1/ This Black Lives Matter protest happened in the middle of the pandemic and the woke/media/blue-check industrial complex cheered it on.
Now they want to close churches and shutdown thanksgiving.
I called for lockdowns in march and I'm infuriated.
2/ In March I worked for a government in Canada that implemented testing, tracing, capcity limits on indoor gatherings, and social distancing.
These measures work and allowed us to re-open churches, synagogues, mosques, and small businesses back in *JULY*
We have stayed open.
3/ In light of a recent surge, the government mandated masks in public.
I support this.
As a result of these measures number of confirmed active cases is less than .1%.
Churches and synagogues contiue to *REMAIN OPEN* (with some limits on capacity)
So, why am I angry?
4/ I'm *ANGRY* because prominent members of the medical community have undermined established medical science and destroyed its credibility by playing favorites, selective rule enforcement, granting exemptions for ideological reasons, and otherwise engaging in rank hypocrisy.
5/ They flood the zone with urgent warnings and media panic when small businesses open at 30% capacity or when Churches or snyagogues meet, and they demand these people stay home and shame them for leaving the house unnecessarily.
Then they cheer BLM rallies that look like this:
6/ The same medical experts who now warn about small businesses, churches, and synagogues while shaming those who might attend a service, have spent months telling us mass protests of thousands of people must continue:
7/ Here, @s_j_prins, a professor at @ColumbiaMSPH says public health needs to "pick a side," then he changes a medical advice graphic for police and protestors so it offers advice to protestors and tells police to stay home. He then says "defund, disarm, and abolish" the police.
8/ Julia Marcus responds. She's worried people may blame the protestors for spreading COVID. She then admits one question she asks when she gives advice is....
"Does it help us build power?"
She admits making public health recommendations based on what helps her side get power.
8/ We need the help of experts in order to make good decisions and set good policy.
But we need experts to be honest within their area of expertise, and not to use their position of authority to make policy that shows favoritism to whoever agrees with those experts politics.
9/ When experts use technical knowledge as an excuse to make policies which force their political and moral values on the rest of us, it erodes the trust people have in both experts and the medical and scientific institutions that teach, train, and give experts their legitimacy.
10/ This means the medical establishment and their media enablers have mortgaged the credibility, legitimacy, and trust of the scientific and medical establishment in order to pay for the temporary high of political power and social activism.
And we're all paying for it.
11/ The social capital that scientists, universities, experts and the media rely on to do their job is *TRUST*
They lose a little bit of that capital every time those of us who rely on them to run our lives find out we've been lied to.
12/ So now, when I say that masks work, that social distancing is effective, that we need to stop the spread; people just look me right in the eye and say "If the experts really believed that they wouldn't have promoted massive protest rallies:
13/ When I say to not to travel, or to avoid eat in restaurants because of the government policy, the people just say "if politicians really believed their own policy they would follow it. But they don't follow it because they don't really believe it."
And they show me this:
14/ It's now looks like the institutions we used to rely on to give us accurate information to make decisions about the policies we want and how to manage ourselves, are not telling us the whole truth because if we had the whole truth we might not pick their preferred policies.
15/ People believe, and I understand why, that the institutions we rely on for accurate information are selling them a narrative cobbled together from half-truths, in order to justify decisions and rules that benefit the politics of the woke/media/blue-check industrial complex.
16/ What am I supposed to say when someone tells me "this COVID stuff is all just political nonsense meant to benefit whoever's in charge" and then scientists brag about how they are politicizing science?
Why would anyone listen to them?
17/ The woke/media/blue-check industrial complex exchanged truth telling for narrative crafting in a bid to implement their political and moral worldview.
This isn't just The Death of Expertise, It's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ This is not true. The argument is not that it is ok to fire faculty for teaching Critical Race Theory. The argument is that if someone insists that ideas, policies, and concepts from critical race theory be used togovern the workplace you can get rid of them for the same...
2/ Reason you can get rid of an employee who insists the workplace be run in accordance with Christian values and continues to preach in the break room.
To wit, there is a difference between the university as educational space and the university as a workplace.
I can teach...
3/ That Christians are going to hell in my class...I can't insist on going after Christians in the break room and letting them have it whenever they appear, or harassingthem woth taunts in the line for lunch and menace them
1/ When Dr. Peterson's wife was diagnosed with cancer he was prescribed Benzodiazepines, a drug which can create dependancy in as little as 2-4 weeks. The widrawl symptoms associated with Benzodiazepines can be shockingly severe and can last for over a year.
2/ Getting off Benzodiazepines is an *ORDEAL* both because the withdrawl symptoms from Benzodiazepines can kill you, and because actually getting off them takes specialized medical planning to manage the withdrawl.
3/ Benzodiazepine dependancy and withdrawl are also particularly dangerous for older people and Jordan Peterson is 58. It's no surprise that it almost killed him.
The people who *cried at work* because Jordan Peterson wrote a book don't get to call anyone "fragile" ever again.
Woke people accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of having "white fragility," "male fragility," or "fragile masculinity."
Meanwhile, these same woke activists *start crying on the job* because they can't handle the fact that Jordan Peterson wrote a book.
They're babies.
These people go on and on about how everyone else is "fragile" and #masculinitysofragile and white fragility and blah blah blah. They then proceed to demand "safe spaces" and "triggar warnings" while crying over books and throwing temper tantrums at work.
1/ Woke person: "You're Racist"
You: "No I'm not"
Woke person: "That's what a racist would say!"
See that? That's a "Kafka Trap," and it's a strategy the woke often use when they want to call someone a racist, sexist, bigot, etc.
So, lets talk about Kafka Traps,
A thread🧵
2/ The purpose of a Kafka Trap is, as the name suggests, to Trap you in an accusation. The Kafka Trap works by rigging the conversation so that it doesn't matter how you deny an accusation, the accusers can still make you look guilty.
Let's look at how it works.
3/ The Kafka Trap has two simple steps:
1. The person using the Kafka Trap accuses you of something
2. When you deny the accusation, the person using the Kafka Trap will take your denial and twist in such a way that they can use it against you to make you look guilty.
Failure to meet this with all the power we have is going to end up with us being totally unable to fight back on the internets largest video distribution medium.
We have to fire back before they notmalize the shut down of anyone who goes against woke orthodoxy.
We HAVE to...
WE CAN DO THIS!!!
Just a couple of weeks ago we succesfully pushed back against @target after they censored @AbigailShrier's book 'Irreversible Damage.'
1/ So, @IshitaChandel1 is lying about a paper to get it retracted by saying it links whiteness to intelligence. This is a lie. The paper makes no such claim, and in fact doesn even hint at such a claim.
2/ The paper only looked at white people of British Ancestory. No one else participated in the study. This means it was comparing White Brits to other White Brits, and that means all the people in the test that didn't have the genes for intelligence *WERE WHITE*
3/ Not only that, but in only surveying white brits (they state this explicitly) the paper doesnt mention *whiteness* as it excludes the french, germans, finish, polish, swedes, and irish to name a few. So it doesn't look at white populations as a whole, and doesn't claim to: