Cancel Culture

Steven Pinker Beats Cancel Culture Attack

But the woke war against liberalism is far from over.

|

A gang of anti-liberal cancel culturalists came for Harvard linguist Steven Pinker in the form of an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) calling for his removal as one of the LSA's distinguished fellows and as a listed linguistics media expert. Why should Pinker be "canceled" by the group? Because, the writers allege, Pinker "has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes." Interestingly, while the letter claims that Pinker's nefarious behavior is taking place at the "exact moments" of anti-racist mobilization, most of the allegedly egregious instances it cites occurred years earlier.

The letter, which lists nearly 600 signatories, cites six instances of when Pinker purportedly engaged in "a pattern of drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence." Let's take a brief look at each assertion.

As mentioned above, though the letter claims Pinker's nefarious behavior is taking place at the "exact moments" of anti-racist mobilization, the first censure cites a 2015 tweet in which Pinker declares that the "police don't shoot blacks disproportionately." In support of that claim, Pinker links to a 2015 New York Times op-ed by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan in which he reports the findings of his research on racial discrimination and policing. Mullainathan forthrightly states, "Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin." But his crucial point is that that is because black citizens have a disproportionate number of encounters with police. Given that any encounter with police could turn violent, Mullainathan's data suggest that police are no more likely to shoot black citizens per encounter than they are to shoot white citizens. The causes for those extra encounters are rooted in structural social and economic problems, not least of which are poverty and the drug war. Pinker agrees that "the racial bias came into the formation of crime prone neighborhoods. Not in the behavior of the police once they're actually in a confronting a suspect."

The LSA member scolds' second attempt at indicting Pinker of downplaying violence and injustice cites the fact that that the police had shot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017. Pinker is blamed for referencing a 2017 New York Times op-ed that suggested a way to reduce that terrible toll of killings by police: "Police kill too many people, black & white," tweeted Pinker. "Focus on race distracts from solving problem, as we do w plane crashes." Basically Pinker was endorsing the idea that to reduce police killings, each shooting episode should undergo in-depth independent forensic investigation the way that teams from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examine airplane crashes. Just as NTSB investigations try to figure out how to prevent future crashes, the goal of independent investigations of police shootings should be to devise new policing procedures that aim to minimize the chances of violence occurring between citizens and cops.

According to his critics, Pinker's 2017 tweet citing the Times op-ed supposedly amounts to an "all lives matter trope." In an interview with Reason Pinker agrees that "uttering it as a retort to the statement Black Lives Matter would seem to downplay the victimization of African Americans," but insists that he has never repeated that slogan in any context. Pinker points out that all lives matter to researchers on the topic of police violence because "you're literally committing logical blunder if you hold a belief that police are more likely to shoot unarmed African Americans and you don't count up all the people that the police shoot."

For their third example of Pinker's alleged penchant for downplaying injustices, the letter's writers object to a passage from his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined in which he noted that "in 1984 Bernhard Goetz, a mild-mannered engineer, became a folk hero for shooting four young muggers in a New York subway car." Referring to Goetz as "mild-mannered" purportedly illustrates Pinker's "tendency to downplay very real violence." Pinker responds, "I was repeating the common characterization" of Goetz at the time in many news outlets. Indeed, it was.

For example, a 1985 New York Times article referred to Goetz as "mild-mannered" while also reporting that he had now become known as the "'Death Wish Vigilante,' folk hero of millions and for the moment, perhaps, the most talked-about man in the country." The New York Times was not alone in referring to Goetz as mild-mannered. So did articles published in The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, and many other publications. Pinker mentions Goetz as an anecdote to illustrate his data about how fears occasioned by rising violent crime rates in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s had adversely affected the psychological, social, and economic well-being of the residents of many of America's largest cities. "It was totally disingenuous to use that adjective as an insinuation that I thought that it was okay for a vigilante to shoot some muggers. It's quite obvious from the context that I do not think that it was okay, but I was trying to give people a vignette of what it was like to live in American cities at the time."

In their fourth point of indictment, the letter-writers focused on the 2014 rampage killing by a male student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which the murderer posted a clearly misogynistic rant. The virulence of the manifesto provoked some commentary asserting in the U.S. that the "expectation that violent misogyny in young men is normal and expected." The LSA critics say Pinker downplayed "the actual murder to six women as well as systems of misogyny," via a 2014 tweet in which he declared, "The idea that the UCSB murders are a part of a pattern of hatred against women is statistically obtuse." When the letter-writers accuse people of bad faith, they should be more careful to get at least their basic facts right: In this case, the shooter/stabber killed four male students and two female students, not six female students.

"I think to credit rampage shooters as part of a system [of misogyny] is statistically obtuse," says Pinker. He points out that rampage shootings are responsible for a tiny fraction of homicides and consequently he is "opposed to over-interpreting rampage shooters" as evidence that the patriarchy endorses the idea that "innocent women should be murdered by shooters" and is "a rather poor way to understand cultural trends." In fact, a 2019 review of the motivations of mass shooters in the U.S. found that misogyny was the leading factor in only one case—the Santa Barbara rampage. Pinker notes the cultural trends with respect to violence against women in the U.S. are happily the opposite implied by the letter-writers. "In general, the trend for domestic violence is downward," he says. "It's a triumph of the women's movement that fewer wives and domestic partners are killed and there is less spousal and girlfriend abuse."

Pinker is right. A 2019 Congressional Research Report noted, "From 1993 to 2017, the rate of serious intimate partner violence victimization declined by 70% for females, from 5.7 victimizations per 1,000 females aged 12 and older in 1993 to 1.7 per 1,000 in 2017."

As their fifth allegation, Pinker's critics charge him with choosing to "publicly co-opt the academic work of a Black social scientist to further his deflationary agenda." Pinker's misdeed was a June 2020 tweet in which he characterizes a recent interview with his colleague Lawrence Bobo, a Harvard sociologist, as one in which Bobo "reflects (w cautious optimism) on race relations in the context of police killings of black men." The article to which Pinker links explicitly characterizes the interview as one in which Bobo "dissects police killings of black men and the history and cognitive forces behind racial bigotry and violence, and why he sees signs of hope." Pinker includes graphs displaying data from Bobo's research showing the decline in overt racism over time among white people in America.

With respect to the claim that Pinker seeks to "publicly co-opt" the work of a colleague, Pinker responds, "Yeah, in the new Orwellian vocabulary citation is now appropriation." He adds, "Bobo, my colleague and my dean, has presented data showing that fortunately overt racism has been in decline." He does further note, "It's a legitimate question whether the answers to the questions in the General Social Survey where Bobo got his data simply reflect the disappearance of overt racism and that the underlying attitudes are as racist as they ever were." However, Pinker points to such evidence as declining Google searches for racist jokes that suggest that private racist attitudes are also ebbing. "As someone who frequently cites data on improvement, I'm used to this understanding that a reduction is not synonymous with disappearance," he says. "Something can be better, not perfect; something evil can be reduced but not eliminated." Still, Pinker argues that the decline in overt racism is "something we should celebrate because it means for the civil rights movement that the attempts to eradicate racism have not been a waste of time."

In their sixth charge against Pinker, his opponents accuse him of racist "dogwhistling," which they define as "a deniable speech act 'that sends one message to an outgroup while at the same time sending a second (often taboo, controversial, or inflammatory) message to an ingroup.'" Pinker's purported dogwhistles involved using the words "urban violence" and "urban crime" in two tweets citing two different Washington Post op-eds by two different sociologists who argue that defunding the police would pose problems. In the minds of those who seek to remove him from the LSA, those phrases are coded racist references in support of "views that essentialize Black people as lesser-than, and, often, as criminals." As evidence of Pinker's dogwhistling, the letter writers point out that neither commentator used those exact phrases in their op-eds.

Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey did state, "Violence is the fundamental challenge for cities: Nothing works if public space is unsafe." Let's see, urban is an adjective generally defined as relating to a city or of a city. As it happens, Sharkey, author of the book Uneasy Peace: The Great Crime Decline, the Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence, wrote a 2018 New York Times op-ed entitled, "Two Lessons of the Urban Crime Decline" in which he argued (as he did in the Post op-ed) that community organizations working with the police could play a vital role in "combating urban violence."

In his Post op-ed on the dangers of under-policing, Northeastern University criminologist Rod Brunson references longstanding complaints about ineffective policing by the "residents distressed urban neighborhoods." He also pointed to the recent focus on "the dangers of police abuses for African Americans and other people of color, especially in lower-income neighborhoods," further observing that the sort of violent crimes that the police have the greatest difficulty in solving "primarily cluster in the same communities." Interestingly, Brunson is co-author of a 2019 article, "Race, Place, and Effective Policing" in the Annual Review of Sociology which notes, "Poor analyses and inappropriate descriptions of urban violent crime problems can lead to the adoption of problematic policing policies and programs that exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal justice system and diminish confidence and trust in its institutions." Are Sharkey and Brunson dogwhistling too?

It apparently never occurred to the zealous letter-writers that instead of dogwhistling, Pinker might merely be using shorthand phrases on Twitter to alert readers to op-eds that he thinks shed light on contemporary questions about race and policing. "Dogwhistling is an intriguing exegetical technique in which you can claim that anyone says anything because you can easily hear the alleged dogwhistles that aren't in the actual literal contents of what the person says," observes Pinker. "I think that you could replace dogwhistle with auditory hallucination and the accusation would be exactly the same."

So what motivated the letter-writers to launch their righteous attack on Pinker? "It is part of a larger movement to try to accuse as many people as possible of various forms of prejudice and bigotry in the belief that is the way to make the world a better place," argues Pinker. His critics are embracing a mindset that "does not see the world as having complex problems that we ought to understand better, the better to diagnose and treat, but rather as a kind of warfare between powerful elites and oppressed masses."

"In this mindset," he notes, "analysis, debate and evidence are just tools of propaganda exercised by those in power and that what has to happen is not a deeper understanding of social problems but a wresting of power from elites and redistributing it to disenfranchised."

Pinker believes he was targeted as part of a larger movement "seeking monsters to destroy." That is practitioners of what has been called "Offense Archaeology" go after prominent people by "trolling through tweets and through statements seeking to find evidence—however tortured—that there are signs of prejudice behind them."

He adds, "It's also part of these new exegetical tools that woke culture has deployed where disagreement is now labeled 'silencing' and 'drowning out' and 'harm.' Now the false ascription of belief is now the detection of 'dogwhistles'—an intriguing tool of hermeneutics in which you can accuse anyone of saying anything even if they didn't say it because you can always hear the dogwhistle if you yourself are a canine with hypersonic hearing."

On July 8, the LSA's executive committee issued a letter to Pinker affirming that the group "is committed to intellectual freedom and professional responsibility. It is not the mission of the Society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression. Inclusion and civility are crucial to productive scholarly work. And inclusion means hearing (not necessarily accepting) all points of view, even those that may be objectionable to some."

Round one to Pinker, but the woke culture war against liberalism is far from over.

NEXT: Is John Roberts a Judicial Minimalist, a Coward, or a Strategic Maximizer?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >Black and Brown people

    capitalization doesn’t make it real. people are people.

    1. You’re a White Person™️, aren’t you, racist?

      1. I am undeniably preferential towards the human race.

        1. I, however, think that the human race is generally rather shitty.

          1. Not mutually exclusive positions if you are somewhat catholic.

            1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…VDs someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

              strive it, you…………….Home Profit System

      2. Actually, he’s sort of a pasty beige. More of a “moleskin”. In fluorescent lighting one can call it “taupe”.

    2. Makes me think of how people describe the color of certain dog breeds, like ‘black and tan’ dobermans. And I’m probably the most racisty racist for even thinking that. But I’m not the one who decided it’s a defining feature, like they’re going to be evaluated on how they measure up to their breed standards at a dog show. How is THAT not racist?!

      1. Not to mention Guinness mixed with British ale.

        1. You trule have the most vile comment I have ever read on this sight

          1. I agree

      2. Interesting about dogs. They always know ‘dog’. No matter breed, size or anything.

        Sure they are very capable of knowing about other animals including humans. But another dog is always dog.

        1. I once saw a chihuahua going after a great dane. Sexually. It wasn’t working out too well, but the two still seemed desperately eager.

      3. My family once owned a “blue” Doberman!

    3. Hilariously, was corrected by a white savior SJW at work recently that calling someone “black” was offensive.

      I couldn’t help but think of that episode of the office where Michael tells Oscar that he shouldn’t call him “Mexican” because its offensive and oscar looks at him like WTF?!

      I was like wait…so a group of people who call themselves black (and me white, which is also fine), and accept that skin color is in fact, a thing, and are sometimes bragging of being “apologetically black”, need to be protected from ME calling them black (in a matter of fact way, not like, that black motherfucker over there, etc)? How is this the direction we are going in society? We have to stand up for victims preemptively who dont care about the offense now? That didn’t ask for it?

      Sorry for the long post, but this does relate. In the end, we have a black doc in the group not working that day, that SJW crazy is friends with, so we ended up just having SJW crazy text him and ask “is it offensive if someone refers to you as a “black guy”. He responded with “? LOL, wtf?”…”no im fucking black, where is this coming from; do you get offended when people call you white?”

      After her embarrassment though, unprompted, she did insist that the B had to be capitalized. Again, completely fabricated by her white savior SJW mind. Where the fuck did the capital B come from we are now coddling people by capitalizing their adjective descriptors?

      1. “un-apologetically black”…racist ass autocorrect

      2. So how does your white colleague feel about being called a moron? Or is it Moron?

        1. Earth Skeptic, you’re no longer allowed to call people morons, or stupid, in order to avoid offending people with developmental disabilities. I’m not kidding. That was a real comment from a well meaning activist when I used the word “Stupid” to describe the CDC in an essay.

          OT, don’t you think the US would have been better off having the minds of Steven Pinker and John Ioannidis managing the Covid-19 crisis? Because Fauci seems stupid, and devoid of the capability of logical thought.

          1. Fauci isn’t stupid, he just has his marching orders and doesn’t give a fuck

            1. He may not be stupid, but he does have a long and rich history of being wrong.

          2. We obviously need affirmative action for stupid people. There are hardly any stupid engineers or doctors or airline pilots. This grave injustice should be remedied as soon as possible.

          3. So that activist was saying that people with developmental disabilities are stupid? That’s one of those backhanded insults eh?

        2. There was a Minbari character in BABYLON 5 named M’oron.

          1. A total bonehead.

      3. Metric is a term found more frequently today, so where are the metrics associated with being black? If born to parents of a African group known as blacks, could one assume 100%? If one had 2 out of 4 ancestors white, 25%? If so at what metric is one no longer black? Or is it all in the mind?

        1. I have it on good authority that there’s this one drop rule…

        2. Rule: One can only belong to a single race.
          Question: How many races are there?
          Fact: Race is not biological. Genetically, humans are 99% similar.

          Don’t y’all be so niggardly wit da facts.????

            1. Shut the fuck up SQRLSY.

      4. People like that are the problem.

      5. I’m black. Or now Black I guess. This is all some BS. Another trend that’s weird is so many Black people wearing shirts identifying themselves as black. And not just ‘Black lives matter’ but also ‘Classy ass black’ and ‘unapologetically black,’ ect. Dont they see the irony of demanding to live in a post race, racist free society in which we are not defined by our race, but constantly calling attention to being Black. If I’m confused as a Black person maybe we need to think a little about what we’re really trying to accomplish with this movement and if all the new unwritten rules of social justice are actually helping to achieve those goals. Or maybe the SJWs need to calm down and stop speaking for all of the black people in the world. I had no problem speaking for myself before my unwanted liberators decided I needed to be freed from oppression. And apparently if I dont believe I’m oppressed I’m either brainwashed or a sell out.

        1. Post-racism is now racist.
          Indeed, a racist free society is also racist. Systemically racist.
          Not defining someone according to their race: racist.

          All of this is not racist – it’s technically anti-racist.

          2020, bitches!

        2. Stop it, sir, you are making entirely too much sense and applying logic and rational thought to a situation.

          If a White SJW say you’re oppressed, then you are oppressed! Who told you that you could back-talk a white person?

          (Note: maximum sarcasm has been employed for this post.)

          Good luck to you sir.

    4. Is it me or were comments cancelled here?

      I might be mixing my threads up.

      1. It’s me. I mixed threads up. Sorry.

    5. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page……… <b Full Detail Here.

    6. Google effectively work and google pays me consistently and consistently only $5K to $8K for accomplishing on the web telecommute. I am a universty understudy and I work n my low maintenance only 2 to 3 hours every day effectively from home. Presently every one can procure additional money for doing on the web home framework and make a decent life by simply open this site and adhere to guidelines on this page… …Heres what I do……ReadMore.

  2. So now that Pinker’s right to speak has been upheld by the LSA’s executive committee, he can go after the signatories to the complaint letter and get them all fired from their jobs, right? Isn’t that how this cancel culture works?

    1. (Classically) Liberal institutions should impose consequences upon (classically) illiberal action.

      That is how cancel culture ends.

      1. Amen! There needs to be accountability. If you try to cancel somebody, you should be canceled yourself.

        1. Good luck. The underlying premise of modern Progressivism is negating accountability. In their utopia, there are no consequences.

          1. It is, perhaps, time to send them to their utopia.
            Forcibly.

            BTW, #PelosiMustGo is trending on Twitter, and it isn’t because conservatives/independents are pushing it.
            Apparently her fellow travelers don’t appreciate her driving (too slow)

    2. Change.org petition to cancel the cancelator:
      http://chng.it/fRm76HPrng

      Mostly in jest, but shit-canning university faculty who challenge the value of intellectual freedom can’t be the worst idea ever.

  3. The more they bitch and complain, the more they reveal themselves. The irony is they are repeating the same 20th century mistakes. This time we know the score and won’t knuckle under. You want the midwest you fuckers you better know what you are up against.

  4. “The letter, which lists nearly 600 signatories,…”

    Wow, that’s impressive. Did they psychiatrically diagnose him as well?

    1. They are amateurs. Anyone knows that you can go through a single campus in an afternoon and collect more than 600 muppet signatures on anything so long as you use the proper terminology.

      1. All those people were really concerned about Dihidrogen Monoxide’s disproportionate impact on Black Women of Color.

        1. Are you saying they can’t swim?

      2. Ban dihydrogen oxide!
        Put an end to women’s suffrage!

        1. *dihydrogen monoxide

    2. If you go to the link, you can read the names of the “gang of anti-liberal cancel culturalists” and the fact that most of them work for universities, something Bailey failed to mention, in an otherwise fine article. I also found Pinker has donated quite a bit to Democrats’ campaigns.

      IMHO, it exposes there’s a cabal of government funded academics cancelling people. They probably have a mailing list so they can get a “group of experts” statement out when needed, or a mob.

  5. frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes.” Interestingly, while the letter claims that Pinker’s nefarious behavior is taking place at the “exact moments” of anti-racist mobilization, most of the allegedly egregious instances it cites occurred years earlier.

    In other words, in classical “Progressive” fashion, they’re accusing him of exactly the sort of dishonesty that they are guilty of themselves.

  6. A heretic.
    Kill the heretic!
    Kill the heretic!
    But leave the juniper bush alone.

    1. That’s not a juniper bush. It’s just his hair.

    2. “Heresy!”
      Zod, General

  7. Hey listen guys I’m fat and too selfish to hit a treadmill so protect me by wearing a mask. It’s the courteous thing for me to demand of you.

    1. Hi, Tulpa!

  8. LSA it was nice knowing ya because they’ll come after you now.

  9. The Neo Cultural Revolution people are way overplaying their hand.

    I keep pointing to Liz Warren finishing third in her “home” state of Massachusetts in the primaries, which I maintain was because she ran such a social justice campaign, even accusing Bernie Sanders of being a sexist. Joe Biden, on the other hand, won because he ran a campaign that wasn’t as social justice warrior as Sanders or Warren.

    If you can’t win in Massachusetts on a social justice warrior platform, then where are social justice warriors popular? The outcome of that Massachusetts primary is comparable to the time Californians repudiated gay marriage by passing Proposition 8.

    The social justice warriors aren’t even popular in Massachusetts.

    If President Trump somehow manages to win in November, centrist liberals may gain the upper hand. If Biden wins in November, the social justice warriors will become emboldened, and don’t think it isn’t possible for them to get even worse. It took ten years, show trials for the Gang of Four, and the emergence of Deng Xiaoping to bring the Cultural Revolution to a close. I don’t know how the New Cultural Revolution ends, but I doubt they’ll simply go away.

    1. “comparable to the time Californians repudiated gay marriage by passing Proposition 8”

      And we never heard of gay marriage again!

      1. It blew their minds.

        They started doing things in retaliation against “breeders”, like banning Happy Meals and circumcision.

        They blamed it on outside interference, especially from Mormons trying to finance ad campaigns against gay marriage. That one sounded almost exactly like the Democrats claim about the Russians putting Trump in the White House, only that time it was about Utah. When it turned out that the Latino vote and African-Americans largely voted against it, . . . there’s no way the people they’re fighting for would have voted against them if it hadn’t been for the people of Utah!!!

        . . . or so they thought.

        Anyway, point is, the social justice warriors always have an inflated conception of their own numbers and the public’s opinion of them, and when that bubble gets burst, it makes ’em crazy. It’s happened before. It’ll happen again. And their numbers are nowhere near as big as they imagine. About 20% of the people in Massachusetts voted for Warren in that primary. That’s probably a good approximation of their numbers right there. They imagine that everyone who isn’t a racist is a social justice warrior, but in reality, 20% of the Democrats may be social justice warrior types, and Democrats make up about 30% of the American public.

        That makes social justice warriors about 6% of the population.

        They sure know how to get in the headlines.

        1. > They sure know how to get in the headlines.

          It helps when your number is writing the headlines.

        2. Yes, they seem to have a problem unifying all of their various grievance groups. Victim mining is complicated!

        3. “They imagine that everyone who isn’t a racist is a social justice warrior”

          Also the reverse.

          1. Jo Jorgensen agrees

        4. “They started doing things in retaliation against “breeders”, like banning Happy Meals and circumcision.”

          Women: Circumcision is wrong.
          Also women: Uncircumcised penises are gross.

    2. The big difference in the two cultural revolutions is Mao’s government was behind one, and here, not so much. Even if Dems win both chambers and the Presidency, the courts won’t put up with as much as Mao’s courts did, and fiscal reality is a lot harder to ignore when part of their Cultural Revolution is tripling the federal budget for the New Green Deal.

      They can still make an unholy mess and do a lot of damage, but the fact that Lizzie came in third in her own state shows that this minority hasn’t got nearly the pull they think they do. I’d expect, if the Dems dump Trump, that the mid-term elections two years later would be one of the biggest political reversals in the country. Trump won because he is not a typical politician; neither Dems nor Reps understand that, but the public does, and if they dump Trump, it won’t be because they like the opposition.

      1. “I’d expect, if the Dems dump Trump, that the mid-term elections two years later would be one of the biggest political reversals in the country[‘s history].”

        Exactly this.

        1. I’d expect, if the Dems dump Trump, that the mid-term elections two years later would be one of the biggest political reversals in the country’s history.
          Exactly this.

          Presuming, of course, that we actually have real, fair elections in 2022.

      2. The big difference in the two cultural revolutions is Mao’s government was behind one, and here, not so much. Even if Dems win both chambers and the Presidency, the courts won’t put up with as much as Mao’s courts did, and fiscal reality is a lot harder to ignore when part of their Cultural Revolution is tripling the federal budget for the New Green Deal.

        You’re being highly optimistic here. The reality is that most of the “government”–that is, the federal bureaucratic apparatus, the military, and state and local entities–are fully in support of what is going on right now. Moreover, it’s not just their Race-Mongering/Antifa vanguard that’s blatantly transparent regarding their motives and goals, the politicians who are providing them with mutual support are fully out in the open with those same goals. That includes the courts as well.

      3. You may be right about the courts unless the Dems pack the SCOTUS. The only limiting factor would be fiscal reality and it may take too long for the effects to be noticed. The Dems might even try to reduce the effects of a midterm correction with some structural changes like granting non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections.

    3. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Click For Detail.

    4. Ken, I read the comments just to come across your nuggets of wisdom and analysis! Detailed, and always on point. Thank you.

      OT, but related: the trend of decreasing domestic abuse and violence reversed during the Great American Lockdown, another Fauci blunder! – ‘”Pinker is right. A 2019 Congressional Research Report noted, “From 1993 to 2017, the rate of serious intimate partner violence victimization declined by 70% for females, from 5.7 victimizations per 1,000 females aged 12 and older in 1993 to 1.7 per 1,000 in 2017.”‘

    5. I’m not sure you quite get Massachusetts right. Yes, it’s solidly Democrat. But outside of the academic centers around Boston and Amherst I wouldn’t call it the most PC progressive kind of place.

    6. Biden won because the DNC said he was going to win. I’d like to know what they promised everybody for dropping out. And Bernie’s job is to collect the uber-left progressives and then throw them under the bus…he is a pussy’s pussy. If he doesn’t, he won’t get invited to any more Beltway dinner parties and his retirement will be hell.

      It is so hard to decide which party is more fucked up.

  10. “insists that he has never repeated that slogan [“All lives matter”] in any context”

    I’m a loyal Party member! Don’t pick on me, go after the *real* racists who say all lives matter!

    “It’s a triumph of the women’s movement that fewer wives and domestic partners are killed and there is less spousal and girlfriend abuse.”

    – which Reason backs up by citing a decline in violence which started in 1993, which is the year feminism was invented, I guess.

    1. You make good points, and I would add that he didn’t show any recognition that domestic violence is a bidirectional issue and that women are just as likely to be perpetrators and men victims as vice versa.

      That aside though, he’s saying a lot of things here that I can agree with. Race is a distraction from the true underlying causes of police violence. There are no easy solutions to complex problems. Thoroughly seeking to understand data on social issues is a good first step to positive change. Society is becoming safer and more polite every day. Freak outliers like rampage killers don’t tell us much about society. Accusations of dogwhistling are bullshit.

      If everyone on the left were like Pinker, I might actually be able to respect them.

      1. > women are just as likely to be perpetrators and men victims as vice versa.

        I’m pretty sure the stats show that the most violent relationships contain two women.

      2. > If everyone on the left were like Pinker, I might actually be able to respect them.

        Correspondingly, if everyone on the right were like Ronald Bailey, I might actually be able to respect them.

        It seems to me that “members of a team”, so to speak, are doomed to see the worst among their political opponents and the best among their allies as representative. If there’s anything this situation or the recent op-ed in Harpers it shows that the support for this the left is far from monolithic. Among the figures who signed that op-ed were J.K. Rowling (more connected with the affluent subsection of the left), Noam Chomsky (a far-left anarchosyndicalist), and Zephyr Teachout (endorsed by Bernie Sanders in 2016).

        Of course, we can argue about how representative these people are of “the left”, but considering that the current lead representative of the right is Trump, it’s easy to see how those sorts of arguments lead more to enmity than understanding.

        It’s very easy to caricaturize your opponents, it’s much harder to understand and convince them, and to let them convince you.

        1. No, it’s pretty fucking easy to understand the left.

          If you don’t see that, it’s because you’re willfully blind

    2. Not the year feminism was invented. Feminism has been around for a long time and at least the 1920s when the first equal rights amendment was proposed, but radical feminism was certainly a thing by the late 1960s

      More likely. 1993 was the year you started paying attention to it though. We all suffer from a lack of understanding that things happened before we paid attention.

      1. Perhaps you should read my comment with your sarc detector set to “ON.”

    3. Feminism was alive and pressing for an ERA in 1971. Then the LP got it plank adopted by the Supreme Court and in 1973 Roe v Wade stopped Alabama Dixiecrats from forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint as in Romania. Then, as in Romania, 20 years later violent crime declines as statistically recorded in Freakonomics. It’s as if mathematics and libertarian individual rights were conspiring against George Wallace and Nicolae Ceauesecu!

      1. Which certainly explains explains and decline in the rest of the world. Wait, no, it’s almost as if those two things aren’t connected at all. Whereas lead levels in newborns and as children do show a strong correlation with violence levels and continue to do so, regardless of access to abortion.

        1. That should be explains the decline. Fucking phone keyboard

      2. Romania had insignificant violent crime rates during communism, as well as after. It also has insignificant violent crime rates now. This may be cultural rather than tied to a particular policy. It’s a strongly Christian European country with very little third world immigration, with lots of two-parent households and very high home ownership rates. These factors affect violent crime more than abortion policy.

  11. Good for Pinker. Those accusations were ridiculous and overblown.
    It is disturbing that that list of flimsy accusations attracted even a dozen signatories, let alone 600.

    1. What do you think we’ve been screaming about for the last five years or so? It’s not surprising at all they have 600.

    2. I am surprised it wasn’t 6,000 signatures. I guess the other 5,400 were too busy looting the businesses of old black ladies.

  12. When I was surfing youtube yesterday (have a lot of time on my hands lately) I came across someone interviewing him and he basically said I’ve got tenure at Harvard, bitch, step to me.

    1. People are learning that tenure is of little value if the in-crowd is mad at you.

  13. I heard Goody Proctor say “All Lives Matter.”

    If the theatre were not controlled by the wokest of the woke, I’d say we’re due for a revival of “The Crucible.” Even art must now be ideologically pure, which deprives it of its power. All art has become propaganda, didactic rather than provocative. Art no longer makes you think; it tells you how to think. It’s why I left professional theatre in the early aughts. Hard to believe how much worse it has gotten.

    1. There’s only one ending to this plot.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_(1926_film)

    2. Did you see the exhibit Manifesto? I’ve always wondered if artists are so creative why don’t they at least come up with a completely different political ideology rather than ranting on and on for the same old white European male communism.

      1. Glimpses do ye seem to see..

  14. First of all, get off Twitter and social media.

    It’s poison. Black and brown shirts go around specifically looking to ruin lives like this cunts are doing.

    Second. it’s all about class warfare. The signatories, judging by their own language in the article, are likely all far leftists.

    The key to uprooting the civil order in a pluralist and capitalist society is to foster mayhem by getting people to turn on each other. The irony is they speak of bringing people together but in reality they want to divide and conquer uniting them under an authoritarian progressive power structure.

    Dogwhistles. The only people who can hear them are the people who claim it exists. In other words, projection. It’s always projection with these evil, racist, illiberal degenerates.

    They’re the witch hunters of Salem redux.

    1. To date, the SJWs haven’t repented like the Salem witch-hunters:

      “Five years after the Salem witchcraft trials, the Massachusetts legislature passed a resolution that a day of general fasting be held on January 15, 1697. The resolution was adopted so God’s people could offer up prayers for God to help them in their errors and keep them from repeating such sins which could only bring God’s judgment on the land. Judge Samuel Sewell and those who had served as jurors in the trials all confessed their error and prayed for God’s forgiveness and guidance in the future. Indeed, Judge Samuel Sewall, who had presided over many of the capital judgments, published a written confession acknowledging his own “blame and shame.””

      https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/fasting-and-repentance-for-salem-witch-trials-11630180.html

      1. Even they had honour.

        That’s not gonna happen with this bunch of SJW loons.

        As far as they’re concerned, we’re the white privileged witch hunters.

        The script has been flipped in 2020.

      2. So they tried to renounce their previous delusional voodoo-religious furor with more delusional voodoo-religious furor? Methinks that culture was still comprised of retards.

        1. How could they be retards if they founded Harvard?

          Wait, I better think of a better example.

        2. It’s “voodoo-religious furor” to ask for forgiveness for actions that were clearly wrong? Dude, you don’t need to be religious to find the value in acknowledging your errors and asking for forgiveness. Ease up on the religious bigotry.

        3. Well, clearly they weren’t as fucking enlightened as you.

  15. I thought Pinker’s claim that countries run by women were doing well during the pandemic was strange.

    It was uncharacteristic of him to make such a specious claim. Just the fact one of the worst hit countries like Belgium and even states like Michigan were run by women pretty much blew up the claim. It was a bit of a trend to do so at one point.

    I wonder if that was done to get the censorious, malevolent jerk offs on the left off his back?

    1. Pinker does that shit too often. It’s his way of reminding everyone in the room that he is Steven Fucking Pinker.

  16. So racial collectivists gang up to lynch someone not just literate but (ghasp!) bilingual and individualistic–only to get outnumbered by IQ points and ability. How unfair!

    1. Yes. He used his intellectual acumen to tell them to fuck off, and refused to apologize, which would have been the end for him.

      That’s the lesson in all of this. Never, EVER apologize to the leftist mob.

      1. Vox Day is an asshole, but he’s right about this one.

        1. Sorry, that bus left a long fucking time ago.

          And Trump is too stupid to make it happen.

  17. “you’re literally committing logical blunder if you hold a belief that police are more likely to shoot unarmed African Americans and you don’t count up all the people that the police shoot.”

    What is this “logic” of which you speak?

    1. Something invented by dead white males, so no longer acceptable. Everyone now knows that blunders are relative only to ideological conformance and proper signaling.

      1. Should we tell the neo-marxists that Marx is a dead white male?

  18. The war goes on:
    “Don’t Fall for the Cancel Culture scam” at Huffpost.com 7/10.
    vs
    “The Left’s Culture War Cancels the Humble as well as the Mighty” at Nationalreview.com 7/10.

    Two guys arguing without fear of losing employment, business or facing all manner of harassment. This is what we all should have.

  19. This will only stop when society stops listening to these sociopathic nutjobs. They only have power that others give them. Barring this happening, there needs to be some protections against firing people for their political opinions or philosophy. And if that doesn’t happen, there needs to be a movement to actively oppose the cancel culture monsters – threaten boycotts, litigation, etc. War is war.

    1. What? And debauch the holiest of holies in all of libertarianism- the divine right to fire people at will for any reason whatsoever?

      It is quaint that a selection of libertarianism has suddenly discovered labor contracts when they are on the receiving end of the new McCarthyism.

      Why yes, it would be grand if work agreements limited themselves to, you know, payment for services rendered.

      But there will be some crank trotting out freedom of association, neglecting venue or context.

      Overt tribalism is the natural end result of freedom of association run amok.

      What now, fools?

      1. What next? We woke folks behead you??

      2. Libertarians have no problem with employment contracts. Libertarians are and have always been all about contracts as a better alternative to regulation imposed from above. Freedom of contract (and respecting those contracts) is just as sacred to libertarians as freedom of association. The fact is that in most states, the default without a formal contract is at will employment.

    2. “This will only stop when society stops listening to these sociopathic nutjobs. They only have power that others give them.”
      “Barring this happening, there needs to be some protections against firing people for their political opinions or philosophy.”

      You are correct.
      And thst is the conundrum now.
      Society is in many ways dictated by Corporate America.
      Think of the “revolutionaries” – sharing social media on their various platforms, #iPhone. They participate in Corporate America with decision making topping out at which brand/model.
      And CA loves it. Where would the protests be without smart phones and Wi-Fi?
      The guys at the top love this. Entrepreneurs and independent people were getting a bit uppity.
      They are all too happy with giving sociopathic psychotics, only as a collective, power through overt support.
      It’s conducive to the herd

      1. And ultimately, identity politics is branding.

  20. “black citizens have a disproportionate number of encounters with police.”
    Encounters? If people fighting the PC war continue to use PC expressions we cannot expect to even win a single battle. Call it what it is. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

    1. HERE► The smart move would be to ditch it and come up with some constructive policies around exercise, cooking and education instead.”. I would rather just be left alone… ReadMore.

    2. Most of these radical far left wing psychopaths still think, believe, and claim that Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were innocent victims when the truth is they were both violent criminals.

      It’s completely right to demand sympathy and justice for those who ARE innocent victims, but conflating those people together with the violent criminals is indicative of an insidious and evil agenda.

    3. Oh and by the way, this statement:

      “Given that any encounter with police could turn violent”

      is also a bunch of complete bullshit. The overwhelming majority of encounters people (of any race) have with police is not violent at all (thank goodness).

      If you’re going to engage in the sort of logical sophistry that the statement tehnically isn’t false because of the world “could” you might as well amend it to say that any encounter with ANY other human being could turn violent.

      1. Even if they don’t turn violent, an encounter with a cop is usually an encounter with a total jerk.

        You should try refereeeing a police ice hockey game – biggest assholes I encounter doing that job.

        Of course, I shouldn’t let the 90% of assholes ruin it for the rest.

        Note: this does NOT mean I want to defund the police – they just need to start acting like pros. More than a few states require more hours of training to goddman cut hair than to become a cop.

    4. True, they also disproportionately inflict that crime on other black people. Which means that complainants also matter.

  21. A team of people pored through his writings and even tweets, looking for anything they might be able to twist for their smear campaigns. It’s fucking terrifying.

    1. And even more terrifying, they are being funded by billionaires to do it.

        1. But there is hope.
          We can, to an unknown extent, turn their tools against them.
          They have a tiger-by-the-tail with their tendency (and necessity) to grow out to reach more and more of the masses. Options. They’ll try to silence voices, and they’ll get some, but there are too many people out there to completely control the narrative.
          While cancel culture burns and loots, more voices are getting out behind the scenes. “Blacks For Trump”, Tim Pool, Scott Adams, Tucker Carlson, “Women For Trump”, MAGA – they’re all playing on Corporate America’s field, but they compete as products. And there are many, much smaller voices trying to take back ground not only in physical space, but also on the interwebz.
          You can fuck it up, but you can’t prevent more and more communication.
          Too many brands, too many options.

          1. The number one thing Trump has going for him is Biden

            His first term has been an almost total fail…especially on foreign policy which was the one area in which he actually made some sense while campaigning. But he is too ignorant and stupid to stand up to the neocons because his knowledge base on almost any topic is ZERO – that dumb motherfucker can’t have ever read a book in his life.

  22. Am I the only one who noticed 60% of the claims against him involved him citing the New York Times?
    Strange – – – – – – –

    1. Yeah, but that was the bad old racist Times. The New NY Time has atoned for that, with news room sessions where the POCs verbally shame the remaining white folk, and reparations deducted or added to paychecks.

      1. And there you see the brand dominance, and the bully knowing its limits.
        NYT won’t be held responsible, as it is allowed to exist in the perpetual present by its customers. Cancel Culture doesn’t even desire its destruction.

        Corporate America is just fine with this. Only individuals will be sacrificed, and 99% of individuals are beneath any individual at the top. Simple odds.
        Bring on technofeudalism.

  23. They are upset that a deeper examination of the facts does not support their preferred narrative that policing issues are caused by systemic racism. They do not counter with an analysis that supports their position, they just want opposing viewpoints to be silenced.

    1. Correct, Mickey.

      No more capitulation

  24. Pinker was smart joining his union or linguistic society. A union will protect employees from arbitrary and unjust actions of feckless and greedy employers.

    Pinker standing alone would never have beaten back the attack of culture.

    1. Go back to the basement and huff a bit more.

      1. Never give up, Earth Skeptic.

  25. Maybe “at will” employment is the problem. People should be free to speak their minds and employment should be more secure.

    1. Not to mention forcing people to work. Like cake-bakers, right?

  26. So Pinker still thinks that domestic violence and violence against women are the same thing? He should read about another victim of cancel culture: Erin Pizzey.

    1. Erin Pizzey helped to created the first shelter for abused women AND tried to create a shelter for abused men. Alas, she lost that fight. And all Pinker talks about is the women. “There is less violence against spouse and girlfriends”, maybe, but is there less violence against husbands and boyfriends? This is the kind of thing that made me stop caring about Pinker.

  27. If you haven’t read “Enlightenment Now” you should. Pinker is unfairly hard on Libertarians but otherwise the book is really good.

    1. “Enlightenment Now”

      Liberal propaganda from a Liberal Ivy League intellectual.

    2. Pinker’s book is the typical progressive creed, implying that we ought to spread values of “reason, science, and humanism” in society in order to achieve better collective outcomes. That may sound nice, but once you start talking prescriptively about the values a society ought to have and how to get there, you’re most of the way towards collectivism and socialism. People like Pinker are the reason “religious fundamentalism, political correctness, and postmodernism” have become so widespread. He’s not a liberal, he’s a progressive.

      1. “He’s not a liberal, he’s a progressive.”

        Far worse than that, he’s a Jew. Add a little Jew baiting and it makes your red baiting just a little more compelling.

        1. I didn’t know that Pinker is Jewish, nor do I care whether he is or not.

          Communists, fascists, and progressives, of course, tend to hate Jews, and they (you) also tend to lob scurrilous accusations of “red baiting” and “fascism” at anybody who dares to criticize them (you).

          1. Communist and fascist are brands of progressive

          2. “Communists tend to hate Jews”
            citation needed

      2. I’ll take reason and humanism over free-market fundamentalism. It’s so incredibly cute when libertarians actually believe that implementing their radical vision for society wouldn’t annoy anyone.

        1. We don’t give a shit if freedom annoys you, leftard.

          -jcr

          1. Since you define freedom as taking away most of modern civilization from me, I reserve the right to object.

            What silly little arrogant dumbfucks you are. You actually believe that your radical restructuring of society is somehow benign and inarguably good and everyone will love it.

            1. Since you define freedom as taking away most of modern civilizationmy comfortable plantation owner life from me, I reserve the right to object.

              There, FTFY. Your objections are about as valid.

              You actually believe that your radical restructuring of society is somehow benign and inarguably good and everyone will love it.

              I am under no illusion that it is harmful to people like you and that people like you will hate it. Just like the slave holding plantation owners before you, you like to live off the fruits of other people’s labor and restrict their freedoms. And just like slavery, the current system isn’t sustainable either.

              1. As long as you stop pretending that your radical restructuring of society is an imposition and not some return to an idyllic default paradise world everyone will love. See you at the ballot box.

                1. The ballot box – where nothing ever changes – elections in the USA are a farce.

                2. I don’t want to restructure society at all.

            2. taking away most of modern civilization from me

              Looting your neighbors isn’t civilization, asshole.

              silly little arrogant dumbfucks

              There you go, projecting like an IMAX theater.

              -jcr

        2. I’ll take reason and humanism over free-market fundamentalism.

          Most people like reason and humanism in their lives. What we don’t like is attempting to impose those values through the government, which is what you habitually advocate. We don’t like that for the simple reason that it doesn’t work.

          It’s so incredibly cute when libertarians actually believe that implementing their radical vision for society wouldn’t annoy anyone.

          Yup, that’s pretty much the attitude your predecessors had when they advocated in favor of slavery. It’s incredibly cute that you think that evil pricks like you have the moral high ground in such discussions.

          1. I wouldn’t even give in on “Most people like reason and humanism in their lives” – there are very different conceptions of what those are.
            The current mass brand isn’t trying to silence dissent because it feels secure. It’s shoddyness is showing – either it’s an idea of “humanism and reason” turning people off, and it’s facing real competition.

        3. The USA doesn’t have “free markets”, it has rent-seeking cronyism.

  28. Any time someone accuses another person of using a “dogwhistle,” remember that in order for a dogwhistle to be heard, it actually needs to be understandable/”audible” to them. The very usage of a true dogwhistle is to explicitly *avoid* being heard by anyone other than dogs. If you can hear it, it (by definition) *isn’t* a dogwhistle.

    Therefore, if you’re able to hear and point out a supposed “dogwhistle,” you’re proving that it isn’t. And if one just *suspects* that something is a dogwhistle–because they can’t hear it–then they might be right, but it might also be a delusion of persecution or some other conspiracy theory.

    Logic–a clear trait of the capitalist colonialist patriarchy, I know…..

    1. Metaphors only go so far. You know what it means, and if you don’t, there’s an internet that can teach you.

      1. If you hear the whistle, you’re the dog. You’re a racist pig. Admit it to yourself so you can quit projecting your grievous personal flaws on everyone else.

        -jcr

        1. If you don’t get what dog whistles are but you’re still a racist geezer fuck, that makes you both racist and stupid.

  29. There was no victory over cancel culture here. This is simple academic politics and academic intergenerational conflicts.

    And while Pinker’s intellectual stance is that of a liberal, in his day-to-day life he is part of the same system as his opponents and the LSA: an authoritarian, hierarchical, illiberal academic system financed by taxpayers.

    1. Please stop referring to these people as “liberals.” They are only “liberal” when it comes to matters of sex, drugs, and rock & roll. Otherwise, they are leftists, plain and simple.

      1. Pinker actually is a real liberal, not a leftists.

  30. “Basically Pinker was endorsing the idea that to reduce police killings, each shooting episode should undergo in-depth independent forensic investigation the way that teams from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examine airplane crashes.”

    My solution is that because police shootings are actually rare, most cops never shoot their guns in the line of duty we are told, that when an officer shoots his gun, at someone shooting at him, a dog, an unarmed man, whatever the reason, they are permanently taken off the street as an armed officer. They can finish their career on desk duty, a meter maid, a bailiff, a jailer, but not on the street with a gun. Then they are going to think long and hard before shooting that gun.

    1. Kazinski, remember that cop in Detroit who killed over 60 dogs in one year, and is still employed as an armed police officer?

      Can’t be bothered to link the Reason article but the guy shot dogs often witnessed by petrified kids. Taking officers like that and assigning them to clerical work only is a good solution. Or at least a step in the right direction.

      1. Fuck that – assign his dumb ass to the unemployment line. He is clearly too stupid or unbalanced to be earning taxpayer-funded remuneration.

    2. This is actually a pretty savvy idea. One could argue if its a good cop doing a justified shooting, they are likely at least a little traumatized and will welcome the opportunity to never have to risk that situation again.

      and if its the bloodlusty bad cop, the people will welcome the opportunity to never have to risk that situation again.

  31. “Given that any encounter with police could turn violent”

    It’s always sad to see an alleged “libertarian” magazine engaging in bullshit emotional hyperbole.

  32. So, since Pinker was quoting the New York Times in some of the statements highlighted by the petition, shouldn’t the Times be canceled?

  33. “But his crucial point is that that is because black citizens have a disproportionate number of encounters with police.”

    This is CLEARLY racist. Suggesting that Blacks or any other non-white group should be responsible for their actions is uber-racist.

    When hundreds of FAR right white national supremacist lynched and killed hundreds of people in Charlottesville, that was a CLEAR indication of how bad racism has become in our country. Now, compare that to the recent peaceful protest all over our country by the black community and their freedom loving AntiFa partners. ONE bad actor kills only ONE person and every racist white person in the country starts calling the peaceful protest “riots and violence.” /sarcasm

    1. “But his crucial point is that that is because black citizens have a disproportionate number of encounters with police.”

      This is CLEARLY racist. Suggesting that Blacks or any other non-white group should be responsible for their actions is uber-racist.

      That’s not what he is suggesting or saying. He is saying that you will only get into a deadly encounter with police if you get into an encounter with police in the first place. Therefore, we expect race-blind policing to result in shootings proportional to police encounters, which they actually are. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.

  34. Great hair though. Reminds me of Brian May from Queen.

  35. Isn’t his central theme being put to the test in this election? That is, talking about how we shouldn’t treat transgendered and gay people like we did in the 1950s is so offensive and off-putting to the poor slob masses that they’ll reject just about anyone espousing it. I’d say in the match-up between Trump and Biden That this idea is being cracked in the skull on the rocky shores of empiricism, professor. True, Trump is a disgusting liar probably looking to hook up with the FoxNews bimbos he hires to be in his Cabinet so maybe this isn’t a fair test.

    1. Socialism is the opium of the masses.

      1. Once in power, socialism is also viciously anti-gay.

        1. The “gay rights” movement genuflected to the far left under the banner LGBTQAI+ to counter the Republican boogeyman decades ago. But as it turns out the real threat comes from the left itself, and gay men are getting a serious taste of this already. There is no “gay male”–it’s cisgender. All the stereotypes were struggled against and won are now being brought back into the forefront of liberation. The Left keeps insisting it’s the Right that will end gay pride. Look around. It’s the anti-American left which has successfully stopped gay prides, whether in the name of Covid or social justice. The gay pride “parade” in Chicago is a shitfest of south side gang bangers. How did it get like that? Shit, today’s conservatives are like liberals 25 years ago. Like the BLM movement, the gay rights movement was commandeered by the white hetero-supremacist corporate communists who want to unleash on the US any kind of weapon they can devise. Look out. It’s coming. And in the name of “love.” I’d rather be put in a cage by those who hate me than those who claim they love me. The end result is the same–I’m’ in a fucking cage! I was never into the gay rights movement, but watching the gay culture burn into embers of far left fodder is not only sad, but devastating. For lack of a better term, I long for the days when gay men had balls.

    2. That is, talking about how we shouldn’t treat transgendered and gay people like we did in the 1950s is so offensive and off-putting to the poor slob masses that they’ll reject just about anyone espousing it.

      Where have Trump or the Republicans suggested that “we should treat transgendered and gay people like we did in the 1950’s”? Where is the evidence?

      Decriminalization of gay sex, legal equality, and gay marriage are the law. Neither Trump nor Republicans are going to change that. Any claims to the contrary are simple, self-serving political lies from desperate Democrats.

      I’d say in the match-up between Trump and Biden

      You mean Biden, the guy who voted for DOMA and opposed same sex marriage until polls showed that it was better to flip-flop and now lies about it?

      But what should we expect from the left? Whether it’s the Nazi, the communists, or the Democrats, the left supports gays and lesbians when it gains them votes, and sends us to labor camps or worse once securely in power.

  36. So the silliest and most annoying wing of liberalism does not speak for all liberals or the entire Democratic Party. This should be an acceptable concession by people who support the party whose silly fringe wing is the KKK.

  37. I have liked Pinker a long time, but if you’re a public figure you should understand that for PR reasons alone you need to run fast and far from the “intellectual dark web” folks. Some of them are smart but insufferably fixated on minor grievances about college students acting annoying. Largely the group is far too adjacent to actual white supremacists. Some of the race talking points are indistinguishable from those of the KKK, and they welcome Charles Murray as their primary authority on the matter. You don’t want to be lumped together with those guys. It will be next to impossible to get their taint off. And if two-thirds of the country can be lumped in with goofy college students, then judging people by the company they keep is fair.

    1. What’s wrong with Charles Murray?

      Lemme guess. You think Jordan Peterson is bad too?

      1. Misguided.

        1. Fuck off.

          -jcr

          1. White conservatives like white guys who tell them how great white guys are. Story at stop being such a basic bitch.

            1. White progressives like white guys who tell them how great white progressives are, and that minorities need to rely on the beneficence of old white guys to succeed.

              FTFY.

            2. You have obviously never read or heard anything Murray has to say. You’re just following the leftard herd in condemning him.

              -jcr

              1. You’ve obviously been suspiciously selective in which political scientists you read.

  38. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u doReadMore.

  39. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this pageReadMore.

  40. “Cancel culture” will dry up and blow away when the standard response to it is “Oh, fuck off, you guilt-peddling asshole.” The only power the Red Guard wannabes have lies in the cowardice of university and business leaders.

    This could have been nipped in the bud decades ago if business leaders had told Jesse Jackson to fuck right off when he first started shaking them down for not hiring by race.

    -jcr

  41. According to the new racial doctrine, white people have privilege that they cannot see, and the fact they cannot see it is concrete evidence of it. White people are not only racist, they are irredeemably racist–that is they can never shed themselves of their racism.

    I wonder of the proponents of this doctrine have an end game? Do they have a goal? Because the way I see it, this doctrine says the white race can never co-exist with any other race. Where does this lead?

    1. Probably with white people still enjoying their extra wealth and privilege. It took centuries to build that up, think they’re gonna give it away?

      A nice, easy evolution that could count as success is if white people stopped assuming that any tiny advance made by POC negatively affects white people.

      Indeed we have the opposite problem: white Americans have denied themselves some of the benefits of advanced civilization because they feared that somewhere, somehow a black person might get more than his fair share.

      1. Probably with white people still enjoying their extra wealth and privilege. It took centuries to build that up, think they’re gonna give it away?

        And how does that argument work for Asians?

        A nice, easy evolution that could count as success is if white people stopped assuming that any tiny advance made by POC negatively affects white people.

        That’s the assumption of progressives, hence their obsession with equality. That’s your assumption.

        Conservatives and libertarians believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. That’s why we don’t focus on inequality but economic growth.

        1. Asians: Just stop. I’m so proud that you discovered a race you can whore out in a lazy, regurgitated attempt to win some internets on race.

          Asian immigrants follow a familiar pattern. Those able and willing to immigrate to the US are a self-selected group. They may not be rich, but they are at least ambitious enough to do that. China does not contain a billion math whizzes. So, lucky us. Let’s stop being so goddamn bigoted when it comes to immigration policy, how about? Want to talk to your Team about that?

          Do you have a complex or what?

          Economic growth while ignoring all social outcomes: That’s just dumb. Data is data. If one ethnic group is doing significantly and persistently worse than another, that is at the very least interesting, and is likely a serious social concern. You could at least shut the fuck up and let people who care about shit work on the problem. I said a rising tide lifts all boats too. But it’s only true in the economy if the economy is set up that way (ours isn’t). When it comes to social programs, I just wish white people would stop being so goddamn racist so we could have nice things.

          1. The thing about those darn Asians, is that they don’t fit within your worldview.
            Your hypothesis is that POC are not advancing because the whites will not give up their power, correct?
            Did we just give up our power to Asians without a fight?

            1. Immigrant communities from overseas tend to do better than a) a native population of people who have suffered centuries of apartheid conditions and its after-effects and b) poor immigrants from across a land border. I don’t know why you’re refusing to accept simple truths in favor of ugly hypotheses about racial genetic propensities that aren’t real. Just kidding, yes I do.

          2. Data is data. If one ethnic group is doing significantly and persistently worse than another, that is at the very least interesting, and is likely a serious social concern

            Data shows that differences between ethnic groups in societies are universal across the globe. They are of no particular concern except to the ignorant and racists. Like you.

            1. Thomas Sowell has done some great work on this.
              Around the world, people of German heritage run the majority of breweries.
              North Nigerians are very different from South Nigerians in their levels of education and income.
              Chinese Immigrants to southeastern Asian countries generally occupy most higher income and education positions.

      2. That last point is the fucking dumbest, evidence-free, bullshit ever.

        It is also blatantly racist.

    2. According to the new racial doctrine, white people have privilege that they cannot see, and the fact they cannot see it is concrete evidence of it. White people are not only racist, they are irredeemably racist–that is they can never shed themselves of their racism.

      It’s like… original sin.

      I wonder of the proponents of this doctrine have an end game? Do they have a goal?

      The same as always: personal power. Once in power, the country morphs into Venezuela/Third Reich/USSR, take your pick.

  42. FANATIC #1: Shall we go after Steven Pinker?

    FANATIC #2: Nah, he has tenure and teaches at Harvard plus his offenses are miniscule even by our standards. We’d lose.

    FANATIC #1: No, we wouldn’t, ninny! Even if we can’t get him fired, we’ll put some fear into those who aren’t at Harvard, haven’t got tenure, or have something more controversial in their backgrounds.

    FANATIC #2: Since you put it that way, let’s go ahead and attempt this purge. What have we got to lose?

  43. Just as NTSB investigations try to figure out how to prevent future crashes, the goal of independent investigations of police shootings should be to devise new policing procedures that aim to minimize the chances of violence occurring between citizens and cops.

    Pass fewer laws, repeal more existing laws. No investigation needed. You’re welcome.

  44. The letter, which lists nearly 600 signatories

    Some of which were confirmed fakes, by the way.

    1. Did Haywood Jablome add his signature?

  45. Pinker is one of my favorites!

    1. If the current left looked like Pinker, the country would be much better off. I don’t agree when him on a lot, but he’s thoughtful, honest, and has decorum.

  46. I am still hoping for the movie theatre chains (AMC, Cinemark, Regal) to reopen in time for Unhinged, HERE►…ReadMore.

  47. Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!OPt I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…

    go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and past…ReadMore.

  48. “Oops! Our bad, we mistook him for George Washington.” – Twitter Rage Mob

  49. Who taught these letter writing kids to be so ignorant and misguided?

    1. And so prejudice at that, Dave!

  50. ” frequently by misrepresenting facts,”, the problem is that he does now. He went a long way exposing people to biological realities with the blank slate, but since then he’s been back peddling, pushing the naive pollyanna narrative of inevitable neoliberal utopianism.

    The reality is closer to ever growing intergroup conflict as ever increasing diversity entrenches ever more permanent inequality into your society. Spandrel’s IQ shredder is the likely future in the environments his type favor.

    He’s been playing into this mobs hands with his recent denials on the true repercussions of understanding human nature, so its hard to be that upset when he faces cancellation by the people he’s been enabling.

  51. An excellent analysis of both “what really happened” and also a terrific expose’ of the ever-increasing dark skills that have been developed by the evil left to “cancel” open debate and discussion. Now they equate your *words* with “violence” against them, so to them that justifies perpetrating actual violence against you. There is no end to the depths these people will pursue in their quest to destroy free and open inquiry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.