Impressive hand-waving, but it doesn't distract from a few simple, obvious facts:
Many, even most of those people have had their lives, families and/or careers profoundly damaged by a cult led by these men in dresses. OF COURSE they were unhappy to see one there. OF COURSE they flipped out when they saw him promoted. All of the brilliant rebuttals are beside the point, and tone-deaf.
A little acknowledgment of that by Genspect will go a long way for them, credibility-wise. Ignore the drama, be humble for a moment, focus on that one simple truth, validate the very understandable pain, admit the oversight.
Until then it just looks like the place is run by out-of-control egos who are clueless about PR.
It was the heaviest security I have ever seen at any conference and I have been to TS:SCI job fairs. These people are not PR professionals, they are professional clinicians. Also, they are not your personal army. It is not their job to fix the man in the dress in a free country where that is entirely legal.
Genspect has indeed learned that having a Phil Illy there will result in Phil Illy Awareness Week™ brought to you by people who are not responsible for reviewing his book. You gave him his sunshine, hooray. Had I been given an opportunity to vet the book for them, this would not have happened, true, but they were busy protecting us from the Amber Heards of the world, so maybe cut them some slack.
I hope you're right that they learned, it shouldn't have been necessary. They as much as anyone should know what toxic transgressing mind-fuckers activist AGPs are. No need to name or fix them, just keep 'em the F out.
I do agree that the critics naming him and talking about his book and blog and whatever else are putting a hole in their own boat.
Good story but perhaps something other than "gender" would work? Maybe the few mentions of "gender" in the story would work with "botanical self-identity"?
Everyone should allow men in dresses to do whatever they want all the time. They are the most oppressed, after all. Lest we forget. They are in need of our utmost sympathy and must be handled with kit gloves. To all those whiney, griping, female complainers: ya'll stop being such meanies! Be nice for once to poor Phil. He only wants to wank in the stall next to you. What are you griping about. Shut up and listen to your betters!
Phil advocates that children take wrong sex hormones and this is a person you're championing. People like him are masters of manipulating people like you into believing they are virtuous. The first mistake Genspect made was to open their doors to him, and any male fetishist. They are untrustworthy people.
I'm glad you can admit it is batshit. As for ego: I have been taking a lot of abuse so I could write the book review that is in the editing queue. Maybe give me some credit for ethical fortitude, actually.
Perhaps you could explain what exactly I did and how it is I told on myself. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading your blog, which I read up until today, and I'm certainly not going to take your inane survey.
I didn't twist anything and I also didn't mention anything about women being shut up in this context. But you did. How revealing. It appears you're telling on yourself once again.
"To all those whiney, griping, female complainers: ya'll stop being such meanies! Be nice for once to poor Phil. He only wants to wank in the stall next to you. What are you griping about. Shut up and listen to your betters!" That's your comment up above right? You didn't get hacked or anything? You left that comment yourself?
I could say the same of you. Please continue to tell on yourself. Who wrote those articles? You did. Classic DARVO bully techniques. Your true colors are shining through. Good luck to you.
Speaking of lazy readers, if anyone can summarize what this is about this lazy reader would greatly appreciate it. Who does the flowerman figure represent?
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
Matt is being careful not to name names. As he says, if someone complains that they are being misrepresented, then we will know they think they are being described! The point is calling out behaviors which many people might engage in, not naming particular people who are falling short of constructive action and instead just getting in the way of those actually DOING what needs to be done.
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
The message comes down to LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY. Change is not made by people who try to tear down leaders without them being willing to do the work of leading themselves. Those who just criticize are not leading!
Those who shovel BS instead of admitting a simple, understandable oversight are just showing a lack of ego control. Those people had every right to be upset. Not intentionally insensitive on Genspect's part, put it was a bit like sighting David Miscavage at a former Scientologists' event.
It's America, Hazel-rah. We don't police people like that in America. If you don't like it then find another country. This one has freedom of association and expression even when we hate it.
Almost as insensitive as having the notorious COVID-19 vaccine skeptic and Ivermectin evangelist Heather Heying and the Commie- and groomer-hunter James Lindsay on Genspect's program in Denver. What's going on among the leadership at Genspect that these discredited figures were platformed?
No, I'm not a practitioner of cancel culture nor am I secretly on the payroll of Alex Jones. This is about defending Genspect's reputation and keeping it faithful to its pledge to respect science.
If you wish to debunk Lindsay's scholarship I should like to know where you studied Hegel. I'm sure Heying's opinions on Ivermectin maker her wholly unsuitable to discuss evolutionary biology. Your hatred for them does not make other people hate them. It makes us question why you hate them so much. It makes people think there's something to this Ivermectin thing, maybe.
One thing's for sure, after Covid, trust in science is at an all-time low.
I reserve my hatred for those who deserve it, such as Trump. As I have said repeatedly, Ms. Heying's promotion of dangerous medical conspiracy theories makes her unfit to participate in an event sponsored by an organization that prides itself on following the science. That's not hatred, it's criticism.
When Mr. Lindsay's scholarship has been validated a reputable peer-reviewed journal's acceptance of a paper about Hegel or by his appointment to the faculty of an institution of higher learning where he will specialize in Hegel, I will consider taking him seriously.
In any case, it's Mr. Lindsay's embrace of the canard known as cultural Marxism that I take issue with. The most nuanced and sophisticated analysis of cultural Marxism I have come across in a sea of partisan publications is Russell Blackford's 2015 two-parter in The Conversation titled: "Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars." https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299
Professor Blackwell is currently a Conjoint Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences at the University of Newcastle in Australia.
I have greater confidence in Professor Blackwell's scholarship than I do Mr. Linsday's.
Having seen Academia, I would point out that serious work is not always published in journals, it is actually expected in some fields (such as Economics or Law) for the major debates to happen in blog posts.
As someone unfortunately familiar with Communist theory, I think that Lindsay's focus on Hegel and the link to the ancient Gnostics is misguided because tries to trace a causal connection to what may be independently evolved but such speculation is quite definitely part of the iterative nature of historical research. He makes his case, it gets debated, and might be accepted or dismissed. Henri Pirenne was controversial for his claims about the Islamic conquests cutting off trade to Western Europe resulting in an economic collapse but he has since been mostly vindicated by archeology.
Lindsay seems very off-the-cuff but he is not deviating much from actual academic practice. He is simply picking a different audience and set of ideas.
While Lindsay likes the term "Cultural Marxism", that is not an unreasonable description for the evolution of ideas in the Troskyite deviationists in the West. The observations by Gramsci that the class identity was subsumed by the cultural identity (hence the Fascists in Italy having more appeal than the Communists) hotly debated in non-Stalinist Socialist circles including the heirs of Trotsky such as Adorno and others. Lindsay is correct in pointing out the role of Trotskyites in the formation of the precursor ideologies to Wokeness (such as Crenshaw and Davis for Intersectionality).
Some people dismiss the concept of Cultural Marxisim because it looks similar to the old Red Scare in the 1950s but, as someone who studied Western reactions to the USSR can point out, there were a lot of Pro-Soviet intellectuals in Western Europe and the US at the time. They didn't disappear when Khrushchev gave his Stalin speech, they gravitated to cultural causes rather than directly fighting for the USSR. Utopian instincts continued to be applied albeit without the grounding of an actual country to focus on.
Ultimately, one may dispute calling the adepts of Adorno or Gramsci "Communists" since the falling away of class as the basis of their oppressor-oppressed dichotomy but the origins certainly earned that label.
Nov 15, 2023·edited Nov 15, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
Time for us to grow out of the moral landscapes of a 7-year-old. Here's a hint: people are almost never all-good or all-bad, and never agree with you 100% of the time, and may well be your strong ally on one issue while being your implacable foe on another.
Only Champagne Partisans care about their image more than their effectiveness. Are you a Champagne Partisan, Ollie? Do you fall for BS guilt-by-association arguments? Do you have any idea how many issues you are in agreement with pedophiles about? Does it not concern you????
His point IIRC is that puberty blockers are so bad we might as well skip to X-sex hormones. Which might even be true, if someone is determined to do a medical experiment on kids, but yeah, it's not going to fly and it isn't what Genspect advises. Someone should vet any books before they are recommended. If I can help in that regard I shall volunteer.
Impressive hand-waving, but it doesn't distract from a few simple, obvious facts:
Many, even most of those people have had their lives, families and/or careers profoundly damaged by a cult led by these men in dresses. OF COURSE they were unhappy to see one there. OF COURSE they flipped out when they saw him promoted. All of the brilliant rebuttals are beside the point, and tone-deaf.
A little acknowledgment of that by Genspect will go a long way for them, credibility-wise. Ignore the drama, be humble for a moment, focus on that one simple truth, validate the very understandable pain, admit the oversight.
Until then it just looks like the place is run by out-of-control egos who are clueless about PR.
It was the heaviest security I have ever seen at any conference and I have been to TS:SCI job fairs. These people are not PR professionals, they are professional clinicians. Also, they are not your personal army. It is not their job to fix the man in the dress in a free country where that is entirely legal.
Genspect has indeed learned that having a Phil Illy there will result in Phil Illy Awareness Week™ brought to you by people who are not responsible for reviewing his book. You gave him his sunshine, hooray. Had I been given an opportunity to vet the book for them, this would not have happened, true, but they were busy protecting us from the Amber Heards of the world, so maybe cut them some slack.
I hope you're right that they learned, it shouldn't have been necessary. They as much as anyone should know what toxic transgressing mind-fuckers activist AGPs are. No need to name or fix them, just keep 'em the F out.
I do agree that the critics naming him and talking about his book and blog and whatever else are putting a hole in their own boat.
Good story but perhaps something other than "gender" would work? Maybe the few mentions of "gender" in the story would work with "botanical self-identity"?
Heather Heying had a great presentation at Genspect. Did you know that plants are all male and female too? Amazing.
How clever, how true!
Everyone should allow men in dresses to do whatever they want all the time. They are the most oppressed, after all. Lest we forget. They are in need of our utmost sympathy and must be handled with kit gloves. To all those whiney, griping, female complainers: ya'll stop being such meanies! Be nice for once to poor Phil. He only wants to wank in the stall next to you. What are you griping about. Shut up and listen to your betters!
Who said this? You did. Please continue to tell on yourself.
And take your test. https://twitter.com/OsborneInk/status/1724310827061137493
Phil advocates that children take wrong sex hormones and this is a person you're championing. People like him are masters of manipulating people like you into believing they are virtuous. The first mistake Genspect made was to open their doors to him, and any male fetishist. They are untrustworthy people.
Rein in your ego and suck it up. Their anger is righteous even if their way of expressing it is batshit.
I'm glad you can admit it is batshit. As for ego: I have been taking a lot of abuse so I could write the book review that is in the editing queue. Maybe give me some credit for ethical fortitude, actually.
Perhaps you could explain what exactly I did and how it is I told on myself. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading your blog, which I read up until today, and I'm certainly not going to take your inane survey.
This is a fairy tale in which a woman is accused by three men and exposes them as liars. How did you twist that into shutting up women?
I didn't twist anything and I also didn't mention anything about women being shut up in this context. But you did. How revealing. It appears you're telling on yourself once again.
"To all those whiney, griping, female complainers: ya'll stop being such meanies! Be nice for once to poor Phil. He only wants to wank in the stall next to you. What are you griping about. Shut up and listen to your betters!" That's your comment up above right? You didn't get hacked or anything? You left that comment yourself?
I could say the same of you. Please continue to tell on yourself. Who wrote those articles? You did. Classic DARVO bully techniques. Your true colors are shining through. Good luck to you.
I have bullied no one. I have refused to be bullied.
Speaking of lazy readers, if anyone can summarize what this is about this lazy reader would greatly appreciate it. Who does the flowerman figure represent?
Stay tuned tomorrow.
Matt is being careful not to name names. As he says, if someone complains that they are being misrepresented, then we will know they think they are being described! The point is calling out behaviors which many people might engage in, not naming particular people who are falling short of constructive action and instead just getting in the way of those actually DOING what needs to be done.
^^^Get a load of this shite! "If you criticize one single thing we do you are getting in our way!!" The AGPs would be proud of that gaslighting.
Admitting a mistake is only the end of the world to a rampant narcissist.
They always tell on themselves. They can't help it.
The message comes down to LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY. Change is not made by people who try to tear down leaders without them being willing to do the work of leading themselves. Those who just criticize are not leading!
Those who shovel BS instead of admitting a simple, understandable oversight are just showing a lack of ego control. Those people had every right to be upset. Not intentionally insensitive on Genspect's part, put it was a bit like sighting David Miscavage at a former Scientologists' event.
You have a test today, Hazel-rah. https://twitter.com/OsborneInk/status/1724310827061137493
We don't need to be a Genspect scholar to know that letting in the AGP was a bad move, Matt-rah.
It's America, Hazel-rah. We don't police people like that in America. If you don't like it then find another country. This one has freedom of association and expression even when we hate it.
No one's questioning their right to make bad choices, just the merit of this choice, Matt-rah.
Almost as insensitive as having the notorious COVID-19 vaccine skeptic and Ivermectin evangelist Heather Heying and the Commie- and groomer-hunter James Lindsay on Genspect's program in Denver. What's going on among the leadership at Genspect that these discredited figures were platformed?
No, I'm not a practitioner of cancel culture nor am I secretly on the payroll of Alex Jones. This is about defending Genspect's reputation and keeping it faithful to its pledge to respect science.
If you wish to debunk Lindsay's scholarship I should like to know where you studied Hegel. I'm sure Heying's opinions on Ivermectin maker her wholly unsuitable to discuss evolutionary biology. Your hatred for them does not make other people hate them. It makes us question why you hate them so much. It makes people think there's something to this Ivermectin thing, maybe.
One thing's for sure, after Covid, trust in science is at an all-time low.
I reserve my hatred for those who deserve it, such as Trump. As I have said repeatedly, Ms. Heying's promotion of dangerous medical conspiracy theories makes her unfit to participate in an event sponsored by an organization that prides itself on following the science. That's not hatred, it's criticism.
When Mr. Lindsay's scholarship has been validated a reputable peer-reviewed journal's acceptance of a paper about Hegel or by his appointment to the faculty of an institution of higher learning where he will specialize in Hegel, I will consider taking him seriously.
In any case, it's Mr. Lindsay's embrace of the canard known as cultural Marxism that I take issue with. The most nuanced and sophisticated analysis of cultural Marxism I have come across in a sea of partisan publications is Russell Blackford's 2015 two-parter in The Conversation titled: "Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars." https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299
Professor Blackwell is currently a Conjoint Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences at the University of Newcastle in Australia.
I have greater confidence in Professor Blackwell's scholarship than I do Mr. Linsday's.
Having seen Academia, I would point out that serious work is not always published in journals, it is actually expected in some fields (such as Economics or Law) for the major debates to happen in blog posts.
As someone unfortunately familiar with Communist theory, I think that Lindsay's focus on Hegel and the link to the ancient Gnostics is misguided because tries to trace a causal connection to what may be independently evolved but such speculation is quite definitely part of the iterative nature of historical research. He makes his case, it gets debated, and might be accepted or dismissed. Henri Pirenne was controversial for his claims about the Islamic conquests cutting off trade to Western Europe resulting in an economic collapse but he has since been mostly vindicated by archeology.
Lindsay seems very off-the-cuff but he is not deviating much from actual academic practice. He is simply picking a different audience and set of ideas.
While Lindsay likes the term "Cultural Marxism", that is not an unreasonable description for the evolution of ideas in the Troskyite deviationists in the West. The observations by Gramsci that the class identity was subsumed by the cultural identity (hence the Fascists in Italy having more appeal than the Communists) hotly debated in non-Stalinist Socialist circles including the heirs of Trotsky such as Adorno and others. Lindsay is correct in pointing out the role of Trotskyites in the formation of the precursor ideologies to Wokeness (such as Crenshaw and Davis for Intersectionality).
Some people dismiss the concept of Cultural Marxisim because it looks similar to the old Red Scare in the 1950s but, as someone who studied Western reactions to the USSR can point out, there were a lot of Pro-Soviet intellectuals in Western Europe and the US at the time. They didn't disappear when Khrushchev gave his Stalin speech, they gravitated to cultural causes rather than directly fighting for the USSR. Utopian instincts continued to be applied albeit without the grounding of an actual country to focus on.
Ultimately, one may dispute calling the adepts of Adorno or Gramsci "Communists" since the falling away of class as the basis of their oppressor-oppressed dichotomy but the origins certainly earned that label.
Time for us to grow out of the moral landscapes of a 7-year-old. Here's a hint: people are almost never all-good or all-bad, and never agree with you 100% of the time, and may well be your strong ally on one issue while being your implacable foe on another.
Only Champagne Partisans care about their image more than their effectiveness. Are you a Champagne Partisan, Ollie? Do you fall for BS guilt-by-association arguments? Do you have any idea how many issues you are in agreement with pedophiles about? Does it not concern you????
You seem to know me better than I know myself. I won't dignify your abusive comments with a response.
I would have thought that obvious. No spoilers, though.
Brilliant.
His point IIRC is that puberty blockers are so bad we might as well skip to X-sex hormones. Which might even be true, if someone is determined to do a medical experiment on kids, but yeah, it's not going to fly and it isn't what Genspect advises. Someone should vet any books before they are recommended. If I can help in that regard I shall volunteer.