2/ This was a good conversation. Lotsa questions/critiques but overwhelmingly from folks who follow/like my work. I shoulda anticipated that.
I can't post the show link because I'm getting an error message when I try to, but the ep is safely saved as a draft so up soon I hope.
3/ I think I'll just have to have folks who disagree with me come on to effectively cohost individual episodes -- probably a selection issue with expecting to get truly critical folks with this sort of open call. At the top of the ep I did address some Twitter-criticism though.
4/ Here it is: Episode 2 of Singal-Minded Conversations, in which I only take calls from (and, up top, respond to a few tweets from) folks who disagree with me. Pretty easy crowd but good conversation. Also, ska-punk is mentioned.
Alan resurfaced a thread that is the closest anyone has come to stalking me -- a barista saying she knew where I worked, causing a bunch of people to respond saying she should physically assault me -- because... I'm not sure why? VERY important to win internet fights.
2/ This was years ago so I'm obviously not worried about that particular thread, but the level of obsession and vindictiveness here, coming from academics writing under their own names... These people come across as deeply unwell and in need of better hobbies.
3/ Alan also wants everyone to know that I have "made it into a list" -- a random post on some site -- "with two of his heroes who happen to be the two most well-known sexual predators in US media," by which he means Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald
What's the best, most rigorous evidence folks can point me to that sorting kids (or adults) by race for training purposes leads to improved outcomes of some sort?
2/ First Google hit is something of a case study. The organizers decided against formally evaluating their program partly because they were worried a negative evaluation would deter future funding of the (as-yet-totally-unevaluated) program. (Also potential legal issues.)
3/ Most importantly, let's say you're a kid trying to figure out which group to identify into. Moreover, let's say that lunch is provided by a random subset of parents in your group, and is homemade. Which group do you go with? Obviously not white but very tough choice otherwise!
Rittenhouse underage weapons charged dropped. A reader of mine called this, based on a pretty straightforward reading of certain exceptions in the law, 15 months ago. Waiting to see if he'll let me post his email.
2/ In Wisconsin you can just give a 17-year-old an AR-style rifle an he can carry it around, no permit or training or anything else required. Really good system! God I love America.
3/ Thanks to reader David Steele. This seems like a pretty basic thing for a bunch of major outlets to have missed! Probably didn't make sense to charge it in the first place but prosecutors have their reasons I suppose.
If I'm an editor at Scientific American, one of a small subset of mainstream publications devoted solely to, well, science, I definitely want to jump in with an aggressive take on each and every culture-war controversy. Very very good for the brand. scientificamerican.com/article/the-an…
2/ Scientific American is either being intentionally dishonest about the content of this Wisconsin bill or none of the four authors of this article, or any of the editors, bothered to read it.
3/ The link points not to the bill itself, but to testimony from a state rep who argues the terms in question *potentially* violate the bill. But the bill itself does not issue a blanket ban on using any particular terms. You can really just read it!
I'm not trying to get assaulted by any Slate staffers (historically dangerous bunch) but here's an example of me writing about 'wokeness' (or whatever you want to call it! truly don't care!) in a way that I think has some substance? Lotsa others have too. jessesingal.substack.com/p/when-we-argu…
2/ Freddie deBoer and Matt Bruenig are two lefties who come to mind who have long tried to explain the new norms that have come to dominate liberal spaces (though they weren't yet dominant when they began writing about them). Instead of engagement, endless accusations of bigotry.
3/ Maybe 'critique' is more accurate than 'explain,' but if in 2021 you are arguing that NO ONE who is critiquing this stuff has any point other than they are mad white men don't dominate everything (!!), you could maybe try reading more widely? Also, don't threaten violence!
The American Medical Association has just released "Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts," a strange document that calls for doctors to insert progressive politics into even plain statements of fact.
2/ After the lengthy "Land And Labor Acknowledgement" -- new to me but apparently the evolution of the land acknowledgement -- the document quickly lays out guidelines that would make it very hard for doctors to write or speak clearly.
3/ For example, the word 'vulnerable' is out. You're not supposed to say "vulnerable groups," because this doesn't communicate progressive political beliefs. Try "Groups that have been economically/
socially marginalized."