Great article.

All of this in the article is something I’ve been saying less eloquently for years. One of the many events that pushed me away from the left and so-called progressivism is their perfect willingness to make their movement about harming those already downtrodden, and to uphold the values and norms of corporations and the already-powerful against the weak.

Because women are more likely than men to experience physical and sexual threat in their daily lives, they are also more likely to judge others (usually men) to be creepy. Judgments of creepiness, however, are not necessarily reliable.

Conventional wisdom tells us to ‘trust our gut’, but researchers say that our gut is concerned more with regulating the boundaries of social mores than keeping us safe.

A while ago, I saw someone on Tumblr claiming how abominable some dude in his late 50s was for dating a woman in her late 30s, how he was obviously a horrible predator. People, if a woman in her late 30s can’t make decisions about who she wants to date, what’s the point? Women might as well be restricted from leaving the house without the company of a male relative (I think tons of progressives secretly wish for this).

I know it doesn’t make me popular, but it’s clear that most of the “protection from harm” prog showboating is just for the purposes of policing assortative mating, upholding au courant social mores, and eliminating rivals from the dating market.

Throwing the Base Under the Bus—and Other Deep Thoughts From NYT.

Democrats will lose again just like in 2016 if they pull this shit.

It’s interesting that a lot of the most ardent open borders advocates are academics who work for some of the most exclusionary institutions in the world.

I started reading a book and somehow the e-reader software I was using started it at 90% through. I did not realize this fact and almost abandoned the novel because it was completely incomprehensible.

Feeling very dumb as reading comprehension is not something I typically struggle with, I started paging back through the book and and then realized that in fact I had not read almost the entire thing. That explained why characters I’d never heard of with information everyone seemed to already know well kept popping up, referencing events I’d never read in way that implied I should know about them.

I have no idea how the e-reader software jumped from the title page to 90% through. It has never done that before and I cannot reproduce it. So the book is not actually an indecipherable mess, I am happy to report.

Nestlé Says It Can Be Virtuous and Profitable. Is That Even Possible?

No. Nestlé is destroying Florida springs. Fuck Nestlé. NYT: propaganda arm of large corporations.

i am absolutely going to go batshit hearing people say that social change is achieved by being "reasonable" when the entirety of history shows that change happens when you make the lives of people in power utterly miserable and just generally be a loud asshole

— Colin Spacetwinks (@spacetwinks) November 16, 2019

True. Real social and political change occurs for these two reasons:

1) Fucking shit up.

2) A credible threat of fucking shit up.

Or, to return to the old chestnut from Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.”

Even if you don’t think it’s true, it’s still true.