The media handled this poorly but I think the even worse performance is in scientific and health policy institutions, which showed an even more stifling ideological monoculture than the press did.
You could see this in, for example, the ACIP proposal not to recommend an age-based approach to vaccine phasing, even though it would save more lives, because of “equity” concerns. Whatever woke nonsense is ongoing in press is much farther along in the health bureaucracy.
And then you had the bullshit about how, because ACIP hadn’t finalized the recommendation, it was improper to discuss it or something. Total “shut up, they explained” nonsense.
Actually the worst example was when public health academics decided to say en masse that gathering in groups last June was okay if it was done for the right political purposes, because pursuing a liberal policy agenda *is* public health.
Why would people “trust the science and listen to the experts” when the scientific experts keep smuggling their non-expert political and moral views into their guidance? Scientists who are mad the public doesn’t trust them should tell colleagues to stop discrediting their fields.
This letter from last June is so embarrassing — because it goes against the guidance these same experts gave about all other activity at the time. drive.google.com/file/d/1Jyfn4W…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The thing I don’t get about bottle service — besides the astronomical price — is, if I’m at a fancy establishment, having very expensive drinks, shouldn’t I at least be getting them in the form of properly made martinis or manhattans or whatever?
As an aside, one reason Democrats are in such miserable shape in Ohio is that Ohio Republicans, unlike Republicans in certain other states, actually try hard to be popular with a clear majority of the electorate.
Okay it seems that Oregon, Maryland, Arkansas and New York are doing variations on the Ohio thing.
It damages the NYT’s reputation to have a key reporter on the most important story of the year say a valid news angle shouldn’t be discussed because it has “racist roots.” Aren’t they supposed to be in the news business?
But basically reporters at the NYT are allowed do whatever they want on social media, however damaging to the paper’s reputation, so long as they have the right politics.
The core issue here is that management at the NYT is cowardly. They are afraid of their young, noisy, leftist reporters. So they don't manage, and insubordination is rampant. And it's very damaging to the product.
30% of the “incidents” with race data in this sample (“incidents” defined to include accusing the CCP of covering up a lab leak) are Donald Trump personally.
The political narratives being pushed here are that white supremacy is at the root of every social ill, and that fighting hate incidents does not conflict with de-policing proposals.
The question is what is Pride (the organization and the march, not the broad concept) for? I think it's possible Pride has served all its integrationist and acceptance functions and doesn't need to try to speak for all LGBT people anymore. nytimes.com/2021/05/18/opi…
Like, "we are everywhere, we're in your organizations, we're part of every part of the community" was a very important message for the parade to send 20 years ago. But we've won that fight.
Which is to say, that if Pride organizationally adopts an agenda that speaks for only some LGBT people, that excludes in certain ways -- maybe that's fine? Not everything has to be an umbrella, and certainly not everything has to speak for me.