Well. I am pleased, though not celebratory, that #HowToArgueWithARacist has returned to the Sunday Times Bestseller list at No.5. In these troubling times, it is incumbent upon us all to learn our histories, and equip ourselves with evidence-based arguments against bigotry.
Alongside amazing authors on related subjects, inc. @renireni, Layla Saad #meandwhitesupremacy, her words below. Many of these books are sold out at major retailers, but you can always find them at your local indies.
Science is no ally to racists. Science can and should be deployed as an anti-racist tool.
For my American friends, a rewritten US-specific edition will be out Aug 11, with a new introduction
(and all the references to football changed to soccer) theexperimentpublishing.com/catalogs/sprin…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A short thread on grammar, as the fewer/less crowd are outnabout. I used to really care until I started working regularly on @BBCRadio4, where I discovered that the most frequent complaints were from male grammar pedants.
They typically moaned about decimate, fewer/less, octopus and bacterium/bacteria. The thing about grammar pedants is that they’re not pedantic enough, and their corrections were often erroneous - stuff that is easy to Google - and born of doctrinaire oneupmanship.
And so I revised my position to be a descriptivist. Not everyone was taught the ‘correct’ form of grammar, which obviously, is entirely made up. The only thing that matters is effectiveness of communication. @OliverKamm is my Obi Wan on this matter.
I’ve had some fun with the race wienies today - it’s almost as if I could write a book on how to argue with a racist. Anyway, here’s some of the highlights: 1) the credentialists. How can it be that I have a job in one of the best genetics departments on Earth, and the BBC?? 😘
2) ‘you’re a disingenuous retard’
3) ‘I understand population genetics cos I have eyes’. Wish I’d known it was that easy before spending all that time learning it
I read a lot of books, and here are my non-fiction books of the year, just in time for presents, in no particular order.
1: Toxic by Sarah Ditum. Britney, Paris, Lindsay, Janet, Amy. These early-noughties mononym women who stood charged with being women at the juncture between the old media and the new. Will make you sad, angry and baffled.
2: Ultra-Processed People by @DoctorChrisVT revelations about an industrial complex that underlies so much of the health problems humankind faces, because our lives are flooded by food that is not food.
I went to see Oppenheimer. It is hard to imagine a film that I disliked more intensely. Apart from Tenet.
Positives: acting is fabulous, cinematography beautiful, music a bit overbearing but massive.
Negatives <deep breath>
* learn to write dialogue. People don’t speak like that. Every sentence is designed to elicit a zinger or exposition point in response.
* the editing is frenetic. Intercutting from different locations, colour/black and white, mad angles that make no sense.
The whole film is a montage.
Oh come on, don't make me do this, please. The sun is shining, and it's a nice da... MALE SEA OTTERS DROWN FEMALES AND USE THEIR CARCASSES FOR SEX UNTIL THE FALL APART. DON'T BE FOOLED, THEY ARE ABSOLUTE FURRY ARSEHOLES.
🚨 Genetics is PROBABILISITIC, not deterministic 🚨 This is a fundamental aspect of inheritance. The idea that being in possession of a certain version of a gene - an allele - determines a trait is incorrect, and you will fail 1st yr Introduction to Genetics if you write that.
Next: For the most part, the way we understand the influence of certain alleles - e.g. taste preferences - comes from studies in populations, and do not directly or deterministically translate to individuals.
The idea that behaviours are influenced by genetics is neither new nor surprising. EVERYTHING is influenced by both genetics and the environment. And here's where the history is important.