But what, I hear you ask, could possibly go wrong? || “I worship myself.” || You have to rotate the ‘w’. || Today’s word is irony. (h/t, DC) || Racism detected. || Christmas lights of note. || For Kubrick enthusiasts. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. || Big cat music. || I was previously unfamiliar with this concept. || The thrill of fondling state-of-the-art sex toys. (NSFW) || Tiddler detected. || Sharks versus the internet. || Assorted slow-motion microbes. || Glassware of note. || The thrill of Geocities. || She doesn’t look the type. See also. And inevitably. || Trade of note. (h/t, Samizdata) || Challenge accepted. || Today’s other word is snugness. A debate ensues. || And finally, “I was the snowflake consultant for the movie Frozen.”

The bill for gassing, that is. The last one for the year.

Because, yes, ‘tis time to remind patrons that this rickety barge, on whose seating your arses rest, is kept afloat by the kindness of strangers. If you’d like to help it remain buoyant a while longer, and remain ad-free, there are buttons in the sidebar with which to monetise any love. Debit and credit cards are accepted. For those wishing to express their love regularly, there’s a monthly subscription option top left. And if one-click haste is called for, my PalPay.Me page can be found here. Additionally, any Amazon UK shopping done via this link or the search widget top right, or for Amazon US via this link, results in a small fee for your host at no extra cost to you.

So shop ye. Shop ye like the wind.

For newcomers wishing to know more about what’s been going on here for the last decade and a half, in over 3,000 posts and over 130,000 comments, the reheated series is a pretty good place to start – in particular, the end-of-year-summaries, which convey the fullest flavour of what it is we do. A sort of blog concentrate. If you like what you find there… well, there’s lots more of that.

If you can, do take a moment to poke through the discussion threads too. The posts are intended as starting points, not full stops, and the comments are where much of the good stuff is waiting to be found. And do please join in.

As always, thanks for the support, the comments, and the company.

Now share ye links and bicker.

In juvenile detention, she would write “really radical raps” that rattled her supervisors.

Why, yes, I am reading the Guardian. Where the paper’s Janine Israel is positively gushing over aboriginal rapper Barkaa and her “politically potent” music.

The Malyangapa Barkindji woman… is on the verge of releasing her debut EP, Blak Matriarchy,

You know you want to.

Based in south-west Sydney, Barkaa takes her moniker from the Barkindji word for the Darling River. She comes across as warm and humble,

Warm and humble. An interesting choice of words. And followed almost immediately by:

Earlier this year she played the Sydney Opera House forecourt, the lights of the harbour stretched out before her as she performed her song Bow Down: “They used to look down on me / Look who’s looking up now. Bow down.”

Regarding said ditty, our mistress of the surly pose and monotonous loop informs us,

Bow Down is one of my favourite tracks to perform because a lot of people growing up [were like]: ‘Oh you’re not going to be much, you’re just going to be a lowlife, you’re just going to be a junkie, you’re not going to get anywhere, you’re just going to be in and out of prison.’ It’s kind of like: middle fingers up to them.

Same article, seconds earlier:

Born Chloe Quayle, the 26-year-old rapper was a former teenage ice addict who did three stints in jail – during her last, five years ago, she gave birth to her third child.

Despite three children, no father, or fathers, are mentioned. Well. Perhaps we should move on.

Error detected. || The thrill of asteroids. || Some rumination on fries. || Fortune favours the bold. || He was indeed a big chap. || The joys of public transport, part 4,021. || Simple party secrets. || Plenty of meat on that one. || Those poor darling rapists and paedophiles. || Please report to the correct processing space. || The progressive retail experience, parts 405, 406 and 407. || The thrill of plankton. || Pillow fight. || Woke scholarship. || “That perfect middle.” || The patriarchy trembles. (h/t, Mr Muldoon) || Just one more time. || Motoring scenes. || Motoring scenes 2. || Salvation, you say? || Encouraging sounds. || Signage of note. || Safety first. || And finally, festively, one for the Christmas list.

Noah Carl ponders wokeness and women: 

So, why would the influx of women into academia have contributed to its leftward shift, and to the rise of woke activism in particular? As the psychologist Cory Clark notes, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men, and consistently more supportive of censorship. Compared to men, they’re more likely to say: that hate speech is violence; that it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker; that controversial scientific findings should be censored; that people need to be more careful about the language they use; and that it should be illegal to say offensive things about minorities…

Women are disproportionately represented in Grievance Studies (i.e., disciplines like Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory), which are often little more than a vehicle for left-wing activism… Almost 80% of bachelor’s degrees in “Ethnic, Gender, and Cultural Studies” are awarded to women… [Academia’s left-wing skew] appears to be greater among female academics than among male ones. In a 2016 paper, Mitchell Langbert and colleagues analysed voter registration data on approximately 4,000 US academics. As the table below indicates, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was “only” 9:1 among men, but it was almost 25:1 among women.

Thanks to Mark Horowitz and colleagues, we also have detailed surveys from two of the most left-leaning disciplines: sociology and anthropology. The table below shows the proportion of male versus female sociologists (from a sample of 479) who agreed and disagreed with various items. Compared to men, women were more likely to say that “Sociology should be both a scientific and moral enterprise,” and that “Sociology should analyse and transcend oppression.” They were less likely to say that “More political conservatives would benefit [the] discipline,” and that “Advocacy and research should be separate for objectivity.”

Needless to say, there are links and charts aplenty.

Update, via the comments, which you’re reading of course: 

Some ladies of the left aren’t happy about Mr Carl’s article. Apparently, he could only have written it because he’s “intimidated by intelligent women.” At least, according to a woman who seemingly didn’t find it necessary to read the piece that she’s dismissing, or to rebut any of its particulars, even in passing. As intelligent women do, of course. I’ve yet to see a substantive reply. So far, there’s been lots of glib, self-flattering toss about how noticing certain things can only be explained by a fear of women, or a hatred of them, some rather dishonest attempts at reputational sabotage, and rumblings about the alleged “fragility” of the “straight white male.”

More “equity” news from the world of Canadian high-school teachers, where pretending is everything, and acknowledging reality will result in agitation and possibly punishment:

On Monday, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation announced that their rules would be changed so that each non-white union member would have his/her vote weighted more than white members.

There are instructional slides and everything. It’s all very jolly.

Attendees were assured that they were “eliminating racism” by endorsing a policy that is itself unambiguously racist and in which one’s leverage very much depends on the colour of one’s skin. You see, building woke utopia requires a little contortion.

Note that objections to the policy were denounced by scrupulously progressive educators, including local union president Cindy Gage, as “harassment” and “harmful language,” and thereby a basis for disciplinary action. To point out that the policy in question is explicitly racist against people with pale skin is, we’re told, “offensive” and “not acceptable.” Those who objected, on grounds of disliking racism, were subsequently accused of “privilege,” which in this case seems to mean an ability to recognise the glaringly obvious.

Please adjust your files and lifestyles accordingly.

Update, via the comments, where [+] quips,

Today’s word is madhouse.

Well, indeed. Readers are invited to imagine working in a supposedly highbrow environment, among supposedly clever people, in which politely pointing out a basic logical and moral error – one resulting in actual institutional racism, as opposed to the imaginary kind – results in gasps of indignation, accusations of “harassment,” and many of your peers reporting you for “privilege” and “harmful language,” with a view to getting you punished in some way. And then being told that your intent, however clear and carefully articulated, has absolutely no bearing on whether you’ll be found guilty. It’s positively surreal.

But it does, I think, offer a glimpse into the strange, unhappy world of woke psychology.

Is this scene here, I wonder, what’s meant by “class war”?

As noted before, more than once, if someone’s go-to solution, every time, is to impose on others, to harass and bully random people, effectively trapping them, while feeling enormously self-satisfied about their own imagined radicalism – and while clearly titillated by the ability to dominate – then this tells us very little about any purported issue. It’s a moral non sequitur and rather like saying, “I’m troubled by the plight of the Javan rhinoceros, so I’m going to start spitting at the elderly and keying random cars, and then boast about it.” It does, however, tell us what vain and spiteful tossers these creatures are. And how low a priority their wellbeing should be.

Also, open thread. You know the drill.

Romanian scenes. || The baby-repelling properties of grass. || Perfect every time. || Exactly how should we perceive you, madam? || The progressive retail experience, parts 401, 402, 403 and 404. || Classing the place up no end. || “I’ve decided to dissolve my wiener in acid.” || An educator speaks: “We have to find a way to re-regulate white people.” || The walking dead. || What cotton buds are for. || “The covert world of spy centres and secret bases.” (h/t, Things) || That’s exactly how I would’ve done it. || It seemed like a good idea at the time. (h/t, Damian) || One month of the Sun. || Stalker, thwarted. || A bathroom tale. || Turning back time. || And finally, enticingly, “I’m working on a children’s book…”

Via the comments:

I just want to let glit know that thon is valid, that vir pronouns are valid, and that seir identity is valid.

Cody wishes to educate you about what is valid.

And must therefore be respected. Indiscriminately, it seems. When not talking about her mental health issues and visits to psychiatrists – and, of course, talking about herself, or themself, repeatedly and at length – our non-binary being tells us that,

The times I feel most masculine are, like, when I’m wearing heels and in full make-up.

Not entirely unrelated: You will include your pronouns, or your grades will suffer. 

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Still laid low by this damned bug, so this week you’ll be throwing together your own pile of links and oddities in the comments. However, being heroic, I’ll set the ball rolling with a rock-stacking simulator; some near misses; an inopportune twang; someone taking things literally; the thrill of an educator’s pretty nails; and how to tell you’re in San Francisco.

Oh, and I guess this is good to know.