46 Comments

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."

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

COVID was brought to you by COSAF (Cult Of SAFety).

Expand full comment

Making us afraid of everything isn’t all the “safety first” culture has done: many of its so-called protections have been distinctly harmful (e.g. sunscreens and sunlight aversion).

Expand full comment

N-word-protected, as well.

Expand full comment

Please include in safety first:10 degree sloped roofs (within easy shooting range of a high value political target)as being unsafe areas for Secret Service agents to set up for surveillance of ill intentioned sniper with a rifle and a 20 foot ladder that climb up on to that same roof and shoot at the high value target killing one and injuring others…. Safety first.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Briggs' rule or Briggs' law for future generations.

Expand full comment

"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!

Expand full comment

Excellent! Listening to it with the AI voice is a hoot, as well. This old science professor (human anatomy & physiology) now turned Lutheran theologian applauds your clear thinking and wit! Thank you!

Expand full comment

"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/

Expand full comment

Can ANYONE named "Heidi" be taken seriously about ANYTHING?

Expand full comment

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!)

Expand full comment

No, seriously, all women belong at home in the kitchen and raising the kids while Dad earns a living for all of them.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Well again. Men still have the right. Women today don’t listen.

Expand full comment

Men have the right to what?

Expand full comment

misogyny doesn't really replace critical thinking. what a twit is Billy Briggs.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Thank you. I followed Briggs during the Climate wars. Great man.

Expand full comment

He claims the virus exists and was created in a lab?

LMFAO!

Never trust anyone who was in the military.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

HAHAHA

The cowardly comrade quacks.

Expand full comment

Well, ANN, there goes your ass!

Expand full comment

wtf does that mean?

Expand full comment

Really? LMFAO…….

Expand full comment

The sun and moon are small and local.

Expand full comment

Love Briggs. Sanity.

Expand full comment

A masterful address to the formation, staff sargent. Thank you.

In encountering beaurocratic tribes, I see the precautionary principle of specifications used to imply could implies MAY implies SHALL. It's almost as if some certainty principle is at work. Is that a fatal conceit or just the implication of federal grant proposal selection policy?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Might you be a stongher?

Expand full comment

What is a stongher?

Expand full comment

I applaud your brave inquiry. The search for that term and the struggle of analyzing the returned results, in terms of the ideological demands they attempt to place upon you, will make you a better, more complete, woman who strongly grasps the nature of insipid Maoist cliches.

Expand full comment

Which specific Maoist cliche should I attempt to grasp first?

Expand full comment

One must encounter their chautauqua, but strongher is not a kōan.

Expand full comment

Phew! I was afraid it was ...

Expand full comment

Excellent. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Now I know how Fauci got where he is! Feminism!

https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/hamilton-vs-stalin

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

GPT -- Gotta Patent That?

It's an astonishing accomplishment to provide SCIgen on prompts. How many conferences sprout from it?

Expand full comment