After several years, the documentary is finally out. Jeff Foust has a review.
I also remained on the cutting-room floor. It sounds like it’s a good history, but as Jeff notes, vague on what to fight for now.
After several years, the documentary is finally out. Jeff Foust has a review.
I also remained on the cutting-room floor. It sounds like it’s a good history, but as Jeff notes, vague on what to fight for now.
I’d never even heard of her before this, but here’s the best take so far: ISIS accuses her of cultural appropriation.
I too have been persecuting Kathy Griffin for years, by never even having heard of her.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) June 2, 2017
Reflections from Kyle Smith.
His boss isn’t amused.
I’m sad that I’m going to have to fire @rkylesmith so soon after he started. https://t.co/OERKjzBfB0
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 1, 2017
Some good advice from Iowahawk.
I agree. Kathy Griffin should keep her job, and university administrators should lose theirs.
The first chapter has been put on line. I haven’t read it yet, perhaps I’ll have thoughts when I have.
[Update a while later]
I’d think they’d make their coffee in pressure cookers.
The media hates it.
Admittedly, many of them are snowflakes themselves. Or just flakes.
…”scientists” zero:
…in a sense, the video doesn’t even refute the straw man it set up. It’s not that climate science consists only of models: obviously there are observations too. But all the attribution claims about the climatic effects of greenhouse gases are based on models. If the scientists being interviewed had any evidence otherwise, they didn’t present any.
When you can’t even knock down your own straw man, you don’t have much of an argument.
So how did the video do refuting Scott Adams’ cartoon? He joked that scientists warning of catastrophe invoke the authority of observational data when they are really making claims based on models. Check. He joked that they ignore on a post hoc basis the models that don’t look right to them. Check. He joked that their views presuppose the validity of models that reasonable people could doubt. Check. And he joked that to question any of this will lead to derision and the accusation of being a science denier. Check. In other words, the Yale video sought to rebut Adams’ cartoon and ended up being a documentary version of it.
They would appear to lack self awareness.
They’re shocked that we’re starting to hate them back:
Cue the boring moralizing and sanctimonious whimpering of the femmy, bow-tied, submissive branch of conservatism whose obsolete members were shocked to find themselves left behind by the masses to whom these geeks’ sinecures were not the most important objective of the movement. This is where they sniff, “We’re better than that,” and one has to ask ,“Who’s we?” Because, by nature, people are not better than that. They are not designed to sit back and take it while they are abused, condescended to, and told by a classless ruling class that there are now two sets of rules and – guess what? –the old rules are only going to be enforced against them.
We don’t like the new rules – I’d sure prefer a society where no one was getting attacked, having walked through the ruins of a country that took that path – but we normals didn’t choose the new rules. The left did. It gave us Ferguson, Middlebury College, Berkeley, and “Punch a Nazi” – which, conveniently for the left, translates as “punch normals.” And many of us have had personal experiences with this New Hate – jobs lost, hassles, and worse. Some scumbags at an anti-Trump rally attacked my friend and horribly injured his dog. His freaking dog.
So when we start to adopt their rules, they’re shocked? Have they ever met human beings before? It’s not a surprise. It’s inevitable.
It won’t end well for them if they continue down this road, because we have the guns.
…is real.
When I was a kid, I wanted a really fast car, and it would still be fun, but I’m not willing to put a lot of effort into getting one.
From me, in a podcast with Anthony Colangelo.