and then transported to other regions by the blood stream, a river for commerce in nourishment, defense and waste removal. The river is a metaphor for free expression. The cancer culture can not exist without it, and yet, the cancer culture is the seed for the whole organism’s demise along with the cancer culture itself.

    • > The cancer culture can not exist without it, and yet, the cancer culture is the seed for the whole organism’s demise along with the cancer culture itself.

      I see the “alarmists” and dramaticists are out in full force.

      “The end o’ the world,” they say. “The sky is certainly falling.” “It’s a cancer that will lead to the death of us all.” “Collect the woman and children and head for high ground.”

      Actually, I’d say that “cancel culture” is no new disease – although it is arguably one that spreads more quickly than before by means of social media. It’s a series of behaviors that have existed forever. It’s politics in a somewhat shifted from. The power structure has been somewhat inverted. Some people, who were never before negatively affected by its existence, are starting to gan a new perspective on what life looks like for those who haven’t inherited the same privilege as they.

      It looks new, but it’s the politics of yore. And because some people have never before been aware of its existence, because their entitlement served as a screen, they apparently now think that the politics of yore was just invented yesterday.

      • Joshua

        “It looks new, but it’s the politics of yore.”

        And so too cancer is not new. Is that your point?

        Cancer culture exists today as a form of “politically correct” statements that deny free expression to those who may not agree. Employ intimidation: “We know where you live.” “We know where your children go to school.” “We know where you work.”

      • > And so too cancer is not new. Is that your point?

        Yeah, well kinda.

        That’s not an excuse. It’s just that it’s nothing new.

        > Employ intimidation:

        As just one of a million – a category of example: I’m old enough to remember 9/11. Rembwe 9/11?

        Bill Mahre was fired because he dated to said terrorists weren’t cowards. Shop owners in Chinatown in Philly (where I was living) put American flags in their windows because they were scared. Ask American Muslims about how they felt walking around during that period if their religious identity was easily recognized.

        “cancel culture” isn’t new. It isn’t being employed unidirectionally. Political correctness isn’t new. It isn’t being employed unidirectionally.

        What’s new is thst some people have become more cognizant of their existence. And perhaps social media is exacerbating their effect.

        There’s nothing new about any of this. Perhaps social media has an exacerbating effect. It isn’t unidirectional. The irony is that it’s being weaponized by largely the same crowd that has been employing it as a weapon for eternity.

      • “..because their entitlement served as a screen,…”

        The evil of the cancer culture rests in its denial of rebuttal. My so called entitlement resides within myself and belief system, acquired over many decades of experience. I do recognize evil when it see it, just as Justices recognize pornography when they see it. The utter dismissal of dialogue means to me at least, an inability to address the issues when confronted; a definition of “snowflake.”

      • > I do recognize evil when it see it.

        Let’s take just one example from one situation – 9/11. Was it “evil” for Maher get fired? Did you get worked up about it?

        > The utter dismissal of dialogue means to me at least, an inability to address the issues when confronted; a definition of “snowflake.”

        Did anyone try to have a dialog with him about what he said? I believe in dialog. Very much so. But my point is that refusal to dialog is nothing new.

        > My so called entitlement resides within myself and belief system, acquired over many decades of experience.

        I think you may have not understood my point. I meant that many people don’t realize that “cancel culture” and “identity politics” have existed over decades and centuries because, by virtue of their status at birth, they avoided being a victim of such phenomena. Their birthright was to have enough power in their station of life such that they’d never be canceled or suffer from denial of basic rights or political agency simply due to some aspect of their identity. Consider how for most our history, most men probably never ever even considered that msrried women being denied the right to vote was a form of identity politics.

        That wasn’t a ‘so-called entitlement.” That was an entitlement. But my guess is that men didn’t consider it as such, as a product of “identity politics,” that they were “cancelling”women, because it merely seemed to be the normal state of affairs. By virtue of not being denied that entitlement, they never realized that they were enjoying an entitlement.

        I’m arguing that example could be an illustration of a contemporary phenomenon.

      • jungletrunks

        Josh, yea sure, we do get it. Cancel culture historically existed for atrocious reasons (said examples aren’t acceptable by any contemporary mainstream U.S. party) regardless; your historical references of cancel culture are expressed in the form of an acceptable precedence allowing for cancel culture to be exercised today. I suppose one could say that cancel culture is the snowflakes way of enjoying their own sense of entitlement.

      • trunks –

        > your historical references of cancel culture are expressed in the form of an acceptable precedence allowing for cancel culture to be exercised today.

        Despite that I explicitly said otherwise, you’re entitled to interpret what I said in such a fashion. Why let reality get in the way of your fantasies about me?

      • jungletrunks

        Forgive me, Josh, I have little patience to read through prolific psychobabble. I agree with you then; snowflakes don’t have a right to cancer culture.

      • trunks –

        > Forgive me, Josh. I have little patience to read through prolific psychobabble.

        Of course I forgive you for interpreting and characterizing what I wrote without having read what I wrote.

        It would be unfair of me to have any expectation that you’d do otherwise.

    • What is really new (in America) is that the ideology motivating the canceling, cultural Marxism, is deeply dictatorial and denies the possibility of dialogue and is a dangerous denial of reality, i.e., that your fate is determined by accidents of your “identity”. In this sense, this is like just before the French Revolution or the 1930’s in Germany. The street violence also mimicks the 1930’s except that now its all left wing violence. A further parallel is the deep denial the violence exists by a major political party.

      • > What is really new (in America) … [is]… that your fate is determined by accidents of your “identity. ”

        Wow. That’s remarkable.

        Unfortunately, I fear that I’ve underestimated just how insulated some people are from anything outside their own bubble.

        We had slavery/Jim Crow for hundreds of years. Women got the right to vote in the 20th century. Gays the right to marry only recently.

      • Joshua, more ignorance and lack of perspective, which is your stock and trade. Slavery was only abolished in the 20th Century in many parts of the world. Women are still second class citizens in many parts of the world. Your recitation of the “downtrodden” is really stupid. In the context of the times, the West was and is vastly superior to Africa, the Arab world, and Russia, or China.

        If you can, explain to me how the West was worse at any time in the last 400 years. Only then will your our of context recitations be worth my time to read.

        Oh and its a classic fallacy to judge the past by modern standards.

      • David –

        Here’s what you wrote’

        > What is really new (in America) … [is]… that your fate is determined by accidents of your “identity. ”

        There is nothing new in America about people’s fate being determine by accidents of their identity.

        Slavery was a institution founded on determining someone’s fate by the accident of their identity.

        Jim Crow followed by encoding in law that black people’s fate was (largely) determined by the “accident” of their identity.

        Women’s fate was largely determined by the accident of their identity or marital status until relatively recently.

        Gsy people’s fate was largely determine by the accident of their identity until fairly recently.

        Indeed, running in the other direction, white men’s fate was largely determined by the accident their identity. In particular white men born into wealth.

        It’s truly remarkable that you think this is all something new despite the abundant evidence otherwise.

      • So people are a single dimension, without free will and determined by their race, gender, or whatever single dimension you want to reduce them to?

        Interesting.

      • TE –

        > So people are a single dimension, without free will and determined by their race, gender, or whatever single dimension you want to reduce them to?

        No.

        Congrats. You get today’s argument ad absurdism award.

        So does that mean that black people weren’t slaves because of their skin color? That women could actually vote in the 19th century? That gay people actually could marry before just recently?

        Obviously, not all aspects of their fate were determined by all aspects of their identity. But some extremely material aspects of their fate were determined by some material aspects of their identity.

        And of course, your criticism would apply to David’s comment as well:

        > > What is really new (in America) … [is]… that your fate is determined by accidents of your “identity. ”

        And your criticism doesn’t make his stunningly obtuse assertion – that “identity politics” is something new in America – any closer to being accurate.

      • Joshua, of course there were wrongs of the past.

        Perhaps you have suffered a very painful loss in your life
        or perhaps you haven’t yet.

        If you have, or when you do, you may observe that grief is normal and unavoidable. But without limit, grief becomes self destructive because it is necessarily backward looking and robs present and future life. Similarly, grief is dis-empowering because it is a matter of the unalterable past.

        Focusing on past wrongs is probably similarly destructive.

      • TE –

        > Focusing on past wrongs is probably similarly destructive.

        Hmmm. I’d say that *obsessive* focus on past wrongs is prolly destructive just as I’d say that denial of past wrongs is often destructive as well.

        Truth and reconciliation, with accountability, I’d say, is a good way to go when done in good faith.

        Many of these lines between what is and isn’t destrcutve require subjective judgements. What’s interesting to me is how resistant some people are to having a dialog about these subjective determinations.

      • TE –

        I’ll add that grief is real and inevitable.

        Acceptance of the reality and inevitability of grief is, imo, productive. I think that denial or even resistance to grief is often destructive, and obsession with grief is, often, a form of resisting against accepting the inevitability of grief.

      • So does that mean that black people weren’t slaves because of their skin color? That women could actually vote in the 19th century? That gay people actually could marry before just recently?

        You’ve cited wrongs that have all been corrected under the law, the first two of which have not been suffered or perpetrated by anyone alive today.

        In physics, a wave is either damped or amplified.
        To prevent “ringing”, one damps a wave (equality under the law).
        By some kind of racist/sexist/tribal logic, you seem to want ringing in the form of payback for wrongs not perpetrated by individuals but on a fallacious transference of group.

        You seem to be making the case for “identity politics”.

        Can you not see that American Slavery was “identity politics”? Or Women’s lack of suffrage?

        The Russian Revolution ( tens of millions dead ) was ID politics with perceived payback to the royals and upper class.
        NAZI Germany was ID politics with perceived payback for losing WWI.
        Chinese Revolution? Peasants paying back rich East Coasters.
        Cambodia? Peasants paying back intellectuals.
        Yugoslavia? A five-way score settling.
        Rwanda? Paybacks.

        Yes identity politics are “natural” just like the tribal genocides that accompany them.

        Sorry, these ideas are bad, wrong, and dangerous.

      • “So does that mean that black people weren’t slaves because of their skin color? That women could actually vote in the 19th century? That gay people actually could marry before just recently?”

        [ I replied with some filter words that went to mod – this is a synopsis]

        You’ve cited wrongs that have all been corrected under the law, the first two of which have not been suffered or perpetrated by anyone alive today.

        In physics, a wave is either damped or amplified.
        To prevent “ringing”, one damps a wave (equality under the law).
        By some kind of racist/sexist/tribal logic, you seem to want ringing in the form of payback for wrongs not perpetrated by individuals but on a fallacious transference of group.

        You seem to be making the case for “identity politics”.

        Can you not see that slavery was “identity politics”? Or Women’s lack of suffrage?

        The Russian Revolution ( tens of millions dead ) was ID politics with perceived payback to the royals and upper class.
        germany was ID politics with perceived payback for losing WWI.
        Chinese Revolution? Peasants paying back rich East Coasters.
        Cambodia? Peasants paying back intellectuals.
        Yugoslavia? A five-way score settling.
        Rwanda? Paybacks.

        Yes identity politics are “natural” just like the murderous tribalism that accompanies them.

        Sorry, these ideas are erroneous and dangerous.

      • Focusing on past wrongs is what hate groups do. It was Hitler’s main talking point regarding the Treaty of Versailles. The Klan’s main emotion was resentment of losing the Civil War and the nontrivial abuses of Reconstruction. These are evil thoughts and prevent progress in the future. Better people focus on how to make the future better. BLM have no realistic plan for improvement. Defunding the police will only result in more black deaths.

        Josh I think is not a hater, but he’s an enabler of destructive ideologies of resentment and hopelessness.

      • I see that pest control is operating well without me.

  21. The IPCC was using cancel culture before that was a phrase. 

    “Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC”

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/

  22. You are truly a gift to humanity Dr. Curry.
    Thank you so very much for sharing your amazing self with others.
    God bless you.

  23. Matthew R Marler

    https://www.niskanencenter.org/honoring-the-dishonorable-part-1-the-dishonorable-dead/

    Good considering its short length. I have never understood those who venerated R. E. Lee, yet he was praised by both Presidents Grant and Eisenhower. Madison, Jefferson and Washington were gross hypocrites, which makes it painful to read good biographies of them, or at least painful to read some of the chapters; but they also led the US in the right direction otherwise. The quotes from Adam Smith are new to me, and illuminating, imo.

    If we can judge the good work of good people of the past, we can judge the bad work of people of the past — and some were painful mixes of the good and bad of their time.

    • It’s completely understandable why individuals who study tactics and strategy of the battlefield, such as Eisenhower and Grant, would praise Lee for his strategic and tactical skills; also similar military tacticians, i.e., Rommel. Having an appreciation, even admiration, for certain skills doesn’t translate into an endorsement, or defense of a particular figures indefensible cultural views. For example, Eisenhower was the first president in the 20th century to advance a federal civil rights bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1957; though it was thoroughly watered down by the Democrats. Eisenhower appreciated Lee for his military skills only.

      “If we can judge the good work of good people of the past, we can judge the bad work of people of the past — and some were painful mixes of the good and bad of their time.”

      I agree, and we should.

      If we excised, canceled, every historical figure with a bad side, or culture for that matter, from contemporary cultures view; it would be a boring, but also more dangerous world. A more perfect setup for reliving history couldn’t be staged.

      There are complex interactions and influences that molded primitive cultures approaches to survival, obviously; much of the evolution of human culture is profoundly, demonstrably ugly.

      It’s a rather smug perspective for a certain faction of contemporary culture to look down its nose, taking for granted the comforts that allowed for their ideological “principled” lives; offered up through thousands of years of trial and error cultural evolution and atrocity. People who did bad things, also did the good things that allow todays spoiled culture to spend enormous time reflecting about one sided, half dimensional nonsense. These types weren’t taught (but think they were), they have little understanding of historical cultural complexities.

      Society has plenty of time to not do things they’ve never had to do; like desperately digging for potatoes, or starting a fire. A principled appreciation of culture can’t be found if the complexities of past cultures, including historical figures who made a difference, are taught only if there’s a bad slant that can be exploited to buttress ideology. Or vice versa; Marx and his disciples are venerated in pseudo culture, individuals responsible for more death than can be adequately calculated; but their principles were good after all, why bother learning the bad! The hypocrisy is stifling.

      • > If we excised, canceled, every historical figure with a bad side, or culture for that matter, from contemporary cultures view; it would be a boring, but also more dangerous world. A more perfect setup for reliving history couldn’t be staged.

        How ironic in a thread where we have people trying to cancel Jefferson’s racism.

      • jungletrunks

        “How ironic in a thread where we have people trying to cancel Jefferson’s racism.”

        How trite.

        Jefferson was a racist, which serves to underscore a complex era. Jefferson, as a founder, had profound influence in championing the foundations for liberty and equality. If that’s not ironic, nothing is. You are largely in debt to the founders for having the right to cancel them.

      • trunks –

        > You are largely in debt to the founders for having the right to cancel them.

        I don’t disparage what the founders achieved. I’m still not clear what you mean by “cancel?” What am I doing that is trying to “cancel” them?

        I’m asking why are people trying to cancel their racism (apparently even Adams, perhaps the least racist among them, was still a racist).

        Can you explain why people are trying to cancel the founders’ racism?

      • jungletrunks: It’s completely understandable why individuals who study tactics and strategy of the battlefield, such as Eisenhower and Grant, would praise Lee for his strategic and tactical skills;

        That’s not what they praised. Grant’s comment was along the lines of [Lee was the most honorable of men dedicated to the most dishonorable of causes]. I don’t remember Eisenhower’s praise of Lee, but it was for his honor.

      • jungletrunks

        Josh, A few of the founders were indeed racists, a clear majority of the Founders were opposed to slavery. The language found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights wouldn’t have been written as we know it if this were not the case. The Revolution was a turning point in regards to attitudes against slavery, it was the Founders who spearheaded the sea change behind these attitudes. It’s interesting that one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the ‘evil of slavery” imposed on them by the British. Benjamin Franklin explained that the separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. Slavery was what filled the crowns coffers. Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society; John Jay founded a similar society in NY.

        William Livingston after hearing about the NY society wrote to them:

        “I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

        Josh, the complexity of thought during this era is beyond the ideological distortion field you live within, your dog eared cliff notes and brain pretzel conundrums that only seek to sow divisions. There’s no ferreting out reason with intellectually inbred Leftists whose only mission is advancing their ideology.

        Can you explain the Lefts hypocrisy for canceling Marx’s racism, and his philosophy embracing genocide? But for not canceling Marx himself? Or many of his disciples for that matter, several of which the Left fawn over.

      • jungletrunks

        matthewrmarler, with all due respect, you don’t think “dedicated to the most dishonorable of causes” heavily qualifies his praise?

      • jungletrunks: “dedicated to the most dishonorable of causes” heavily qualifies his praise?

        How was Lee a most honorable person?

      • jungletrunks

        matthewrmarle, If one is familiar with the etiquette of Grant’s day, then the language in the quote you present is typical, understandable. Educated individuals during that era presented themselves with a high degree of decorum in words and writings. It is said that Lee presented himself as a gentleman during his surrender; with humility, dignity and honor, as he stood before Grant; two warriors handling themselves with utmost respect for each other, with dignity. This would have made an impression with Grant regardless of his views about Lee’s immoral foundation. In regards to slavery, Grant was an abolitionist. Grant: “…but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle.”

        One can have many different perspectives about any one individual; some characteristics may be highly favorable, while others are contemptible.

        To restate your quote of Grant: “Lee was the most honorable of men dedicated to the most dishonorable of causes”. In todays colloquial language it could sound something like this: “Lee, dude, you are real nice in person, but I gotta say, man, you are a f*cking racist, and I’m glad I kicked your ass.” Grant, of course, took Lee down. Grant was expressing different slices of what he saw in the character of Lee.

      • This is a dishonest smear of Robert E. Lee. His contemporaneous writings show a man deeply conflicted about secession. Ultimately, Lee decided that his first loyalty was to the state of Virginia and not the United States. There is no reference in these writings to slavery. You guys are deeply ignorant.

      • And Josh is such a fallacious thinker. It is irrelevant whether some of the founders were racist according to Josh’s definition (which is flexible to meet his rhetorical needs). The question is whether they were more enlightened than their contemporaries. Given that slavery was also widely practiced in Africa and the Arab world at this time and that there was no concept of individual rights in Africa or the Arab world, the answer is that they were more enlightened.

  24. Some interesting data on cancel culture and iGEN students (internet generation), which highlights some marked changes since 2014:-
    https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-2/
    This is part 2 of a 3-part series – all worth a visit.

  25. Perfect timing: two articles in the WaPo that describe cancel culture. Notice that in both instances, we see evidence of government using its power to stifle dialog.
    Cue the outrage here a Climate Etc.?

    –snip–
    Starting in 1946, top U.S. officials devised a campaign to quell growing public criticism of the bombings and to promote public support for further U.S. nuclear weapons development. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a longtime friend of former secretary of war Henry Stimson, the government needed to quell the “sloppy sentimentality” of any dissenters. In the December 1946 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Karl T. Compton, the president of MIT and a respected physicist who had helped develop the atomic bombs, provided inflated casualty estimates for a land invasion, argued that using the bombs was the only rational choice and pointed to the emperor’s decision to surrender less than a day after the Nagasaki attack as evidence that the atomic bombs ended the war.
    –snip–

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/americans-insist-the-atom-bomb-ended-the-war-in-japan–ignoring-its-human-cost/2020/08/06/2095f314-d76f-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html

    –snip–
    Nevertheless, I spent much of that year as an industry spokesman, my last after 20 years in the business, spreading AHIP’s “information” to journalists and lawmakers to create the impression that our health-care system was far superior to Canada’s, which we wanted people to believe was on the verge of collapse. The campaign worked. Stories began to appear in the press that cast the Canadian system in a negative light. And when Democrats began writing what would become the Affordable Care Act in early 2009, they gave no serious consideration to a publicly financed system like Canada’s. We succeeded so wildly at defining that idea as radical that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), then chair of the Senate Finance Committee, had single-payer supporters ejected from a hearing.
    –snip–

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/06/health-insurance-canada-lie/?arc404=true

    • You may be right to expect disapproval of what went on back then, on the assumption that these these clips truly reflect history. But probably not on this thread; these clips are only about the deliberate spreading of misinformation, which can certainly occur within the context of cancel culture, but is also a not uncommon stand-alone behaviour, as appears to be the case for these examples. Articles are pay-walled so I don’t know if this makes a difference.

    • Use of the so called inflated numbers for justification of the atomic bomb is generations old crusty yellow newspaper old news. The reason there is no outrage is that it’s a contrived liberal whiny conspiracy theory that was discredited when Margaret was playing piano in the White House. Only younger generations think they have found a pot of gold. There is a long list of varied sources that contradict the phony outrage. If you actually did research instead of believing that links equate to knowledge, you wouldn’t be so gullible.

    • Joshua: “In the December 1946 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Karl T. Compton, the president of MIT and a respected physicist who had helped develop the atomic bombs, provided inflated casualty estimates for a land invasion, argued that using the bombs was the only rational choice ….”

      1. Even if casualty figures were deflated to a more realistic number, they would still have been horrific for the U.S.
      2. The U.S. was aware of a secret order sent to administrators of Japanese POW camps to kill the inmates if Japan was invaded. It didn’t want to let on that it had broken the Japanese code to know of this, so this fact has only recently emerged in the weighing of the balance on this issue.
      3. The U.S. had only two bombs. It would have taken at least three months to make another. It couldn’t have exploded one as a demo to impress the Japanese. The militarists wouldn’t have been impressed; and the Emperor wouldn’t have had enough leverage from such a demo to overrule them.

      If Truman had gone ahead with an invasion and hundreds of thousands of American deaths had resulted during that operation, plus maybe a hundred thousand deaths of POWs of all nationalities, and then it had come out that he held back on using a bomb that could have avoided those deaths, impeachment would have been the least of his worries.

    • “Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), then chair of the Senate Finance Committee, had single-payer supporters ejected from a hearing.”
      That’s how Democrats debate. No wonder they want to end filibuster. It does not make me happy at all. We need a real Democratic party, not a modern NSDAP.

    • The “Canadian health care lie?”
      Obamacare was designed as a lie:
      “Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber (who worked with the White House to draw up Obamacare) said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends—imposing Obamacare upon the public—justified the means.”

      More: “Gruber made an argument that many of Obamacare’s critics have long made, including me. It’s that the law’s complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. ”

      Medicare for all is like that too. Historians will giggle at the fact that education is so bad right now that Bernie Sanders’s support for medicare for all came from young people. The whole purpose of the thing is to impose a tax on young people to collect a percentage of their income to pay for older people’s health care. No more individual employee plans for young, single people costing about $150 a month like my company offers. Instead, those silicon valley programmers will be paying $600-$1,500 a month for “health care” and getting a free flu shot for it.

      “inflated casualty counts?” Please. Conventional bombing raids on Tokyo and German cities killed far more in one day than either of the atomic bombs- a simple fact that progressives have been denying for decades in some weird effort to pretend the west and atoms are uniquely bad.
      Detonation of the bomb demonstrated to Japanese military strategists that allied bombing didn’t have to get more accurate in order to severely damage Japanese military capacity. One bomb could take out an air field, all the personnel and aircraft on it, every radar and anti-aircraft installation around it, the army bases near it and any naval ship in the harbor next to it.

    • Roger –

      I’ll let people who now more about the history argue over the merits of doing the bombs.

      My point for the link was related to “cancel culture.”

      Imo, the government propagating propaganda is a form of “cancel culture” that has been around for forever. If the point of “cancel culture” is to undermine legitimate dialog, or the power of dissenting voices, then producing misinformation to justify policies is “cancel culture” and imo that is much more worrisome if government power is being misused to that end.

      This underscores my point that there’s nothing new about cancel culture, but what’s new is a shift in who has the power to “cancel” whom.

      That doesn’t mean I think that “cancel culture” is a good thing, but I think it’s a bad thing when people are weaponizing the concept to fight political battles (i. e., deminizse the left. ” I think that the phenomena being labeled as a new and existential threat to a free society should be seen in full context – including the historical use of” canceling” by people who have long held power, and the simple observation that it’s use now is contemporaneous with a shift whereby more people who have been denied agency forever gaining a voice. If the “outrage” about “cancel culture” ignores the historical context, then it effectively becomes nothing other than one tribe demonizing another because they’re upset about their disproportionate access to the levers of power.

      • … upset about [losing] their disproportionate access to the levers of power….

      • Joshua: Imo, the government propagating propaganda is a form of “cancel culture” that has been around for forever.

        The distinction that you disparage in that quote is the difference between suppressing your political opponents and debating them in public. Since I was 7, in 1956, the arguments against dropping the atomic bombs, and criticisms of the areal bombing of Germany and Japan generally, have been repeatedly published and spoken, not cancelled.

      • J: Cancel culture has indeed been around forever, but your examples above don’t match the characteristics. Cancel culture aims to undermine specific inconvenient individuals, whereas the generic spreading of misinformation aims to undermine or eclipse inconvenient narrative. And for sure established authorities can directly cancel as well as this coming from mobbing or denouncement culture emergent in the citizenry. E.g. both these types of cancellation occurred historically and often in Germany and Russia during the period between the World Wars. And further back still in the Roman empire, where the mob would on occasion cancel politicians and intellects and other authority figures. My religious history is not great, but I guess Jesus is an example, given the mob demanded his death and Pilot gave them what they wanted. Which also demonstrates that from the PoV of the culturally motivated mob intent upon cancellation, their action might sometimes backfire, even big-time.

      • There is a long history of stifling dissent in this country. There is a long history of government misusing its power to stifle dissent – not the least by propagating misinformation. When government [mis]uses its power to “cancel” people, it is particularly concerning to me.

        I don’t defend a lot of what we’re seeing these days:

        (1) it’s not new
        (2) it’s less concerning to me when it is, for example, from students at the university they attend (in other words within the community in which they operate), from government [mis]using its power.
        (3) with much of what we see, it isn’t really people being “canceled” because they still have plenty of venues to express their views (unlike often when governments stifle free speech)
        (4) where it is currently happening is in a context – whereby groups of people who have long enjoyed a monopoly on the power to “cancel” are being confronted with a new reality – that their monopoly is is being undermined. That isn’t a justification – but it is an important part of the context, imo. It also doesn’t dismiss that some real harm is being caused to some individuals, or the legitimacy of their individual grievances. But it’s an important component for addressing the situation at a collective level, imo.

      • Andy –

        > Cancel culture aims to undermine specific inconvenient individuals, whereas the generic spreading of misinformation aims to undermine or eclipse inconvenient narrative.

        That is simply your frame. Those individuals harmed by the deliberate spread of misinformation would beg to differ. You are leveraging a distinction without a difference in your framing.

      • “Those individuals harmed by the deliberate spread of misinformation would beg to differ. You are leveraging a distinction without a difference in your framing.”

        No. That individuals might be harmed by generic misinformation, doesn’t mean that any such were specific targets of cancellation, *unless* the misinformation is indeed part of a cancellation effort. This doesn’t in any way give a pass for misinformation, which can potentially if it is serious enough be far more damaging than some specific targets of cancellation. But if we simply call all culturally motivated actions ‘the same thing’, it will not be helpful to either understanding or countering them.

      • A more apt analogy to the present day would be the Jim Crow South. Racism was the Cultural Marxism of the era, and it dominated the Western world including in Europe where it ultimately led to Nazism. The modern Klan is Antifa and BLM who enforce the ideology using violence. And the New York Times is the new version of yellow journalism, canceling and helping cancel people who dare to voice opposition to the irrational ideology. Soft forms of racism were in the 19th Century a majority opinion by the way. There was a pseudo-science of cultural Darwinism that offered “scientific” support.

        Racism was always pseudo-science. Cultural Marxism is actually worse in that there is zero scientific support for it and it runs counter to common sense.

      • And Andy –

        I provided those examples of a particular form of “cancel culture” because of their timeliness of them being published and because I think that “cancel culture” emanating from government is (usually) disproportionately more troubling.

        I could provide you with millions of other historic examples, both from our government and from groups of our citizens and by corporate culture.

        It’s a legitimate question – to ask if the prevalence and/or degree of impact have grown in recent years. But that question should be asked with two important parallel considerations: (1) if there is an increase in prevalence or impact, is it more than likely a short-term blip of increase – as we have seen many times in the past – that is a temporary trend of overreach that will balance out. In other words, noise in a signal of greater agency for more people and, (2) what is the fuller context in which it is happening? In other words, does it reflect a shift in who has the power to “cancel?” If that is so, is it merely a more even spread as opposed to greater prevalence? Even if it does reflect a greater prevalence, is there some counter-balancing benefit of it reflects a more equitable distribution of power.

        I think all those questions merit discussion – but note the “mob” behavior here where by merely suggesting that asking those questions has merit, I become a target for vitriol that is presumably meant to intimidate.

        I don’t particularly care and no material harm befalls me as a result. But the patten is instructive as to the ubiquity and widespread nature of the cultural issues being discussed. Those who wish to characterize some putative propensity in attempts to “cancel, ” to one particular group as opposed to another -without a solid basis in evidence – should be considered suspect, imo.

      • > That individuals might be harmed by generic misinformation, doesn’t mean that any such were specific targets of cancellation,

        A) Again, a distinction without a difference if what matters is the harm at a collective or individual level.

        B) History is replete with examples where individuals were targeted anyway, by government entities and by groups of citizens.

        C) I would argue that much of the historic precedent, by a matter of scale, are far more concerning than much of what is causing so much upset now. Jim Crow is a perfect example. That isn’t meant to dismiss any cause for concern about the current situation – but to argue that context is important.

      • A distinction without a difference, wrapped up in a false dichotomy.

      • J:

        I already agreed it’s happened throughout history. And yes it generally comes in waves, although hard to see except from the future as to whether we’re in a particularly big one. Not at the moment, I’d guess, but that may only be if it doesn’t continue to gather momentum, which can most certainly occur.

        No. Not a distinction without a difference. The whole point of the name is to bound this corner of cultural action from various other cultural actions, by which we may better deploy meaning and hence get eventually progress to better understanding.

        “…where it is currently happening is in a context – whereby groups of people who have long enjoyed a monopoly on the power to “cancel” are being confronted with a new reality – that their monopoly is is being undermined. ”

        So what such ‘groups’ are most current targets of cancel culture, signed up to? What are the bounds of a ‘group’? And how has their personal power to cancel via such groups, been expressed? And how long have the targets partaken of a monopoly upon ‘cancellation’, plus is it common that most of them have explicitly exercised their power in order to actually do some cancelling? Given the serious campaign to cancel JK Rowling, what group is she in? For many ordinary people who *haven’t* got any kind of fame / profile to help with defence, but whose livelihood / job may be taken away for an error, or even worse for a mal-perception, it is hardly about having another venue to speak anyhow; so how does wronging these people help anyone?

      • Joshua: “…where it is currently happening is in a context – whereby groups of people who have long enjoyed a monopoly on the power to “cancel” are being confronted with a new reality – that their monopoly is is being undermined. ”

        What group was that and whom did they cancel? In my lifetime I have read and heard plenty of divergent voices; even Angel Davis was permitted a faculty position. Jeremiah Wright spoke openly and often against aspects of the US. Perhaps the Hollywood Blacklist counts, but the viewpoints of the victims of the Blacklist were widely promoted and discussed. (Also that wasn’t a monopoly: a smaller and less well known blacklist put conservatives in Hollywood out of work.) Even the House Committee on Unamerican Activities could not cancel the voices of the people it attempted to harass, people who were widely praised on US college campuses.

        If anybody had a monopoly, it ended long ago.

      • dpy

        The modern Klan is Antifa…

        Yup. You’re definitely a parody account.

      • jungletrunks

        Episodic micro canceling is one thing, and very common; macro “cancel culture” is entirely another thing, the latter is a much more advanced cultural phenomena. As history has proven, cancel culture examples usually end in a monumentally tragic event, where the cumulative forces of repression and oppression are released. The Nazi’s canceling the Jews; Stailn’s canceling of competing views and ideas, “The Purge”; in the U.S.; the Civil War and the Revolutionary War were both releases of cultural repression and oppression. Essentially cancel culture is the stuff of revolution; Mao used it, as did Mussolini; in the 20th century most cancel culture revolution came from Marxist origin; as does America’s cancel culture.

        When a societal condition becomes destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. When it advances attitudes that lead to brutal policies and draconian control through the use of propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the “unperson”—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory. This is the stuff that advances cancel culture. Does the before description sound familiar at all? You can look up its exact reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

    • Josh, The examples you quote aren’t really instances of cancellation. No one lost their job and noone was driven out of the public square. Your examples are public relations which often shades the truth or deceives. This dark art has been around for centuries. It is not cancellation.;

  26. I am canceling the sea level rise acceleration:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    It’s pretty stable, but in return we get rising global surface temps. As Dana said it would, the warming has returned with a vengeance. 1.30 inches of SLR per decade. Oh dear. Along with 0.2 C per decade of GMST rise. It’s chaos and panic 8 ways from Sunday.

  27. I used to subscribe to the Washington Post and remember the Nicholas Sandman story. The story was weak- single sourced to a left wing nut – and attacked children. It fell apart in less than 24 hours.
    One thing forgotten was that the Sandman and his classmates were in DC for the annual Pro-Life March in DC. A fake story about racism was ginned up to discredit people who oppose abortion.
    We found out later that at the same time the Post was rushing to print fake stories about Sandman because of the public’s right to know, the paper was refusing to print an accusation by a university professor about an assault at the hands of Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.
    The Post claimed it was urgent for people in Virginia to know if Kentucky teens were mean before the facts were in. But not that the second highest politician in the state was a predator. (The Post reported the accusations only after being scooped.)
    The comments section would have been an interesting evidence in court. The Post isn’t responsible for the (really vile) comments, but the commenters were all subscribers and gave evidence of what their most engaged readers thought the paper was telling them.
    The follow up stories and “corrections” and “clarifications” the paper ran were vague- “it’s complicated and unclear.” Thousands of subscribers to the Post made comments showing they were clearly convinced that the wishy-washiness of the later reporting meant the Post was signaling – in a legally necessary way – that Sandman and his friends really were racists who attacked a Native American. The Post had direct evidence that its subscribers believed that the clarifications and later reporting were not clearing up the story.

  28. “Grant’s comment was along the lines of [Lee was the most honorable of men dedicated to the most dishonorable of causes]. ”

    At the end of the Civil War, Grant had to contend with the fact that the confederacy would either melt into the woods and fight on in a guerrilla war or honorably surrender, stack arms and go home. Lee guided his army to the latter.

    I’m no admirer of Lee, but if you want a really dishonorable man, read up on McClellan. As the head of the Union Army he had two significant opportunities to end the war early- the Peninsula Campaign around Richmond and again at Antietam at the Maryland border – both in 1862. Scholars debate whether he failed due to cowardice or political machinations or what combination of the two. McClellan wanted to defeat Lincoln to become president and was known to believe that merely demonstrating in front of the confederacy would lead to a political settlement of the war- one which he believed would retain slavery.
    Thanks to the little napoleon’s refusal to win fights handed to him on a platter, 600,000 people died would go on to die in the fighting.
    If you want to know why statues went up- it’s estimated that one in three southern households lost at least one family member killed and pretty much all of them had at least one maimed for life. It was a psychic disaster. In terms of percentage of population, the death toll from the Civil War would be comparable to losing over 7 million Americans in a war today.
    To put that in perspective, the Union Army lost about three times as many men killed in action at one of three attack sites at Antietam as the US military has lost in the entire 16-year Afghanistan war.

  29. I think “China scholar to Sue”, might supposed to be “to sue”

  30. My latest, this time from New Zealand.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/10/cascading-fallacies-in-climate-risk-assessment/

    Cascading fallacies in climate risk assessment
    By David Wojick

    As a logician, I am always on the lookout for fallacies and there is no lack of them in climate change alarmist policies. New Zealand’s newly released climate risk assessment not only has multiple fallacies, they build on one another in a cascade.

    This is not about New Zealand. The authors of the assessment make clear that theirs is a new approach which they hope will be used globally. So this is about the world, including America.

    The massive report is titled “First national climate change risk assessment for New Zealand.”

    https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/assessing-climate-change-risk

    Under New Zealand’s climate law, these assessments are supposed to be done every five years and this is the first. The scope is breathtaking. The idea is to identify all of the significant risks due to human caused climate change that will be present in 2050 and 2100. Moreover, these supposed risks are prioritized in some fashion.

    Unfortunately this elaborate procedure is just a cascade of fallacies. Some of the major ones are listed below.

    First, they use computer models to say precisely what the average weather will be in 2050 and 2100. This includes short and long term temperatures, precipitation patterns, and other climate features.

    The fallacy is that there is no computer model today that can accurately make such forecasts. Different major models disagree strongly in predicting all of these features. For example the model sensitivity to doubling CO2 ranges from 1 to 6 degrees C, which is a huge range.

    Second, they use the average of what is called the CMIP5 climate model runs. These are runs on a large number of models that are made to feed into the IPCC process. Here there are several problems. In particular the models are all constrained so that all the significant forces are human.

    The fallacy is that there is no reason to believe that the average of a bunch of bad models is good. In fact the CMIP5 average has been shown to run very hot compared to observed warming.

    Third, they then choose to use the modeling of a wildly worst case emissions scenario called “RCP 8.5″. This scenario for future emissions is so high that it has been criticized as impossible. RCP 8.5 is certainly a fallacy.

    Fourth, they do what is called “down scaling” of these questionable modeling results. Down scaling means taking the vague modeling results for a large area and somehow generating results for specific places. There is no scientific way to derive fine scale forecasts from the model’s large scale ones. The data simply is not there. However it is done is arbitrary.

    New Zealand is geographically pretty small with a land area of just over 100,000 square miles, roughly the size of Colorado. The risk assessment divides New Zealand into 8 tiny zones, with a unique climate forecast for each. This is a glaring fallacy.

    Fifth, these impossible fine scale forecasts were then discussed by a large number of people, in a variety of ways, to define all the significant risks. This is an exercise in imagination, not science. It is well known in decision theory that the results of group gropes like this depend heavily on who is there, what they are given and how they are guided.

    The fallacy here is to pretend that this is a systematic inventory of risks, suitable for policy making.

    Sixth, the supposed risks were ranked based on polling the participants. In addition to the group grope problem there is the pesky fact that risk is a two dimensional concept so risks cannot simply be ranked in one dimension. Each risk has both a severity and a probability.

    Generally speaking, high severity but low probability risks are not worth addressing. Meteor strikes are a standard example (the impact really is an impact). The same is true for high probability but low severity risks. What one looks for are risks that combine relatively high severity and probability.

    This 2-value ranking was not done, giving the fallacy of the single ranking of risks.

    The seventh fallacy is yet to come. This wrongly ranked list of imagined risks based on arbitrary down scaling of an average of questionable computer model results is supposed to lead to a National Adaptation Plan in two years. That would be a mega-fallacy.

    On the amusing side, I think they got the highest ranked risk right. This is the risk that the government will do the wrong thing. I agree completely.

    Also very funny is the “Give us a lot more money” risk. It goes like this:

    “Risk of delayed adaptation and maladaptation due to knowledge gaps resulting from under-investment in climate change adaptation research and capacity building

    Risk summary
    Under-investment in research and capacity building to inform understanding of climate change risks and impacts is undermining New Zealand’s ability to develop evidence-based adaptation policy. Critical research gaps relate to:
    –atmospheric processes
    –hydrological cycle impacts
    –ecosystem responses
    –biodiversity and biosecurity
    –New Zealand’s rural and urban communities
    –the economic costs of climate change
    –impacts on the primary sector
    –impacts on heritage
    –effects on health and health services
    –use of mātauranga Māori to inform adaptation
    –cascading impacts
    –how to govern climate change adaptation at a number of scales.
    These research gaps are a critical barrier to informed decision-making. While these gaps remain, maladaptive actions are a key risk.” (Page 188)

    Given all these significant gaps one would think that an accurate risk assessment would conclude that no assessment is possible at this time. That is my assessment.

    Conclusion: The New Zealand climate risk assessment is a cascade of fallacies, unfit for policy making.

  31. From my credentialed Citizen of the World point of view, the Xu Zhangrun situation in China and the related idea of free speech in China, is more important than many issues in the United States. Ben Shapiro speaking on some campus is less important and to take the other side, causes less harm than China’s free speech restrictions.

    The framers of our Constitution, some of who were slave owners, got it right with their protections of free speech. Even failing Western Europe has free speech at the 85% level.

    While Xu Zhangrun fights for free speech in China, we devolve like tyrants. Restricting free speech. Hate speech laws, campus speech codes, cancelings, speech as violence.

    Google, the paragon of virtue, works with the Chinese to limit free speech. But since I own Google stock and will continue to do so, isn’t my money more important than free speech in China?

    So we have the idea of which is the higher goal? Money or free speech? Free speech. Because: Free speech leads to money. It is the reason we have so much of it in the United States. Free speech tames government in regards to its most economy destroying tendencies.

    All these cancelings we have, hurt our economy. If Brett Weinstein had been able stay at Evergreen College, those students would have been more productive than they are going to be. As it was, they were taught to give into stupid ideas that lower our nation’s productivity and wealth. Those losers homed in on his free speech and took him out.

    Because free speech to tyrants is a sign that says, attack this.

    • GOP strategist discusses your notion that Trump has ‘hijacked” the republican party (3 minutes in).

      https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901274491/veteran-gop-strategist-takes-on-trump-and-his-party-in-it-was-all-a-lie

      • What a surprise: National Politburo Radio (NPR) interviews a Never Trumper Loser (NTL), who has written a TDS (TDS) book. Does he explain how Trump hijacked the party by winning the nomination and national election? When someone we hate wins an election nowadays, we call that hijacking. And we call riots, mostly peaceful protests. Oh, and a man with a mental disorder is a woman.

        The brothers in Detroit love Camela Harris. Nah. Who tf is pulling old senile joe’s strings?

      • Here –

        >Does he explain how Trump hijacked the party by winning the nomination and national election?

        Lol. No, he explains why he thinks that Trump *didn’t* hijack the party (as I said he didn’t) and why he thinks that Ragnaar is wrong.

        Since you don’t like NPR, another source for you to hear what he has to say.

        https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast

        He was a major Republican strategist for years. Had many convos with major figures in the Pub party – helps to explain the total reversal on Trump from people like Graham and Bennett, et al.

        I think it’s interesting to hear what he has to say. You can ignore him if you want. No problem with me! I get that you’re ears are very delicate and it might shatter your snowflake existence to listen to someone who disagrees with you. Up to you.

        > The brothers in Detroit love Camela Harris. Nah. Who tf is pulling old senile joe’s strings?

        So nice of you to speak for “the brothers,” Don. I’m sure they’re grateful. Are you still going with your 95% support for Trump in the black community as you previously predicted – or has your 2,500% error on your prediction for deaths from Covid chastened you a bit?

        How did you get that prediction so wrong, after all? Are you still going with the “I was being optimistic” explanation? That one was fantastic. Really worth a good chuckle – but surely you can come up with something better? Give it a shot. Or just be a coward. Up to you.

      • Don –
        Black people have a long history of humoring white people and telling them that they want to hear.

        Biden will get overwhelming support in the black community. Anyone who tells you otherwise is taking you for a fool.

        But glad to see you are backing off what you said years ago. Guess reality locked in, eh?

      • Don –

        I don’t need a self-appointed white spokesperson for black “folks” (love the vernacular) to know that if anyone is telling you that black people won’t overwhelmingly supper Biden they either don’t know what they’re taking about or they’re stringing you along.

        What’s with tbis whole shtick of yours that because you grew up with some black people you should serve as some kind of explainer? “The brothers” are laughing at you behind your back, Don.

      • Say Don –

        Did they also tell you that they agree with Trump when he said that he has done more for black people than John Lewis?

        Lol.

      • Show me the part where I claimed to be the spokesperson for black folks, putz. Where I said that old senile joe won’t get the plantation vote. Your problem is that the plantation vote is shrinking. You are a lying lazy self-absorbed kibbitzing clown sitting on your dumb — in your little dingy rent-controlled studio apartment, like you did the first time Trump made you cry. I told you.

      • Don –

        Here’s the point. There’s nothing new about the white guy who goes, “Hey, I’m cool too right fellas? I mean I say ‘the brothers’ and ‘folks,’ right?”

        If you grew up with them then they probably love you nonetheless (after all, you are so cuddly and loveable), and they don’t want to tell you that Biden will get the overwhelming black vote. They wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings because it so obviously means so much to you to be in the thrall of your dear leader. They probably even don’t give you a hard time for wearing your MAGA hat while you walk around in the ghetto. Do you pull out your snapshots to show them how you got within 10′ of Trump at a rally once? Lol.

        Anyway, enough with this nonsense. Biden may indeed be the only person in the country other than Clinton who could lose to Trump – so I’ll give you that. But Biden will get the overwhelming % of the black vote among those who vote. The only question is whether very many of them will vote – the effect of the voter suppression efforts will have its effect on top of the effect of a totally uninspiring candidate in the person of Joe Biden.

      • Don –

        Why would I take that bet?

        1) Biden is a terrible candidate, a ticking time bomb and a walking gaffe machine.
        2) Trump has a loyal white grievance cult following who have demonstrated that they’ll vote for him no matter what. All he needs to do is get them out to the polls.
        3) the Pubz have a well-oiled voter suppression machine all fired up and ready to go.
        4) the Pubz have a built-in advantage through the electoral college whereby they have disproportionate representation (Biden could win the popular vote by6% and still lose the election.
        5) Trump has a massive state media comprising cult members, sycophants, and toadies and they’re ready to do battle.
        6) if Biden wins (which I don’t think he will) I wouldn’t consider you not commenting here as some kind of payoff. Actually, the more you comment the more I like it. You’re comedy gold, (unkntiinally, of course) plus you make for a nice case study for a Trump cult member. In fact, my hope either way is that you keep posting comments and making me laugh (unintentionally, of course).
        7) Also, either way my wasting less time here would be a positive outcome for me.
        8) As always, thanks for reading, Don. In can’t tell you how much it means to me. Lol.

      • It’s youtube, Jimmy Dore:

        “Biden Pick His VP — KAMALA Is A Cop!”

      • That Josh thinks Trump will win is why I know he will win.

        However, his list of reasons is laughably propagandistic. “Voter suppression” is a lie as high participation by minorities last time shows. Most of Trump’s voters are people who see him as a champion for their ideas, their religion, and indeed for the country as it was understood in 1980. To describe them as a cult is a giant lie and slander. But Josh specializes in the drive by smear. Perhaps he actually believes what the New York Times writes.

      • I don’t think that all Trump supporters are members of the cult, David. Certainly not. Some are just pragmatic voters and hold their nose and vote for Trump because in the end they think that a Pub will have better policies than the alternative. A lot like a lot of the voters who will vote for Biden. Some just like Trump because he mongers their hatred for libz.

        But there’s a sizeable contingent that love them some Trump no matter what he does. And they are a sure bet no matter what. They’re people who used to say they cared so much about “personal responsibility” until they became Trump sycophants. Who used to be “values voters” or the “moral majority” types who used to mouth platitudes about how Clinton’s behaviors degraded the office of the presidency.

        Listen to the interview. You’ll see what I mean. He describes the phenomenon fairly well as someone who used to be in the mainstream of the Republican Party. Although I do think he’s remiss for not acknowledging the pragmatic, hold their nose voters.

        And of course the voter suppression is real. There have been many Pubz who have spoken about it explicitly. The idea is to drive down the minority vote, the power of the minority vote, young voters, etc.. It’s just a logical electoral strategy. It’s funny that you live in such a fantasy land that you think that the politicians you support are somehow above typical politician behavior.

        What do you think that gerrymandering is about? Do you think it doesn’t happen? Why do you think that Republicans have power in the senate disproportionate to their portion of the electorate? Can you really be that naive?

      • Josh, You are showing how little you know about Christians in particular. Christians love Trump because he supports their issues and is winning on some of them. Christians believe in redemption and forgiveness. Only the profoundly ignorant don’t know that. There is no inconsistency in their support for Trump. It is also true that many conservatives are fed up with gentlemen leaders who lose on every important issue. As Lincoln loved Grant “because he fights”, many conservatives love Trump for the same reason. The analogy is apt as the country is being torn apart by left wing fanatics.

        Voter ID and cleaning up voting rolls is not voter suppression Josh. Voter suppression is a made up Democrat talking point that they use to try to enable double voting, voting by non-citizens, etc. It’s a long tradition in corrupt Democrat cities. In the 19th Century, there was mass voting of drunks and recent immigrants who had no idea what they were voting for. And voting rolls are still often packed with the dead. This was cleaned up by Progressives in the early 20th Century. But a donkey never changes its stripes and Democrat city machines are almost as bad now as in the Gilded Age.

      • But yeah, David – just keep on having that blind faith in your political leaders – ’cause, you know, they really have the country’s interests at heart, not their own political careers. Yeah, gerrymandering isn’t about disenfranchising the power of political opponents (Demz do it too, of course). And sure, all those attempts to limit voting is just all about protecting against voter fraud – political careers have nothing to do with it and it doesn’t matter what Republicans and the courts actually have to say!

        Too funny.

        Thanks for proving my point about cult members.

      • > Christians believe in redemption and forgiveness. Only the profoundly ignorant don’t know that.

        Thanks for Christian-splaining it to me, David. I mean it’s not like “Christians” have reversed their views on an issue like that…it’s a well-known characteristic of Christians.

        2011 – % of White evangelicals said that:”an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”

        In 2016, the number was up 72%.

        https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/

        But I’m sure that it’s all because those Christians think that Trump has redeemed himself and that’s why they forgive him.

        Gotta say, you’re even (unintentionally) funnier than Don.

      • Josh, You seem to think that using the good laws for political purposes is bad. Like Obama and Comey entrapped Flynn. Get a clue. Voter ID laws are designed to guard against fraud that is common in big cities. Every election in Washington state there are prosecutions for activist Democrats voting multiple times. The dead have voted in Chicago for over 150 years. There is a media narrative on this. Your credulity is bad. Didn’t you read Bari Weiss’ resignation letter? Virtually everything in the Times is heavily biased.

        Your poll shows Hillary ahead of Trump by double digits too. In any case, it doesn’t support your flawed gabbering about a cult.

    • Not assuming, of course, that your black friends in Detroit don’t live in wealthy neighborhoods. But my guess is that you probably want to make a big show out of going into poorer neighborhoods to prove just how “cool” you are to “the brothers” and “folks. “

    • Voter ID laws “help Republicans” by preventing undocumented immigrants from voting – the only group it impacts, despite the fake and racist claim that African-Americans dont have state IDS (required for holding a job, getting benefits, enrolling kids in school)
      Gerrymandering wasnt a progressive issue until progressives became so bad that they lost dozens of state legislatures. the worst offender in gerrymandering is the Democrat-controlled Maryland. the issue has become so silly I’ve seen progressives whining that “gerrymandering” cost them senate and governor races- both of which are statewide and unaffected by gerrymandering unless you want to redraw state lines.

  32. As Cancel Culture Bolsheviki topple statues perhaps they also should start putting up oversized pictures of Xi (in praise of, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party… president for life of a one-party system)

  33. Refuse to buy into the American way– free enterprise capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility, respect for the Constitution and rights of others? Move out! Tearing it down is like protesting math because you’re bad at it.

  34. Why I don’t publish in peer reviewed journals

    gloomy

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The tropical storm is heading towards the Caribbean.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The surface temperature of the West Atlantic is high.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski | August 13, 2020 at 1:38 am | Reply
    The tropical storm is heading towards the Caribbean.

    Thank you for the weather updates.

  38. Maybe It’s the left loon smarmy ex-schoolpreacher’s girlfriend. Subbing. If so, she’s a breath of fresh air.

  39. Who better then Nick Cave to talk about the bad seeds:

    “As far as I can see, cancel culture is mercy’s antithesis. Political correctness has grown to become the unhappiest religion in the world. Its once honourable attempt to reimagine our society in a more equitable way now embodies all the worst aspects that religion has to offer (and none of the beauty) — moral certainty and self-righteousness shorn even of the capacity for redemption. It has become quite literally, bad religion run amock.”

    • Nick Cave lyric: “The keys to the gulag, children.”

      Nice.

      BTW, the newest cancel culture program, the demonization and defunding of police departments, is the opening salvo that has an underlying purpose; one that ultimately leads to a federal police force. But a need must be created/fomented first; make crime so bad that the nations population demands a federal police force, where municipalities are too weakened to do anything about crime. I predict that it won’t be long down the road, a few election cycles maybe, before this becomes a central plank in Leftist regional, and national stump speeches.

  40. Is this cancel culture or reverse cancel culture? The Seattle City Council, in a nod to progressive economists and mathematicians, determined that there would be no negative impact from a new $200 million in new taxes on just Amazon.
    Amazon deserves the punishment because it has been successful while daring to have a base in a US city. some on the council stated that he entire company should be seized (seriously) but they compromised on looting it.

    Amazon is now moving employees out of the city. The company is now canceling the city, or you could say simply complying with the city’s decision to cancel the company.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/amazon-considers-relocating-some-employees-out-of-seattle

    • Progressivity does not come cheap.

    • The rich elites will have to take refuge in the Midwest. But they should stay out of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Make that the whole state with our high corporate tax rate. Congress and President Obama canceled the corporations that decided to be based in a country with a lower corporate tax rate. It’s money. It can go someplace else. The poor cannot.

      I am an economist. You can always take a little more and it’s Okay. Repeat a lot until it’s not Okay.

      In a nice development, most major league sports are canceling themselves. Those stadiums we paid for, we can put the homeless there. And put solar panels on top of them. Because that’s the real problem.

      Fear, cowering and self hate. Not a good ideas. Cult of Trump, not so bad.

  41. James Lindsay on the cult of woke:

  42. criticisms of testing in the US:
    https://www.fastcompany.com/90539013/americas-coronavirus-testing-is-a-disaster-heres-how-we-could-fix-it

    Streamlining the supply chain is a great idea — everybody has recommended it.

  43. Part of cancel culture is to cancel the language. Control the language, control the masses. That means what you see is not what you get. It may appear to be, but it’s not.
    This is a peaceful protest in Portland. It’s definitely not a riot. Got it?

    https://t.co/GaxrFBV5ta?ssr=true

  44. Truth is lies.
    Freedom is slavery.

  45. Here’s where we’re at.

    Californians will vote in November on rescinding the Civil Rights Act from the California Constitution.

    This would strike:

    (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

    because, “equality” requires discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin.

    Brought to you by the same geniuses arguing that 2+2=5.

    • This gets to the heart of the problem with the argument that discrimination is a thing of the past, and not structural – and thus “reverse discrimination” is unethical and immoral.

      https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-exploded-latinx-residents-oakland-fruitvale

      • It also gets to the disparities built into a blanket advocacy for “let’s just open up and get the economy going.” Implicit in that argument is a disparate impact on some communities for a disproportionate benefit of others.

      • Can’t see what you posted.

        Here, this is for your enjoyment:

      • jungletrunks

        Race and capitalism are central Marxist themes, with Marxist remedies; an ever-present ideology that attempts to strong-arm equality, but historically it’s a model replete with failure. America’s Left persistently marches on despite the historical evidence for how Marxist principles have expanded the ranks of the poor, and bankrupted nations while enriching an elite few.

        “Racial capitalists” is a central theme to the article referenced.

        Though it’s not spoken directly as such, essentially this is how the Left defines Left/Right ideologically: if one desires smaller central government, embraces capitalism as an economic model, freedom and liberty for the individual, then you’re most likely, if not unequivocally, a racist, however; if one wishes for top-down centralized command and control government, a socialist economic model, and is one who believes holistically in the Marxist view of collectivism; then you’re not a racist. This is the underlying implied thread as expressed by Leftists in todays Left/Right of politics, distilled simply; though certainly not defined directly as such except here in deference to cutting through BS brinkmanship of euphemism, that is.

        Marxism must embrace bigotry to achieve hegemony, which is essential to command necessary administrative power to prevail. Marxism has never, ever created equality; abject poverty beneath an elite ruling class is its history.

        As Marxism relates to racism and bigotry, per the late Cambridge scholar Mark Watson; historian, linguist, translator:

        “The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx’s view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called “The Hungarian Struggle” in Marx’s journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. … The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers’ revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

        That brutal view, which a generation later was to be fortified by the new pseudo-science of eugenics, was by the last years of the century a familiar part of the socialist tradition, though it is understandable that since the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945 socialists have been eager to forget it. But there is plenty of evidence in the writings of HG Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis, the Webbs and others to the effect that socialist commentators did not flinch from drastic measures. The idea of ethnic cleansing was orthodox socialism for a century and more.

        In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory principle which the Soviet Union had already adopted. Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret. In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what “very bad stage management” it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving “enemies of the state” at a local station. “Ridiculous to let you see them”, said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. “The English are always so sentimental” adding, with assurance: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.” A few years later, in 1935, a Social Democratic government in Sweden began a eugenic programme for the compulsory sterilisation of gypsies, the backward and the unfit, and continued it until after the war.”

  46. I saw a discussion in the internet about whether or not they should kill “climate change deniers” because they are a problem for global climate actions and will kill milions. To them, anyone that doubt what the mainstream climate scientists say is climate change denier, so these guys scared me.

  47. “…so these guys scared me.”

    You should be scared. The mentality approaches that of the Bavarian Brownshirts. The irony is that the same ones who are against capital punishment don’t blink in calling for the liquidation of those who believe more than half the warming is from natural variability. So righteous is their cause for saving mankind that they are not for just your garden variety execution, but rather regressing to when people were drawn and quartered Elizabethan style, including calling in some heavy hoofed Clydesdales to pull in opposite directions for good measure.

    • The climate change activists are calling what they call “climate change deniers” villains that should be killed to save millions.

      I used to think that its was an absolute truth that we should stop co2 now to save the world. But I changed my mind when I entered the medicine university. People dont understand me when I say this, and often say that medicine has nothing to do with climatology, and its partially true, but they are both sciences , and their methods should be roughly similar, but they are not.

      Example, health scientists allways assume that there are unknown factors, and dont go saying some intervention will work just because it works on cells and tissues. You have to actually test this intervention on randomly selected big a group of people and compare the results with a randomly selected control group. So they can come to the conclusion that their intervention is very likely to work , and unknown factor that would stop the intervention from working is likely to be rare.

      Climate scientsts never actually tested their intervention( cutting Co2), and if you say that unknown factors are likely to stop their sugested intervention from working, they will say that you are “anti-science”.

      If Climate scientsts behave like health scientists, they would say that there is no proof that cutting Co2 will save people. We could only have this proof if we were a type 2 civilization on kardashed scale and actually tested adding and stop adding co2 on large groups of similar planets and compared the results with a control group of similar planets. Obviously , climate scientists wont be able to do this for the next 1000 years. So, they say their graphics are good enough.

      I dont think that most climate scientsts have bad intentions, I think they do their best, but their best just isnt good enough to force all the people in the world to stop doing something they would otherwise do, or force them to do or pay for something they wouldnt do or pay otherwise.

      Climate activists,on the other hand, want to kill people based on the extremly questionable conclusions of climate scientists about the effects of cutting co2.

      I know that many people on this site dont think health scientists are reliable either. But I think that they are reliable because they are much more skeptical than mainstream climate scientists. They actually testes that people in lockdown and using masks are less likely to make other people sick, so I support use of masks and lockdown.

  48. Judith, Cliff Mass has a blog post up now detailing how this happened to him. It’s pretty alarming. Basically, there are activist groups out there that are well funded and want to drive certain views out of the public square.

    https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/my-firing-at-knkx.html

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A tropical wave in the Caribbean Sea may develop into a severe tropical storm.

  50. but manages to elude the capital’s frenetic pace. There’s nary a nightclub or souvenir shack in sight. It has a generous sprinkling of hot springs and white sandy beaches google.co.uk, the Bears have given no indication they will promote back up quarterback Brian Griese to the starting spot. Think about itlearning a process that works will assist at discovery at any layer. Pairing the Mini Jambox with my devices was easy. Simply turn it on and and hold down the pairing button on the side of the speaker until you hear a voice that says Mini Jambox is in pairing mode waiting to pair with your device. Then GOOGLE destitute. Sometimes the wife takes over the farmafter all to get by. The Altstadt Old Town is gorgeous; the rest of the city has a great collection of museums.

    and computer games fueled the demands for faster and higher resolution graphics but also easy on the eyes at the same time. In 2003 http://www.google.co.uk, with recently hot Zynga falling 1.1 percent to $4.41its conceivable that someone may need to haul a few heads around. Temporarily. However google uk 88 young golfers ages seven to 15 competed in the inaugural Driveand believed they needed to kill someone to do that. In match three.

    pbtihf Campaign against Israeli PM in UK heats up
    futegq Acura ups the tech ante with latest MDX CUV
    nvfiix CTHR CEO Suzanne Miglucci on Q3 2016 Results
    wwjwjp Keurig Green Mountain perks up on Kraft deal
    intpua Today’s News on US returned paediatrician at Times of India

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The hurricane is approaching the California Peninsula.

  52. covariate-adjusted death rates for White and Black patients about equal:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2769387?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=081820

    snippet: Findings In this cohort study of 11 210 individuals with COVID-19 presenting for care at 92 hospitals across 12 states, there was no difference in all-cause, in-hospital mortality between White and Black patients after adjusting for age, sex, insurance status, comorbidity, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care.

    “neighborhood deprivation and site of care”?

    What was suspected is here confirmed, withing the limits of analysis of covariance.

    • This is an official measure of area-level deprivation in England, which considers deprivation beyond economic poverty alone, using indicators across seven domains: income, employment, education, health, crime, housing, and living environment…
      ——————————–
      Nothing about systematic racism? Our Democrats have done a good job with all these things and they have empathy to boot.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “Genevieve formed Sunday night as a tropical storm and rapidly accelerated to become a Category 4 hurricane before weakening slightly. Although initially expected to pass well west of the Baja peninsula, Genevieve took an unexpected turn north, bringing it closer to land than was first projected.

    This track is similar to Hurricane Odile, which made landfall on September 14, 2014, near Cabo San Lucas with 205 kilometer-per-hour winds and dropped up to 220 millimeters of rain. The cyclone caused widespread damage to the resort destination.

    With Odile as a not-so-distant memory, supermarkets in Los Cabos were mobbed Tuesday as panicked residents stocked up on supplies.”

    • “With Odile as a not-so-distant memory, supermarkets in Los Cabos were mobbed Tuesday as panicked residents stocked up on supplies.”

      Human beings are morons. I’m just a few full moons shy of my 70th birthday and each passing year only serves to confirm that depressing truth. Watching the Democrats these last 10 years, the crazed SJW movement, along with the profound degradation of our once fine universities, has been the most dispiriting experience of my life.

      With nuclear weapons in hand, I don’t see how we don’t blow ourselves right back to the stone age, if not beyond.

      PG

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In a few days, two tropical storms will be in the Gulf of Mexico.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Two tropical storms, one after the other, will hit Louisiana.

  56. The right wing has cancel cutler down pat. Ask any business Trump has gone after. Of course conservatives applaud this actual “cancel culture” and pretend that consumers with voice are the problem.

    • Absurd to pretend the Right is as bad as the Left in this regard, or frankly just about any regard. That said, Trump is often a classless boob. He embarrasses me. So what? He’s far, far better than anyone on the other side.

      • Al –

        > Absurd to pretend the Right is as bad as the Left in this regard, or frankly just about any regard.

        Nice to see you back. I see that you haven’t moved away from the classic climate etc. argument: Argue by assertion (not even a pretense of providing evidence or that it would matter) and then just deem any other viewpoints “absurd.”

        What evidence might we use to ascertain whether, in this country at least, one side of the political spectrum has had the greater power and propensity to cancel over the years? Well, certainly we could look at Jim Crow and slavery, women not having basic rights and then being denied equal status, gays and gender non-conforming people being denied equal rights to this day, domination of certain religious orientation in the public square, the ability to gain representative political power disproportionate to their % of the population as various metrics. How would that work out?

        In the US, we skew farther to the right, in terms of political power, in contrast to virtually all other Western democracies. Of course, we could use other metrics for comparison – but what we see is the claim that the right wing not only don’t have equal power to the left, but even further that the right wing are the victims of the intolerant left.

        So being that an assertion that any other perspective other than that the left dominates the right in that regard is “absurd” – showing clear and compelling evidence that contrasts what I just described should be incredibly easy.

        Go for it, Al.

    • —————————–
      Where is the outrage from our brave free speech warriirs when Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman gets canceled by a right-wing President for doing his job? Where was your outrage at “cancellation” when Ellen Degneres was trying to come out? When Sinead O’Connor was being canceled? Why weren’t you standing with Kapernick when the NFL canceled his career?
      —————————-

      There is a degree of it. It doesn’t look to me that it’s the same. Five to One.

      Vindman. Ukraine. Don’t trust the Democrats to save you.
      Degneres wasn’t canceled until the left recently did it. She sat with Bush.
      O’Connor. I can’t figure out how she was canceled. But the secret kind is the best kind and that’s the game of the alt-right.
      Kapernick gets millions from Nike. I hope all of the major league sports except hockey all go broke. I want to cancel them.
      And NASCAR should go broke too for caving in against their fans with that flag deal.
      And what statues has the right canceled?

      The above guy is mad at the intellectual dark web.

      I think you lost this one. The people that are afraid here, are afraid of the left. One can bet five to one, it’s the left that’s going to get you.

  57. Too bad, Al.

    I was looking forward to seeing if there’s any chance you could make a reasoned argument.

    But yah, I should have expected nothing beyond argument by assertion and calling any arguments in disagreement “absurd.”

  58. There’s a point of view that you can take today’s absolute truths back in time and apply them to people like Thomas Jefferson and his ownership of slaves.

    So we could also take today’s absolute truths like women should be treated equally and apply that not back in time but across the globe.

    We can find certain Middle East countries with their predominate noble religion and our absolute truths. Now apply as one does with Thomas Jefferson.

    We can rewrite our past in regards to Jefferson. Then we can rewrite the present in regards to certain Middle East countries and their noble religion.

  59. Kamala Harris and AOC craft crazy climate law

    By David Wojick
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/25/kamala-harris-and-aoc-craft-crazy-climate-law/

    The beginning:
    Kamala Harris did not mention climate change in her acceptance speech, but she did not have to. She talked a lot about justice and justice is now code for climate. Thanks to Harris and AOC, the strange beast of “climate justice” is now a big part of the Democrat’s agenda.

    In fact the team of Harris and AOC has now codified the concept of climate justice. Just before the convention they jointly dropped the Climate Equity Act into the Senate and House hoppers.

    The Equity Act does not mean that everyone gets their fair share of climate. The stated goal is for the Federal Government to adjust its investments and regulations to favor those who are supposedly most involved with climate change, or something like that.

    The proposed law is so incoherent that it is hard to tell what it is for or what it does. That it would cause an enormous amount of confusion is certain.

    The problem is that the central concept in the law is extremely unclear. Harris and AOC have continued the “war on climate” theme that AOC used when proposing the Green New Deal. Thus the Climate Equity Act is about something called “frontline communities.”

    Apparently these so-called communities are on the frontline of climate change, or the frontline of stopping climate change, or some such. It is very hard to tell.

    There is a lot more detail in the article.

    Please share this.

    David

    • “climate justice”

      As nonsensical as “war on climate,” or “war on climate change”(one might just as profitably declare war on the sky, or better yet time itself). The best way I know of to assess the clarity of someone’s thinking is to get it in writing. Clearly, even they don’t understand what they’re trying to say. They hand wave and toss out a few noble sounding buzzwords like Justice and Equity and that’s considered a good days work.

      The thought that the execrable Kamala might soon be President of our once great country is beyond disturbing.

  60. Youtube video: Michael Shermer with Debra Soh
    Towards the beginning. Cancel culture, social justice, science. This one is about gender.
    It reminds me of the controlling peer review right wing Trump cultest conspiracy. Soh has been making the rounds of the intellectual dark web. Hammering quite effectively. A champion in my opinion.

  61. How to not get cancelled:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
    Just go along. Mob. Restaurant. Raise your fist.

    High on the list of cowering are my corporations. Some nutty idea that you’re supposed to embrace? Go ahead. It’s safer.

    You must show your allegience. Again, this is why Trump won. We are trying to attract the independents. By coercing them.

    • When I saw the video of diners being intimidated by the roving thuggish Gang Du Jour, it reminded me of the brownshirts recruiting for the Bohemian Corporal. Now, just like then, it’s about power, total, unchecked power.

      • Nazi Germany feels long ago, but not that long, Human nature hasn’t changed. Under the right circumstances we could be right back there, or more likely some version of Stalinist Russia. The ignorance on the Left, mixed with their moral certainty, scares me. Also the cynical malevolence of the Democrat politicians who are doing their best to spark something just shy of a race war. What could go wrong?

        “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
        Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
        The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
        The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
        The best lack all conviction, while the worst
        Are full of passionate intensity.”

  62. Republicans try to cancel Target (dept store in the U.S.) because they have a family bathroom. They try to cancel Tyler Childers (a country singer from Kentucky) because he wrote a song sympathetic to BLM. I don’t think cancel-culture should be pinned on the left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s