The company you keep…


Guess who is praising Heather Mac Donald?

I hope none of those names are going to continue to claim to be liberal or progressive. ‘Cause we’re done with that pretense.

Comments

  1. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I hope none of those names are going to continue to claim to be liberal or progressive. ‘Cause we’re done with that pretense.

    Seconded. Rethugs/reactionaries in bad/shoddy camouflage all.

  2. raven says

    Jordan Peterson’s review has his trademark of total gibberish mixed with lies and factual mistakes.
    He just links assertions without proof together and claims it means something.
    It doesn’t.

    Peterson: Why should we care what happens in the Ivory Tower.? Because what happens there soon happens everywhere.

    Is this true?
    Where is the proof?
    It isn’t true and here is the proof. How many Ivory Tower liberals vote GOP and voted for Trump?
    Not many.
    And who is the now president of the USA and which party controls the US congress?
    In point of fact, decades ago 50% or so scientists identified as GOP.
    Lately it has been…6%. (Source AAAS)

  3. raven says

    Who is the hell is Heather Mac Donald and why should I care?
    I never even heard of her before.
    Google, Type Type, Type, hit enter Wikipedia.

    I just read her Wikipedia entry.
    Nobody. A generic right wingnut who looks like a slightly saner Ann Coulter.
    Another crackpot.

    Her book is free on Amazon and not worth that price.
    Your time and eyeballs are worth more than that.

  4. Saganite, a haunter of demons says

    Peterson talks about mass-produced victims, who are certain in their oppression, while whining about how he and his are (about to be) victimized. More projection, more hypocrisy, more nonsense. This whiny ass is really annoying. Why anybody, especially self-proclaimed alphas, take him seriously, is beyond me.

  5. says

    Murray, trash whose book was funded in part by a Nazi org.

    Sommers, feminist with trash ideas.

    Peterson, trashy modern L Ron Hubbard.

  6. Cynical Skeptic says

    I hope none of those names are going to continue to claim to be liberal or progressive

    I assume there are some specific arguments in this book. Why not just engage those instead of this silly blathering? Then you might have something of substance to say. If you don’t think any specific arguments in this book are worth engaging then it would probably be better to ignore it instead of attacking the blurbers.

  7. raven says

    idiot troll:
    I assume there are some specific arguments in this book.

    Oh really???
    Why???
    In point of fact, given what we know from PZ’s OP and this thread, the probability that there are any good specific arguments in this book is very low.
    Heather Mac Donald is a long time alt right crackpot.
    The reviewers PZ listed are well known, long time crackpots.
    In words you won’t understand, it is crackpots all the damn way down.

    Why not just engage those instead of this silly blathering?

    Cthulhu, you are very stupid.
    It’s a big world, gigantic.
    We all have finite lifespans.
    Almost all of us have a huge amount to think about, talk about, and do, more than our lifespans allow us.
    We have to carefully pick and choose what is likely to be most worthwhile!!!
    Some D list crackpot recommended by what are basically well known trolls like Jordan Peterson isn’t a good use of our time and effort.

  8. raven says

    Idiot troll who is undoubedly badly misnamed as cyncial skeptic, here is a novel thought.
    Rather than trolling the thread with mindless whining,
    why don’t you read the book and find those good specific arguments!!!
    I already did that with Jordan Peterson’s latest gibberish.

    I also already noted above that it is available for free to read on Amazon.
    I’m sure it could be amusing, assuming you can actually read at a third grade level or better.
    Put up or shut up, troll.

  9. Cynical Skeptic says

    DanDare I haven’t read it and so don’t have any opinion on the specific arguments it contains and so would decline to either defend or attack them. I said I assume there are some and would be willing to bet money on it – simply based upon a lifetime of reading non-fiction books. Whether any of those arguments are any good or not I have no opinion.

    Raven I didn’t say there were any good specific arguments in it. I said I assume it has some specific arguments. As for the rest of your blather, you are simply emphasizing my point. If you have nothing of substance to say about a book why bother? My exact point. I know my life is slipping away here and yet PZ posts and here you are – wasting your time on crackpots.

  10. raven says

    Heather Mac Donald is a generic horrible person in the alt right mode of Trump, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Jordan Peterson, or Alex Jones.

    Heather Mac Donald Wikipedia
    In a 2018 talk given at Hillsdale College, Mac Donald criticized the “#meToo” social media movement, arguing that it was the latest in a long line of leftist victimhood culture “frenzies.”
    [21] When asked by an audience member whether women who wear revealing bathing suits should share fault with their aggressors in cases of sexual assault, Mac Donald responded: “What you just did would be referred to as slut shaming… Good for you, because sluts should be shamed as far as I am concerned.”[22]

    Mac Donald thinks it is OK if girls and women who don’t dress the way she thinks they should, are raped.
    This is sick puppy stuff.
    No Heather, it is not OK if people who don’t dress the way you think they should get raped.
    It is never OK to rape someone, for Cthulhu’s sake!!!
    There is a piece of a normal personality missing from Heather Mac Donald.

  11. raven says

    Raven:
    Rather than trolling the thread with mindless whining,
    why don’t you read the book and find those good specific arguments!!!

    and

    Idiot troll responds:
    I know my life is slipping away here and yet PZ posts and here you are – wasting your time on crackpots.

    I knew you weren’t going to say anything intelligent and on topic.
    Or do anything that took even minor amounts of effort.
    Really simple minds are so easily predictable they are boring.

    OK, we now know you are dumb, uneducated, lazy, and quite likely unable to read above a third grade level.
    And you’ve convincingly shown you aren’t worth any more of anyone’s time or attention.
    If you had a functional mind, by now you would see why we aren’t going to bother wading through the swamp of Heather Mac Donald’s brain.
    Yours is empty and hers is an EPA class Superfund site.

  12. Cynical Skeptic says

    Some D list crackpot recommended by what are basically well known trolls like Jordan Peterson isn’t a good use of our time and effort.

    The above is by Raven which is what I was respondinjg to. It was Ravenn’s assertion that you shouldn’t be wasting your time on them and I was siumply pointing out that in that case why were you? And no, if you consider these people crackpots, I think you shouldn’t be wasting time on them, which is why I said it would just be better to ignore them.

    If you think they are dangerous and worth engaging then you should engage specific arguments. It’s that simple.

  13. Ed Seedhouse says

    Cynical Skeptic : “I know my life is slipping away here and yet PZ posts and here you are – wasting your time on crackpots.”

    I believe PZ is entitled to waste his time any way he wishes. Your wasting your time on complaining about how PZ wastes his time seems utterly strange and futile to me, but it’s your life. It’s hard to understand where you get the idea that it’s your right to govern how PZ lives his, though. You don’t like his blog, feel free to leave…

    Also it is PZ’s blog after all, and so far as I can see he has the right to delete your (or anyone’s) account if he chooses, for any reason or for none.

    Yawn.

  14. DanDare says

    PZ indicated he knows the book is useless and awful. That is a useful service to those who tend to agree with his analysis. He saved us time.
    He pointed out the support list and indicated that their support puts them in a bad group. I agree and thanks for saving me time researching this on my own.
    Cynical Skeptic you have tried your level best to block these useful services. You admitted you have not read the book so you have no point of refutation.

  15. psychomath says

    Cynical Skeptic @11

    “DanDare I haven’t read it and so don’t have any opinion on the specific arguments it contains and so would decline to either defend or attack them. I said I assume there are some and would be willing to bet money on it – simply based upon a lifetime of reading non-fiction books.”

    I’m your huckleberry. I’ll bet you five dollars that you can’t find an argument, good or bad, in that book. Now, it does need to be an argument. I’m betting the book is nothing more than a sequence of assertions without even an attempt to link them in an orderly way. Okay, prove me wrong.

    Also, protip: there are only two types of people who choose nyms like “Cynical Skeptic”. The first, and less bad, is a young person who thinks far too much of their own intellect. The second type is the same, but older. I hope you are the less bad version, because you might grow out of it.

  16. KG says

    Isn’t it odd how anyone whose nym includes words such as “rational”, “skeptic”, “reason” etc., invariably turns out to be a fuckwitted troll?

  17. sparks says

    Everyone has the capacity to grow, even if they choose not to.

    Me? I plan to turn my new leaves around and burrow underground where I shall remain for the next 2 to 6 years. I’m hoping the world will have changed for the better when I re-emerge.

    But, being a pessimist, I expect to be disappointed. :)

  18. Saad says

    Cynical Skeptic, #7

    Because we’re familiar with the opinions (whining) of these people on these topics already.

  19. Frederic Bourgault-Christie says

    Cynical Skeptic: Google her. You’ll find that Tim Wise among others have elbowed her from the sky. She repeats tired PRATTs against white privilege and now seems to have crossed the line to bona fide white supremacist virtue-signaling by trying to attack even the value of diversity. True, her book could be suddenly scrupulously researched and brilliantly argued, unlike her entire career. Want to wager a probability that’s the case?

    In other words, if this were a new book by the Hovinds, I would guess you would instantly figure the people providing book jacket blurbs were apologizing for creationism at the very least, and wouldn’t worry about reading their next PRATT fest. But when it comes to discredit intellectuals in other arenas, suddenly you’re willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. Interesting.

  20. DanDare says

    OTOH when I googled yesterday the first two pages where songs of praise. All reviews by think tanks with a particular bias.

  21. emergence says

    Keep in mind that every shitheel on that list
    1. blabers constantly about how social justice causes create “professional victims”
    2. whines constantly that men/white people/christians/cishet people are under threat

    As a cishet white male, I really don’t understand why other people I have those traits in common with feel so threatened by women, people of color, and LGBT people speaking out against how they’re treated by society, or trying to make society more inclusive.

Leave a Reply