This is Nikw211's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Nikw211's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I do sometimes wonder what it must be like to be trapped in a head like that Based on his 'Meet Kevin Allred' page, I cannot decide whether Allred is a fraud, a hypocrite or merely a common-or-garden buffoon. For instance, talking about himself in the third person, here Allred says: He believes knowledge should be accessible to everyone--not just gatekeepers of the Ivory Tower--and that education should always also be fun. It is quite apparent from this statement that he therefore believes most people - the mainstream of society if you will - do not already have access to knowledge; I assume this is only possible on the grounds that by 'knowledge' he means the very specialised kind of 'knowledge' of which he is in possession, one that - quite perversely - is a type of knowledge that can only be validated by precisely the prestige status of the 'ivory tower' he presents himself as being in opposition to. The only possible way in which he could make 'knowledge ... accessible to everyone', therefore, is through his becoming one of the 'gatekeepers' he is supposedly disparaging. And so like many others who share his political views his issue is not so much with the system itself but with the apparent injustice that does not see total control of that system placed in his hands. In the very next paragraph, he then states that: Kevin's mission is to ... confront, question, and attempt to undo mainstream Amerika's racist and heterosexist status quo So let me get this straight - he is somehow claiming that 'knowledge should be accessible to everyone' and that 'education should always also be fun' while at the same time pledging himself to the dismantling of 'mainstream Amerika's racist and heterosexist status quo'? Assuming that the 'mainstream' of US society includes many (or even the majority) of those who do not currently have access to 'knowledge', and who he has therefore made it his mission to enlighten, in what sense (and for whom) could this project of his possibly be 'fun'? When has being harangued by a zealout to confess your allegedly 'racist and heterosexist' sins ever been fun for anyone? Perhaps Allred is a fraud and a hypocrite and a common-or-garden buffoon rolled into one? Because, for sure, if that rattlebag of contradictions is an attempt to deceive his readers, then he is clearly a fraud; if it is there to deceive himself, then he is obviously a hypocrite; and if he has no idea as to what he is actually saying then he is no better than a village idiot.
A certain bad Penny has rolled around again but rather than the kind of grim amusement and contempt she usually provokes in me this time I just feel thoroughly demoralised. In many ways it bears all the hallmarks her prose is known for. There is the same kind of overcooked sentimentality and melodrama she usually peddles in (not to mention the squirm-inducingly incoherent mixed metaphors - see her dismal attempt at trying to suggest embryonic rage with the 'egg + claws' formula) Something broke, is breaking still. Not like a glass breaks or like a heart breaks, but like the shell of an egg breaks — inexorably, and from the inside. Something wet and angry is fighting its way out of the dark, and it has claws. A great many abusers and their allies have begged us to step back and examine the context in which they may or may not have sexually intimidated or physically threatened or forcibly penetrated one or several female irrelevances who have suddenly decided to tell the world their experiences as if they mattered. There are the same kind of imbecilic attempts at clairvoyance: What happens when enough people stop believing that they ever wanted a world like this? What might happen to us as a society — hell, as a species — if enough of us begin to take consent seriously? What might happen if enough of us stood up together and refused to spend another second watching rich old white men do whatever the fuck they want to our bodies and call it freedom? Well, we might be about to find out. My guess is that it will be exhilarating, but first, it’ll be frightening as hell. Freedom always is. And of course there is the same kind of spiteful menace and threat she tries to pepper her prose with: “Freedom” is just another word for being under the thumb of a powerful white man — for now. But what makes this different this time - for me at any rate - is that it has really hit home - really this time - that there must be people out there who are paying her to write this anxious teenage doggerel and still others who are reading this shit. By whatever criteria you could possibly use you cannot in good conscience deny that what she writes is shit. And it's not even well-intentioned shit, but spiteful, vulgar, tasteless, overblown shit. Yet no matter how shit it gets, she continues to get airtime, conference panel-time, speaking invitations, podcast time, column inches, and publishing deals as if it was anything but shit. But it is shit. Utterly and completely shit. Who on Earth could possibly read this shit and sincerely believe it has any worth of any kind to anyone? In that same interview Daniel Ream mentions Dalrymple says of communist societies: When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. What on Earth does this say about the probity of people who are not forced but instead willingly embrace that silence? How can anyone read that shit? Or believe that she has anything of interest to say to anyone? Adrian Mole's angst-ridden teenage diary was at least funny. And fictional.
Toggle Commented Dec 5, 2017 on Elsewhere (256) at davidthompson
A homunculus speaks. Oh, how I did chortle.
Toggle Commented Nov 16, 2017 on Elsewhere (254) at davidthompson
Know your place.
Toggle Commented Nov 6, 2017 on Friday Ephemeraren’t at davidthompson
Not quite ephemeral, perhaps, but bizarre goings on at The Guardian which sees a junior reporter interviewing the venerable Polly Toynbee . As if to underscore the difference in age and experience, the young interviewer appears to be wearing what for all the world looks like a nightdress – as if to suggest this is some kind of pyjama party for political activists. Better yet, it makes Toynbee seem like a grandmother telling bedtime stories to a child – a rather apt metaphor though one that brings out connotations I can only assume were not the ones intended i.e. that 90% of what Toynbee is about to say is a fairy tale designed to scare children. Or in other words, complete horseshit. And there is plenty of that in this interview, such as this sage piece of advice: Also though, call out the women traitors Yes, those are her actual words; no, I am not making that up. I mean the Sarah Vines, the Alison Pearsons, the Julia Hartley-Brewers, the Ann Robinsons. They do unbelievable damage ... You know they are the real enemy. I’m only vaguely aware of who Sarah Vine is and have no feeling one way or the other about the other two mentioned, but the idea that women disagreeing with Toynbee should be denounced as “traitors” and “the real enemy” is crystal clear in what it says about Toynbee’s character. Toynbee also comes out with this gem of wisdom for the neophyte journalist: I think there is confusion between the workplace and life outside ... I think a world in which Spearmint Rhino is fine; and all the lads from the office go out together for a night out. And then they’re supposed to go back into the office and regard the women in the office as some sort of utterly different species. It’s about the whole attitude ... I think it’s all on one continuum. What she says there is so astonishingly dim-witted that it actually took me a few moments adjusting to the depth of her ignorance before I could see just how fucking moronic it is. Quite apart from the fact that visits to Spearmint Rhino might not be quite so frequent as Toynbee seems to think they are for “all the lads from the office”, if what she says is true – that after having seen a pole-dancing show they are unable to think of women colleagues as anything other than strippers that missed their true vocation – what on Earth does she make of the sales over a 125,000,000 copies of Fifty Shades of Grey? Because it ain’t men buying that book. Or the fact that the movie version of the book has reaped in over $502,000,000 in global box office receipts? Or that some women just couldn’t contain their excitement when watching it? And how is it that women on a Hen Night are somehow able to control themselves in the presence of their male co-workers when returning to the office after a visit to Butlers in the Buff? Or that shows by the Chippendales – seen by over 2,000,000 women annually – always sell out when they come to the UK despite prices starting at £28 a head? Perhaps Toynbee’s answer might be that those are just more examples of women being “traitors” and showing themselves to be “the real enemy”? And Toynbee wants people to take her advice seriously?
Toggle Commented Nov 4, 2017 on Friday Ephemeraren’t at davidthompson
We await the BBC’s follow-up programmes You know, it's an interesting sign of the times we live in that your response could (and quite possibly will) be held out as 'incontrovertible proof' of your sexism and racism (probably mine too for that matter, by association if nothing else). Interesting, because it sometimes seems that it's simply not enough to be indignant in the face of prejudice and stand in opposition to it, but that one's indignation is only acceptable when channeled in certain directions and expressed using certain prescribed ways. Otherwise you are - somehow - said to be guilty of the very thing you are criticising. And such people express surprise when others find such scolding objectionable.
Toggle Commented Nov 2, 2017 on Elsewhere (252) at davidthompson
[W]e can only give masculinity so many modifiers [such as 'toxic] for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is masculinity itself that has become the problem.... we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. 'ideology' she says; 'denounce' the heretics, infidels, and unbelievers she demands (with more than just a hint of Savanorolesque zeal) Messages warmly embraced by Evan Davis and Emily Maitlis on yesterday's BBC Newsnight special, 'The Problem With Men'. A discussion programme so unwatchably awful that it's not surprisingly been widely compared to Brass Eye.
Toggle Commented Nov 2, 2017 on Elsewhere (252) at davidthompson
"Hey, fellas, I say, fellas. Now you don't suppose there could be some kind of connection here, do you?" The Atlantic August 8th, 2017: Why Men Are the New College Minority - Males are enrolling in higher education at alarmingly low rates, and some colleges are working hard to reverse the trend. The Denver Post June 4th, 2017: Men saying “no thanks” to college - The proportion of men on college campuses is dropping. tcu360 November 14th, 2016: Gender gap increases in colleges around the nation The Guardian May 12, 2016: UK's university gender gap is a national scandal, says thinktank - Report calls for efforts to recruit more male students, including a ‘take our sons to university day’ Forbes May 4, 2015: The Disappearing College Male The Guardian January 29, 2013: The gender gap at universities: where are all the men? - Male students are outnumbered by females at most UK universities. The Telegraph August 19, 2012: White males now classed as a 'minority group' at university - Women now dominate Britain’s universities and professions to such an extent that a leading institution has launched a campaign to recruit more “white males”.
Toggle Commented Oct 21, 2017 on The Educators of Tomorrow at davidthompson
Related: Linda Bellos -remember her?- gets a rude awakening when it turns out that it is indeed quite possible to be hoist by one's own petard: University should be a safe space - should be safe, kind of, physically. But if it's going to be safe in relation to ideas! This is like, this is like some kind of, some kind of fascist world She splutters indignantly as the world she helped create turns out not to be quite as she imagined it would (assuming she had even thought that far ahead, which is doubtful). Yet the warnings, often quite nicely summed up by this well-known quote from A Man for All Seasons (despite Bolt's evident intention to criticise More throughout the play including in this speech), went, still go, unheeded. [W]here would you hide ... ? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ... and if you cut them down ... d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake
Toggle Commented Oct 18, 2017 on Elsewhere (250) at davidthompson
Left an envelope behind the collection of pickled egg jars.
Toggle Commented Oct 16, 2017 on The Thrill Of Giving at davidthompson
@MC I can see how those riot police felt legally obliged to batter the hell out of the people trying to vote. Thanks for the clever-clever snark there, but please note I was quite clear in stating "The violence committed by the police has been really quite excessive". Governments across the world ignore laws when it suits them. So you're suggesting that Kim Jong-un of the DPRK is a fine example of a functioning government? Great. Also, incidentally, it was the Catalan authorities ignoring the Law that has done much to bring about this violence. This does not excuse the excessive use of force by the police, but it does need to be acknowledged how the police came to be there in such numbers in the first place. Rajoy could have allowed the referendum to take place but made it clear it was not constitutional and no more than a glorified poll. You don't need polling booths for "a glorified poll" nor do you need to invite every voter in the region to take part. I do not believe any nation has the right to deny independence to any part of itself, if a majority of the citizens demand it. I fully agree. The UK gave Scotland the opportunity to vote for independence, Scotland chose to remain part of the Union. This was all achieved without bloodshed. You will note, of course, that Scotland's vote was therefore legal and given a mandate by the UK parliament. Things would have been quite different indeed if it had been discovered that Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond had been siphoning off government funds to use to promote an illegal referendum vote and then - against an express ruling of the courts - proceeded to defy the courts and administer the vote illegally. To see it from your point of view, one would have to consider Spain to be something like the popular rejection of authoritarian one-party Communist state rule by the peoples of Central and East Europeans in 1989/1990 - such a comparison is absurd. Militant Trotskyite Paul Mason has already drawn an explicit comparison between Rajoy and Mubarak of Egypt - as if the government and nation of Spain is comparable to that of Egypt c. 2010-11. The violence should be rightly condemned, but it is farcical to turn this into a story of an anti-democratic Fascist state - the more so when no major news outlet that I have seen so far has filmed let alone interviewed the Catalan citizens counter-demonstrating on the streets waving the Spanish, not the Catalan, flags.
Toggle Commented Oct 2, 2017 on Friday Ephemera at davidthompson
When I first saw this Tweet on this blog I smirked, with the sorry state of the contemporary arts in mind: But now, I have just had to step away from Twitter in horror and disgust at the way people on Twitter are portraying the Catalan 'referendum' story. As far as I can see, there are hundreds if not thousands of people wilfully misrepresenting a complex Constitutional issue in childishly simplistic terms of Darth Vader neoliberal storm troopers attempting to crush the plucky socialist rebels of Cataluña. And among those thousands are mainstream media outlets who you would hope would know better. But apparently not. The violence committed by the police has been really quite excessive as far as I can tell from the videos, photos and reports - but then we are talking about a region whose representatives have deliberately flouted the law, misappropriated government funds to print advertising for an illegal referendum and deliberately refused to follow directives from their government to prevent polling booths being set up. Is it conceivable that any other nation would react any differently under the same circumstances? What if Bavarian officials went through with an illegal secessionist Referendum from the rest of Germany, misappropriating government funds to do so? Or if Normandy did the same from the rest of France? Or California from the rest of the US? Or Cornwall from the UK? What I apparently cannot get through to these people - mostly British people that is - who are demanding that Rajoy allow the vote to go ahead is that he cannot let the vote go ahead because it has been ruled unconstitutional. Rajoy is not above the law and he cannot simply look at the protests and say - 'Oh, well, they don't like that law so - the hell with it! Let them have their vote.' Mainstream media keep reporting this as 'Madrid' having 'banned' the vote, thus dumping gasoline on the idea that Madrid is still in the grips of Francoist Fascism putting its boot on the neck of plucky socialist Barcelona and acting undemocratically - which is the most egregious bollocks, quite frankly. The rule of law is as important as the right to vote - probably more so in many ways. However passionately Catalans - certain of them at any rate - wish to be independent, they cannot simply seize it by main force, especially while pretending this is all being done in the name of democracy. Especially as, apparently, 59% of Catalans wish to remain part of Spain - at least according to one poll cited by the Financial Times.
Toggle Commented Oct 1, 2017 on Friday Ephemera at davidthompson
OT Oh, dear God - La Mademoiselle horrible, Penny Dreadful, has truly excelled herself - this is likely the most intense cringe I have seen all year.
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2017 on The Devil Himself at davidthompson
(a) that none of her student readers know anything about Ben Shapiro, and (b) that none of them will bother to check anything she’s said about him Yes - the both of those. And it's one of several reasons why I find it troubling when, in lieu of a rebuttal, certain people will simply resort to slander and libel with the express purpose of shaming anyone out of getting too curious. The warnings are as stark (and effective, both in the real and ironic sense) as something like the forbidden zone from The Planet of the Apes: You know, to ward people off finding out for themselves something that would prove to be more than inconvenient to the narrative those same certain people wish to impose as the one true and irrefutable doctrine. It always amazes me when people employ such a strategy - surely they must realise that making something taboo is in itself an incentive for someone to find out for themselves why it is so taboo? And anyone who does venture into the 'forbidden zone' and finds out what is there is likely to be contemptuous if not downright resentful of any and all previous attempts at keeping them deliberately in the dark. And not only that but the very kind of people who are willing to venture that way tend to be people who are of an independent mind - a fact which in itself can make them quite persuasive to others. Surely almost every hero and heroine ever written of is the one who went beyond the known horizon to find out what was on the other side? And, of course, for any such 'hero' who does venture into that 'forbidden zone' it also immediately calls into question the value of the arguments (or 'arguments') of people such as Scheper-Hughes they may have been brought up with or strenuously educated in - because what kind of politics, what kind of ideology, would need to rely on mumbo jumbo to protect itself other than, well, ... mumbo jumbo?
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2017 on The Devil Himself at davidthompson
That’s an awful lot of morony ... Just so. I suspect the hand of Yvette Felarca of 'By Any Means Necessary' had an influence in there somewhere - certainly with the seemingly endless repetition of 'Fascism', 'Fascists' and 'White Supremacy'. Incidentally, the original has Taylor (the woman speaking) say ungrammatically: "Millions of people denounce the collaboration of this university" I assumed it was a mistake and tidied it up - I realise of course now that it was almost certainly deliberate and fully intended to leave listeners with the impression that has millions of members signed up to it. On the topic of errors, Scheper-Hughes' original post in CounterPunch must have been dashed off with an indecent amount of haste. Not only is it full of smears, half-truths, and outright libel against Shapiro, but at several points it changes direction completely onto an almost wholly unrelated topic but before you can work out how it relates to anything resembling a coherent idea she has changed direction yet again: Here she is complaining about the apathy of her colleagues and students ("Why aren’t [we] hosting counter events, teach- ins, timed and presented during the controversial atl right line up of fall speakers: Shapiro, Milo, and Coulter’s tirades?"). Then there she is railing against safe spaces ("Feeling bad? feeling sad? We will provide free counseling and tissues."). All of a sudden she launches into an attack on the First Amendment that barely rises above the level of gibberish - for she argues first that "The first amendment is a work in progress" and that therefore "We need strong legal scholars and thinkers and researchers to push against it, to recognize when the rule of law is illegal (as Laura Nader put it)". But this is said without any apparent awareness or concern that there is barely a cigarette paper between what she's calling for and the kind of scandalous abuse of state power normally found in the only the most corrupt of gangster states. Before she's given time for that to sink in or really explain what she means, however, she switches inexplicably to name-dropping some philosophers ("“Words are deeds”, according to Wittgenstein. J. L. Austin (1975) and John R. Searle (1970) wrote books and essays on speech act theory."). To anyone who doesn't know anything about speech act theory, the references are completely meaningless and to anyone who does it's incoherent as it barely covers two lines of the text leaving you to wonder what on Earth - other than name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping - she actually intended by making mention of them in the first place. She then ends with a complete non sequitur involving a demand that she be listened to on the basis of who she is rather than what she has to say: "In short, Hate speech is an act of violence. The First Amendment is ignorant of the vast research on these topics by medical anthropologists, clinical psychologists, and neurological scientists." - What?
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2017 on The Devil Himself at davidthompson
vain and stupefied creatures like this Incoming! From about 3'54" I wanna say this press conference is a sham! This has never been about free speech. This has been about a Fascist assault on the American University in the service of a Fascist regime in power ... a White Supremacist regime. It's about normalising Fascism on campus ... [The Free Speech Movement] is a movement about people standing up against White Supremacy not inviting White Supremacists to the hall! ... [R]olling out the red carpet to normalise and collaborate with Fascism in this country. And Still they're going to sue the university. This just shows you can't appease Fascism. You cannot placate these Fascists ... We have to rise up! Millions of people! denounce the collaboration of this university. calls on people to be out on the steps ... 10 am tomorrow ... And we call on people across this country to drive the Fascist Trump-Pence regime out of power - in the name of humanity.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2017 on The Devil Himself at davidthompson
From the AJ+ reportlet on Reedies Against Racism: … protesters say the course only gives one side of the story. So they posted alternative readings, focusing on racism in ancient Greece and Rome. One of the alternative readings is from a transcript of an Angela Davis speech on the subject of her 1969 clash with administrators at UCLA over “her affiliations with the communist party”. The other is Benjamin Isaac’s 2004 book, The Invention of Racism in Classical Iniquity. I’m no expert on this and in any case haven’t read the book (and so am happy to be corrected by someone who is and/or who has), but the introduction of that book here does not exactly inspire confidence: LESS THAN A CENTURY AGO nobody would write or wish to read a book about racism. Indeed nobody was aware that such a thing existed, for the word does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) of 1910. The term racialism has been around a little longer: It first appeared in print in 1907. Does this mean that racism did not exist before the twentieth century? In fact there is a consensus that it originated in the nineteenth century and has its intellectual roots in that century, although some scholars give it a somewhat longer history. While the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) does indeed date the use of racism and racialism back to the beginning of the 20th Century, the word race used to express pretty much if not exactly the same concept is a good deal older – as the very same dictionary points out: 1572 I. B. Let. to R. C. sig. B.i The Englishe race ouerrunne and daily spoiled. 1612 R. COVERTE True Rep. Englishman 39 He is a white man and of the Race of the Tartares. Isaacs’ introduction continues: In this book I shall argue that early forms of racism, to be called proto-racism, were common in the Graeco-Roman world. My second point in this connection is that those early forms served as prototype for modern racism which developed in the eighteenth century. That sounds an awful lot like … well, actually, not just sounds like, but is a key claim from Karl Popper’s 1945 The Open Society and its Enemies. And yet, surprisingly, Isaac’s book contains just a single reference to Popper – and even that is given in a footnote which itself is referring to someone criticising Popper. Again, I’m no expert, but the fact that he doesn't mention Popper directly at all does little to inspire confidence. What’s further aggravating is that the current system as it exists would allow for those RAR students to introduce those readings into their course assignments. In fact, unless I’ve misunderstood the purpose of higher education, those RAR students would be positively encouraged to seek out independent research on the topic – wouldn’t they? In any event, I see absolutely no justification for their histrionics (pun intended).
Toggle Commented Sep 20, 2017 on Young Minds, Fresh Ideas at davidthompson
Crumbs of comfort, I know. Here is another at least (my italics): To explore the critical issue of the First Amendment on college campuses, during the second half of August I conducted a national survey of 1,500 current undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities. Given that Saturday 12 August saw the violence in Charlottesville – including the murder of Heather Heyer and the attempted murder of over many more by James Alex Fields Jr – then the timing of the survey “during the second half of August” was surely overwhelmingly likely to prejudice the views of respondents to a question such as 'Does the First Amendment protect “hate speech”?' the utter disregard for everyone else, both staff and fellow students; and the expectation that they should be praised Interesting exchange here on the Reedies Against Racism Tumblr page between an anonymous student who complains that “Your protests are distracting me from learning the material that I paid to come here to college to learn” and Alex Boyd of RAR. I confess to a touch of scepticism regarding the graffiti photographed under update 11/12 from the same Tumblr page here (need to scroll down a bit to see it). The handwriting is so remarkably similar in all photos that it suggests the work of a single individual – which hardly supports the notion that “Anti blackness, racism, antisemitism, classism, ableism, homophobia, and cultural appropriation are still rampant” at the college.
Toggle Commented Sep 20, 2017 on Young Minds, Fresh Ideas at davidthompson
these people are supposedly our cognitive elite, attending a supposedly prestigious institution of higher learning I can't help wondering whether it's precisely an awareness of the very same point that leads, ironically, at least some of those students into a far less rigorous questioning (if any at all) of the arguments presented to them. A point made quite succinctly - and somewhat acerbically - here. Of course, when questioning certain orthodoxy may lead not only to poor grades from the tutor, but also being made a pariah of by one's peers, the path of least resistance becomes clear.
Toggle Commented Sep 18, 2017 on Screaming Into A Mirror at davidthompson
I'm in Berlin and I need my hair cut. Preferably by someone with tattoos or piercings who will transform my head into a queer bat signal. "I'm in MacDonald's in London and I need my burger and fries pronto. Preferably without these labouring classes with their lack of education cluttering up the place ..." ... may possibly have been what was going through artist Hetty Douglas's mind - and should have stayed there. The New Statesman, an organ which features Miss Dreadful as "a contributing editor", responds with a lack of irony as notable as it is unsurprising.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2017 on Friday Ephemera at davidthompson
You don’t have a fucking culture! ... We're fucking white! We don't have a goddam fucking culture!" Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Smith, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, Frege, Schopenhauer, Russell, Wittgenstein ... Fra Angelico, Donatello, Raphael, Bellini, Durer, Goya, El Greco, Velazquez, Rembrandt, Turner, Picasso, Braques, Nolan, ... Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Goethe, Cervantes, Lorca, Molliere, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Hughes, Plath, Harrison, Austen, Bronte, Dickens, Hugo, Zola ... It wasn't necessary to make that point, I know. And, probably, I spelt a few of the names wrong, but, please, "We're fucking white! We don't have a goddam fucking culture!". What an oaf.
Toggle Commented Sep 2, 2017 on They Come To Teach Us (2) at davidthompson
Paul Mason ... Paul Mason stop. Paul Mason what are you doing.
Toggle Commented Aug 22, 2017 on Nothing If Not Thorough at davidthompson
You want woke? This isn't just woke. This is woke - with bells on.
Toggle Commented Aug 20, 2017 on Excruciatingly Woke at davidthompson
From the Urban Dictionary: Troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message ... with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument No wonder journalists and politicians of a certain stripe detest trolls - the latter are guerrilla amateurs doing gratis - and often much more effectively - than the would be professionals: Sally Kohn - and just look at the things included in that damn pyramid that she counts as "Covert White Supremacy (socially acceptable)". One of them is "Assuming good intentions are enough"; another, somewhat bizarrely, is "Self-appointed white ally". It is not at all coincidental that Kohn happens to be plugging a new book with that Tweet. Jess Phillips MP - also not at all coincidentally plugging a new book. Laurie Penny - yet again, and not at all coincidentally, plugging a book.* *To be fair, as is well-known, she writes everything at such a hyperbolic pitch it is often hard to tell whether Penny writes this way because she's a troll in all but name or simply because she's talentless.
Toggle Commented Aug 19, 2017 on Friday Ephemera at davidthompson
El sueño de la razón produce monstruos
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2017 on Creating Monsters Is The Easy Part at davidthompson