Snarks of the Months: December/January

Due to technical delays in December, I never actually did a December snark of the month.

So here we go:

December Snark of the Month: Tom Foss

Answering the question, “How is Gender Studies dangerous?” Tom replies…

Well that’s obvious, anbheal. Gender Studies courses make people think there’s no such thing as facts, so they become relativists, which makes people vote for Trump. Because Trump voters all took Gender Studies courses (I think the polling bears this out), or maybe because Trump supporters are violently opposed to people who take Gender Studies courses (but not violently opposed to them in a rationalist way like Boghossian is, just violently opposed to them in a way that totally aligns with his views on gender and LGBT issues).

I think it’s clear that this consequence of Gender Studies courses makes them clearly more dangerous than Boghossian’s example of Creationism, because fundamentalist worldviews never have negative political or environmental consequences. And Moon Landing hoaxers? I mean, seriously, when’s the last time that believing crazy conspiracy theories has ever led to someone shooting up a pizza parlor, for instance? Besides, that kind of stuff has no academic support, unlike Gender Studies courses. That stuff is confined to places like Infowars, and nobody with any kind of power ever takes Alex Jones seriously.

Meta, Tom. So meta.

December runner-up: AlexanderZ

It’s no secret that snarking on Jordan Peterson will bias your chances of winning–because I just disclosed it. Remarking on Jordan Peterson’s shiny new six-figure Patreon salary earned by whining endlessly about respecting trans people, AlexanderZ says:

Well duh. This is a guy who has been interviewed by almost every media outlet in North America because of claim of supposed censorship. His speech is so unfree that you can hear on every channel.



January Snark of the Month: The Mellow Monkey

Remarking on the Satanic Temple’s iteration of Baphomet and the breathless Catholic moral panic it induced:

I guess if you can’t tell the difference between an image of a fictional character created to troll you and reality, it makes sense that symbolic penises are the same as the real thing.

(And how far does this symbolism go? Is anything longer than it is wide a symbolic penis now? When we put on pants, are we doing some sort of symbolic sex act with our legs???)

Inquiring minds want to know.

January runner-up: Pierce R. Butler

From the same thread:

Poor Levi got his pentagram upside-down! (See current Republican logo for 3 examples of doing it right.)

And didn’t Playboy give up the whole centerfold schtick in ’15?



  1. AlexanderZ says

    Thanks, Siobhan!
    A bit of retro-editing because it pains me to read my own comment:
    *…because of his claim of supposed censorship. His speech is so unfree that you can hear him on every channel.

    The Mellow Monkey

    And how far does this symbolism go?

    Well, considering the Victorians used to cover up the legs on kitchen tables because of their immodest symbolism, I’ll say it goes all the way to the kitchen room floor!