1/ This person resigned from a journal over a "transphobic" article.
The article says discussing the effects of biological sex out weighs any harm trans-people might feel hearing about biological sex
She calls the article, I kid you not, "injurious scholarship"
2/ She claims the article harmed trans people because the it said the harm of not discussing and accounting for biological sex outweighs any harm trans people might incur from hearing about biological sex.
THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT THE WOMAN WHO RESIGNED IS WRONG
3/ How in the hell is anyone supposed to challenge this womans views, or test her hypothosis, or critique her reasoning.... WHEN SHE DEMANDS THAT ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES HER VIEWS MUST NOT BE PUBLISHED.
Watch how circular her reasoning is:
4/ 1. Trans people are harmed by discussing biological sex
2. The article claims discussing biological sex outweighs any harm this causes trans people
Therefore:
3. We can't publish the article because
1. Trans people are harmed by discussing biological sex.
It's a circle
5/ In other words:
We can't let people say discussions of biological sex outweigh the distress trans people feel hearing it because letting people say discussions of biological sex outweigh the distress trans people feel hearing it....would harm trans people.
See that? A circle
6/ Wokist: "you can't say that."
You: "Why?"
W: "It harms trans people"
Y:"I disagree."
W: "You can't"
Y: "Why?"
W: "Disagreeing that your words harm trans people...harms trans people"
Y: "Can I disagree with THAT"
W: "No"
Y: "Why?"
W: "that also harms trans people."
7/ The woke have adopted the view that anything that is harmful must not be published, and any disgreement with their most cherished values is harmful. This means that no one can ever publish anything that disagrees with their most cherished values becuase...that would be harmful
8/ It'a circular reasoning all the way to the bone, and if we don't stand up to these people, and fast, they're going to break all our institutions if they haven't already.
1/ Let's talk about why Putin is doing what he's doing.
To understand Putin, we need to understand how Putin sees the world, how he was trained, and what drives him.
To do that we need to unpack a some history so we can put Putin in the context that allows us to understand him.
2/ First off, Putin was a KGB agent. For those of you that don't know the KGB was the Main security agency in Soviet Union. It dealt with internal security, intelligence and secret police functions.
It's isn't exactly this, but imagine combining the FBI and CIA...that's the KGB
3/ The KGB did intelligence work at home and abroad. Internally the KGB would MONITOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPINION, internal subversion, and any revolutionary plots in the Soviet Bloc. The KGB would spy on Soviet citizens and was in charge of stomping out dissent within the USSR...
1/ Putin is attacking now because he knows Biden is weak. The chaotic way Biden pulled out of Afghanistian showed the weakness and incompetence of his administration
2/ That does not mean America should intervene. It means if Biden had not dropped the ball, and if the competence of American institutions had not been eroded we would not be here. Like it or not a lot of Republicans warned about what happens when guys like Putin see weakness.
3/ Those people were rightin saying that projecting American weakness (by doing things like leaving afghanistan in the most incompetent way ever, or letting China get away with hacking the office of personel management with no consequences) invites aggression from bad actors...
2/ While I think ending tenure is a very bad idea, I am also stunned at the fact that UT, which is a public University, has implemented a left wing political litmust test for promotion and advancement.
This is a blatant 1st amendment violation....
3/ Richard Lowry, a Professor in the department of finance at UT argues that the DEI policy (diversity equity, and inclusion) passed by the UT is a violation of academic freedom.
Even a cursory reading of thebpolicy demonstrates thst professor Lowery is correct
Luke, if you want to ignore the real claim being made here, that is fine and dandy. But I think I'll tell everyone the whole context whether you agree to that or not.
What David French was talking about was not what was going on here...
What James and Glenn are talking about here, and it's clear from the context, is the idea that the financial system can be weaponized and used a method of controlling people and undermining democracy by using financial control that is not accountable to democratic oversight...
For example, in Canada, where I live, Justin Trudeau has just announced a state of emergency and has claimed that he can freeze the assets of truck protestors, ***and anyone the think donates to the truckers***, without the need for a warrant or any due process.
2/ Will those of you who live in the area PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take the time to go to her store and buy something and give a message of support.
I know you're busy, I know it costs time and money, I get it.
But they are going to break this business if we don't support her...
3/ So please, a single ice cream or a drink and a sticky note thst says "tell the owner we support her" will go MILES to helping her tow the line and wait out this artificially created crisis.
Second, we need to tell the world thst what @alisonmah is doing is evil and wrong...
1/ I read this essay from @DavidAFrench with great interest.
I am a pentacostal. These are my people and I know them well; I have my degree in Biblical Studies from @Estoncollege which is the College of my denomination: the Apostolic Church of Pentacost. frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-seeds-of…
2/ First, some things I agree with.
He is right that there are almost no elite theologians or Christian cultural commentators that have any idea what my people believe "on the ground."
He is right about that. However, this is not something that typically bothers us. However...
3/ It does grate on me when various elites sneer without bothering to understand what it is we believe.
Most have not read a single book by Simon Chan or Gordon Fee but will claim to know what we believe. (Fee gave me my Greek New Testament FWIW)