Great interview! I particularly liked his comments in #4 on "Safety First."
His words reminded me of a quote I had saved.
A pastor named Scott Dudley noted in a sermon how, over the last thirty years, we have created the most risk-averse society in history.
"We are the most seat-belted, bike-helmeted, air-bagged, kneepad-wearing, private-schooled, gluten-freed, hand-sanitized, peanut-avoiding, sunscreen-slathering, hyper-insured, massively medicated, password-protected, valet-parked, security-systemed, inoculated generation in history—and all it has done is make everyone more afraid of everything."
Wonderful. Thank you for posting this! When we were kids in the 1960s we fell out of trees, fractured arms, legs and even one skull, one of us was impaled on a long construction nail, we were bitten by feral dogs, ran across rooftops, leaping from one to the next when "playing army", rode our bikes through clouds of mosquito insecticide sprayed by the City of New York ... and in general lived deliriously unsafe and blissfully unaware of dangers large and small. I'm still here. And nauseated by the cult of safety.
"Peer review doesn’t mean squat." I would agree. However, the term "squat" has a very specific meaning for a certain demographic and age cohort. There's an 80s Rockabilly song that went "My gal is red hot - your gal aint doodley squat!"
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I do think the adjective "doodley", if applied to peer reviews, would do much to drive home the point that peer reviews might best be stored for when the toilet paper shelves become empty in the upcoming birdie plague. In addition then, the "squat" element will take on new meaning. Then again, I don't know squat!
Classic understated Briggsian wisdom: " We have to let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes." Not a position that will win you any popularity contests, but true as true can be. Truth is not malleable.
"Because these ladies get into science, discover that they aren’t as good as it as the people there, and then start whining and carping about being Victims."
"There would be no reason to organize and complain of unfair treatment if the women in science were as good as the men."
I'd love to see Mr. Brigg's evidence . Here is some I've found:
And let's not forget: " Men are not rejecting arguments and evidence from women because they are women. If some men do, then the other men that don’t will use that evidence (when its good) to get ahead themselves."
Yeah - men seem to like to claim women's work for themselves:
If you check out the links she provided, you'll be able to answer that question yourself. Of course, that isn't as appealing as trying to render her comment invalid by belittling her. But someone with a serious name like William is surely up for the challenge.
If it weren't for the cost of living and the fact that it takes two incomes to afford a home now, many women would likely choose that option. We were told we could "have it all." But in reality, working full time, while raising a family, cooking and cleaning ... it's exhausting and stretches one person too thin. It isn't liberating in the least. Unless of course you can afford a nanny, housekeeper and cook. But most can't. This is one reason many women are choosing not to have children. They watched their mothers exhaust themselves.
So ... unless in your world only wealthy men have families, most women will need to work regardless of what they, or you, would like to see. And fortunately, it's too late in the game now for us to go back to the place where men had the right to tell us where we belong.
Yes, there are issues in all organizations and groups. Problem being that accepting small samples as representative of anything with no evidence is part of how we are continually rolled by leftards.
I studied atmospheric physics for four years, so I know that many models can be created to describe the impact of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. However, intuitively, it's hard to understand how ppm-level disturbances of carbon dioxide can affect the average temperature. It's even harder to grasp why the Earth's atmospheric system can't regulate the warming trend.
Regarding the scientific consensus on global warming, I believe it's largely driven by the interests of certain groups. Just like in medicine, many scientific consensuses are not truly based on science.
Babies in bathwater and stuff... Take note that writing thinkers off for not being at your level sounds sort of 'woke' scidolatrous, orange hair, MAGA, shape of the earth, straight ticket voting eh? No offense meant here.
You know what else is unbekoming? The idea that women wanted the vote, property rights and status as human beings because there weren't enough men to "hold" them. It couldn't be that they had to do men's jobs during the war AND raise children, survived without men and wanted choices during peacetime too. No, Mussolini's scientific study found that the problem was they weren't being held. He conducted a study, right? I mean otherwise why would we quote him on female psychology of all things?
And women just aren't good at science, Briggs himself has concluded, no doubt scientifically. It's not affirmative action shoe horning people (women, minorities and the disabled) into jobs they potentially aren't qualified for. It's just women. Probably un-held women. Doing what un-unheld women do. Badly.
Fauci's first job was to run drugs for his dad (small pharma). In catholic school, he was a tenacious point guard. From a young age he knew he wanted to go into the neo-priesthood, so he became an M.D and went directly into the NIH (National Institute of Holiness). The circle was complete when he was able to finally start running drugs for big pharma. The rest is hubris and a shit ton of collateral damage.
Great interview! I particularly liked his comments in #4 on "Safety First."
His words reminded me of a quote I had saved.
A pastor named Scott Dudley noted in a sermon how, over the last thirty years, we have created the most risk-averse society in history.
"We are the most seat-belted, bike-helmeted, air-bagged, kneepad-wearing, private-schooled, gluten-freed, hand-sanitized, peanut-avoiding, sunscreen-slathering, hyper-insured, massively medicated, password-protected, valet-parked, security-systemed, inoculated generation in history—and all it has done is make everyone more afraid of everything."
Wonderful. Thank you for posting this! When we were kids in the 1960s we fell out of trees, fractured arms, legs and even one skull, one of us was impaled on a long construction nail, we were bitten by feral dogs, ran across rooftops, leaping from one to the next when "playing army", rode our bikes through clouds of mosquito insecticide sprayed by the City of New York ... and in general lived deliriously unsafe and blissfully unaware of dangers large and small. I'm still here. And nauseated by the cult of safety.
"Peer review doesn’t mean squat." I would agree. However, the term "squat" has a very specific meaning for a certain demographic and age cohort. There's an 80s Rockabilly song that went "My gal is red hot - your gal aint doodley squat!"
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I do think the adjective "doodley", if applied to peer reviews, would do much to drive home the point that peer reviews might best be stored for when the toilet paper shelves become empty in the upcoming birdie plague. In addition then, the "squat" element will take on new meaning. Then again, I don't know squat!
Classic understated Briggsian wisdom: " We have to let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes." Not a position that will win you any popularity contests, but true as true can be. Truth is not malleable.
"Because these ladies get into science, discover that they aren’t as good as it as the people there, and then start whining and carping about being Victims."
"There would be no reason to organize and complain of unfair treatment if the women in science were as good as the men."
I'd love to see Mr. Brigg's evidence . Here is some I've found:
https://awis.org/historical-women-scientists/?_ethnicity=black&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9-zBhDyARIsAERjds2eRHo_eWoRTYeq9l6nCbqSWlcCZpABWkC7zJKZO23m7FDXyPGNqxAaAiAPEALw_wcB
And let's not forget: " Men are not rejecting arguments and evidence from women because they are women. If some men do, then the other men that don’t will use that evidence (when its good) to get ahead themselves."
Yeah - men seem to like to claim women's work for themselves:
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/g5026/female-discoveries-credited-to-men/
And I'd like to ask Mr. Briggs how/why women being "bad" at science results in sexual harassment and sexual assault. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/how-women-are-harassed-out-of-science/492521/
Can ANYONE named "Heidi" be taken seriously about ANYTHING?
If you check out the links she provided, you'll be able to answer that question yourself. Of course, that isn't as appealing as trying to render her comment invalid by belittling her. But someone with a serious name like William is surely up for the challenge.
(I know, I know, you were only joking!)
No, seriously, all women belong at home in the kitchen and raising the kids while Dad earns a living for all of them.
If it weren't for the cost of living and the fact that it takes two incomes to afford a home now, many women would likely choose that option. We were told we could "have it all." But in reality, working full time, while raising a family, cooking and cleaning ... it's exhausting and stretches one person too thin. It isn't liberating in the least. Unless of course you can afford a nanny, housekeeper and cook. But most can't. This is one reason many women are choosing not to have children. They watched their mothers exhaust themselves.
So ... unless in your world only wealthy men have families, most women will need to work regardless of what they, or you, would like to see. And fortunately, it's too late in the game now for us to go back to the place where men had the right to tell us where we belong.
Well again. Men still have the right. Women today don’t listen.
Men have the right to what?
Yes, there are issues in all organizations and groups. Problem being that accepting small samples as representative of anything with no evidence is part of how we are continually rolled by leftards.
Thank you. I followed Briggs during the Climate wars. Great man.
I studied atmospheric physics for four years, so I know that many models can be created to describe the impact of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. However, intuitively, it's hard to understand how ppm-level disturbances of carbon dioxide can affect the average temperature. It's even harder to grasp why the Earth's atmospheric system can't regulate the warming trend.
Regarding the scientific consensus on global warming, I believe it's largely driven by the interests of certain groups. Just like in medicine, many scientific consensuses are not truly based on science.
He claims the virus exists and was created in a lab?
LMFAO!
Never trust anyone who was in the military.
Babies in bathwater and stuff... Take note that writing thinkers off for not being at your level sounds sort of 'woke' scidolatrous, orange hair, MAGA, shape of the earth, straight ticket voting eh? No offense meant here.
Well, ANN, there goes your ass!
wtf does that mean?
Really? LMFAO…….
You know what else is unbekoming? The idea that women wanted the vote, property rights and status as human beings because there weren't enough men to "hold" them. It couldn't be that they had to do men's jobs during the war AND raise children, survived without men and wanted choices during peacetime too. No, Mussolini's scientific study found that the problem was they weren't being held. He conducted a study, right? I mean otherwise why would we quote him on female psychology of all things?
And women just aren't good at science, Briggs himself has concluded, no doubt scientifically. It's not affirmative action shoe horning people (women, minorities and the disabled) into jobs they potentially aren't qualified for. It's just women. Probably un-held women. Doing what un-unheld women do. Badly.
Excellent. Thank you.
Now I know how Fauci got where he is! Feminism!
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/hamilton-vs-stalin
Fauci's first job was to run drugs for his dad (small pharma). In catholic school, he was a tenacious point guard. From a young age he knew he wanted to go into the neo-priesthood, so he became an M.D and went directly into the NIH (National Institute of Holiness). The circle was complete when he was able to finally start running drugs for big pharma. The rest is hubris and a shit ton of collateral damage.
The sun and moon are small and local.