Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Politics Popular culture

Come on, Jeffrey Tucker and Great Barrington Declaration, just admit you were wrong

In response to an article praising Taylor Swift, Jeffrey Tucker demands that Peggy Noonan “admit she was wrong” about COVID-19. Hilarity ensues.

If there’s one constant characteristic of conspiracy theorists and cranks, it’s that they crave, almost above all else, validation. Actually, strike that. The crave, above all else, validation. They want to be proven right so badly that they constantly demand that “they” (the ones behind the conspiracy and/or their critics) “admit that they were wrong.” Failing that, they like to fantasize about a future time, when they have been utterly vindicated and, as a result, are able to exact “justice”—in actuality, retribution—on their enemies, the former I like to refer to as the fantasy of future vindication and the latter the fantasy of future retribution. You see examples of the latter, in particular, in the antivax fantasy of “Nuremberg 2.0,” in which “they”—doctors, public health officials, the CDC, the FDA, Anthony Fauci, you know, everyone antivaxxers hate—will be brought to trial for their “crimes” and then punishment meted out in the form of prison or execution by hanging, or even the guillotine. True, sometimes antivaxxers will magnanimously say that they will offer “forgiveness” or “amnesty,” but they will only “accept our surrender,” so to speak, if we science and vaccine advocates publicly “admit we were wrong.”

guillotine
The Internet is forever, Mr. Tucker.

Such were the thoughts percolating through my synapses when I came across an article on the Brownstone Institute website by Jeffery Tucker entitled Come On, Peggy Noonan, Just Say You Were Wrong. The Brownstone Institute, as you might recall, is the “spiritual child of the Great Barrington Declaration” (GBD), which in October 2020 called for a “natural herd immunity” approach to the pandemic, with poorly defined “focused protection” to keep vulnerable people (such as the elderly) safe.

Widespread embrace of GBD-like strategies ultimately devastated public health. Based on the dubious idea that COVID-19 is basically harmless to young, healthy people and that “natural herd immunity” was even achievable, the Great Barrington Declaration was an ideological document that basically advocated eugenics, a “let ‘er rip” approach to the pandemic, in which the supposedly young and healthy would just catch a bad cold and the elderly and those with chronic health problems that rendered them most susceptible to severe disease and death from COVID-19 apparently consigned to indefinite lockdown in the name of “focused protection.” It was an approach that never would have worked given the practicalities and, more importantly, because “natural herd immunity” requires lifelong (or at least very long-lasting) postinfection immunity as a prerequisite to be even possible, something not true of COVID-19, as evidenced by successive waves of immune-evading variants of SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, the one Brownstone flack has even implicitly admitted—without actually outright admitting—that the GBD never would have worked.

In any event, with the promise that the GBD could achieve herd immunity within six months in tatters more than three years after it was released, Mr. Tucker’s post was a good reminder to me that, when it comes to cranks, every accusation is an admission, starting right with the first paragraph of his article:

The answer to the question “Will they ever admit to being wrong?” is of course: no. I’m speaking in particular of the architects of the lockdown and mandate policies that wrecked the rights and liberties of billions worldwide. 

Now they want to pretend like it never happened or that someone else is responsible. And they do this even as they hammer out policies and treaties that normalize that exact response – ok some tweaks here and there – in the future, while forging institutions that crush dissent. 

Those people we know about. They are rather hopeless. 

Here, Mr. Tucker, let me rephrase that for you:

The answer to the question “Will they ever admit to being wrong?” is of course: no. I’m speaking in particular of the architects of the “natural herd immunity” plus “focused protection” approach to the pandemic and policies that wrecked the health of billions worldwide. 

Now they want to pretend like it never happened or that someone else is responsible. And they do this even as they hammer out policies and treaties that normalize that exact response – ok some tweaks here and there – in the future, while forging institutions that crush dissent. 

Those people we know about. They are rather hopeless. 

Indeed they are, just like Mr. Tucker, who, recall, was arguably the architect of the GBD, having brought the three scientists who wrote it together, back when he still worked for the right wing “free market” think thank American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Now that it is clear that “natural herd immunity” was always impossible given the mutability of the coronavirus and how short-lived even postinfection immunity is, what does Mr. Tucker do? He constantly doubles down and paints himself the victim, even though GBD-aligned scientists and advocates had access to the highest levels of government in 2020 and were very influential in promoting policies that looked very much like the GBD—or at least nothing like the draconian “lockdowns” that Mr. Tucker likes to perseverate about, even though they were never as dramatic or prolonged as he claims.

Now here’s the amusing part of his reaction to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peggy Noonan. Note that I do not have a WSJ subscription and therefore only have access to the parts that Mr. Tucker quotes. It doesn’t actually matter that much anyway, but I always do like to read the original article deconstructed by someone else, just to make sure that someone like Mr. Tucker is not misrepresenting it. In this case, here’s what set Mr. Tucker off:

This comes to mind because of an effusive and even absurdist article by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. It was about how and why Taylor Swift is the greatest thing America has to offer. The language here is intentionally over the top and she knows it. It’s a fun way to write. I know this because I used to write this way all the time, celebrating the glories of vending machine chicken salad or the McDonald’s cheese stick or what have you. 

My argument here is not with the hyperbole as such. The problem comes deep into the article where she says the following: “Downtowns across the country—uniquely battered by the pandemic and the riots and demonstrations of 2020—are, while she is there, brought to life, with an influx of visitors and a local small business boom. Wherever she went it was like the past three years didn’t happen.”

Now you might read this and think: So Peggy Noonan likes Taylor Swift and is amazed at her power to inject lots of cash into locations where her concert tour stops, such that it seems to make people forget the pandemic had happened? If so, you wouldn’t be Jeffery Tucker, who is mightily offended by this single phrase “uniquely battered by the pandemic”:

Battered by the pandemic? Seriously? The pathetic pathogen never closed a single business, school, church, country club, arts theater, mall, stadium or public park. Governments did that, on the advice of crazed experts who pushed for this nonsense with no concern for public well-being. Media got involved cheering the lockdowns and denouncing anyone who doubted their glories. Big Tech censored dissident voices. 

Noonan could have fixed that sentence with the addition of one word: response. The pandemic response. It would be easy enough to type that word. Sure, that’s a bit lame but at least it is accurate. 

So tendentiously persnickety is Mr. Tucker that he can’t accept that to most people the term “the pandemic” is shorthand for the COVID-19 pandemic and, yes, everything associated with with the pandemic, everything that happened because of it. You know that. I know that, but Mr. Tucker has a point to make! Of course, he’s also full of crap that SARS-CoV-2 “never closed a single business.” True, businesses were closed temporarily by government orders, but a lot of business owners also decided on their own that it wasn’t safe to stay open and decided to close their businesses themselves. You’ll never see Mr. Tucker rant against such business owners, however; rather, he’ll still find a way to blame the government.

In fact, given the outbreaks in, say, meat packing plants, one could argue that government policy didn’t go far enough, with governments seemingly willing to do something that Mr. Tucker very much appears to approve of given his political leanings: Sacrificing working class individuals to keep industry working. After all, that was the essence of the GBD, sacrificing the working class so that corporations could keep making money and people like Mr. Tucker were not unduly inconvenienced, damn the cost. After all, even if it is true that SARS-CoV-2 is a lot less dangerous to younger people than it is to the elderly, that is not to say that it is not at all dangerous to younger people, and we have many deaths among them to demonstrate that.

After attacking Ms. Noonan some more for being among the “panic mongers who thought the lockdowns, masks, and vaccine mandates were just fine” and because she had referred to COVID-19 vaccines when they rolled out as a “human and scientific miracle” (which was accurate), Mr. Tucker writes:

Ok, Peggy, we get it. You bought all the propaganda. Many did. We corresponded at the time and it was very cordial…until you realized that I was on the anti-lockdown side. It didn’t matter after that whatever evidence I presented to you that the government was up to no good. I sent link after link and was very friendly. 

At that point, you stopped replying, despite having many mutual friends. I was not being antagonistic. I was simply hoping that you would get ahead of the curve. You didn’t want to get ahead of the curve. You wanted to thread the needle of opinion very carefully. 

Interesting. So Mr. Tucker is really annoyed that Ms. Noonan ignored his arguments or found them wanting. It sounds like more of a personal beef than anything else. Still, none of this stops Mr. Tucker from deciding to generalize his annoyance that one pundit, Ms. Noonan, didn’t find his brilliance as brilliant as he did to the entire press:

I cannot say that I fully understand this way of thinking. But this much is clear: Peggy is hardly alone. Nearly every writer in every venue talks this way. Finally, the media is talking about ill-health, learning loss, shut businesses, demoralized population, angry voters, loss of trust, inflation, you name it. Finally there is talk about all of this.

But universally, the prattle is the same. It’s always the pandemic, never the government’s response.

  • “9 Ways the Pandemic May Have Led to Precocious Puberty” ~ Psychology Today
  • “Kids Played Team Sports Less In 2022 Than Before Covid-19 Pandemic” ~ Forbes
  • “Walking trips fall sharply in Portland post-pandemic” ~ Axios
  • “Mesilla restaurant owner navigates pandemic recovery” ~ Fox
And so on it goes, as if to wipe out the history of the worst public health policy in the history of humanity. Plenty of people want to do that. Certainly most governments in the world would like that. Regardless, pundits should not help them. Even if they were wrong in the past, nothing is stopping them from admitting the truth now.

Remember, Mr. Tucker’s preferred response to the pandemic would have been to do basically nothing. Oh, sure, the GBD talked about “focused protection,” but, as I discussed above, never really defined it or explained how we would have protected the vulnerable when a highly contagious respiratory virus was spreading unchecked throughout the rest of the population. As many have pointed out, it’s not as though we could have just locked these people up in bubbles indefinitely. Basically, Mr. Tucker’s preferred policies would have been no policies at all, regardless of the death toll.

Of course, to justify such a lack of public health response, it is necessary to believe that the virus itself is not any more dangerous than a bad cold and that, in essence, nothing should be done about it other than to let ‘er rip. To Mr. Tucker and GBD ideologues, keeping the economy humming along is far more important than many millions of additional cases of COVID-19 and many thousands, perhaps millions, of additional deaths among “useless eaters” (i.e., the elderly and those with chronic diseases that make them more susceptible to severe disease, disability, and death from COVID-19). Think I’m being harsh? I don’t. Again, the GBD was a eugenicist document from the start, and neo-Confederate Mr. Tucker has been its chief propagandist, having gone so far as to form a new “institute” that he had explicitly called the GBD’s “spiritual child.”

As such, for him, every accusation is an admission, especially his conclusion:

Truly, these writers discredit themselves with their contorted attempts to pretend that the microbial kingdom and not government itself is responsible for disaster. 

The truth is nonetheless getting out there, even if you cannot read about it often in mainstream news. We have to get this history correct. Everything depends on it. 

Mr. Tucker discredited himself long ago by having facilitated the GBD, which claimed that, if we just did essentially nothing, the virus would spread through the young and healthy, who would only be briefly inconvenienced with a severe cold, and thereby magically result in “natural herd immunity” for all. The very assumptions behind the GBD, in particular the assumption that “natural herd immunity” was even possible for a virus that mutated to produce within months variants capable of evading postinfection immunity from prior variants, were always very wrong. However, you will never see Mr. Tucker admit that.

Truly, for cranks every accusation is a confession, and what they crave above all is vindication, even if they have to lie and say that they’ve been vindicated when they have not.

Finally, I realize that I could probably have put Taylor Swift’s name in the title and then SEO’ed this post up the wazoo to seem to be about Taylor Swift, thereby likely bringing in much more traffic. However, I am above such considerations. A little, even. Well, I did include a picture of Taylor Swift as the featured image. I’m not completely above base considerations of traffic and clicks.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

75 replies on “Come on, Jeffrey Tucker and Great Barrington Declaration, just admit you were wrong”

I don’t see you mentioning Tucker’s casual sexism, FWIW. One aspect of that is always referring to a woman as their first name, or a nickname, rather than “Ms. Name”. For instance, you refer to him as “Mr. Tucker” and not “Jeff”. He refers to Noonan (in your quote) as “Peggy”. I am absolutely certain this was not a deliberate act on his (or your) part, of course. (I see this a lot in comments about Dr. Susan Oliver’s videos–the pro-disease activists always call her “Susan”.)

That is a good point. However, to some extent my calling Tucker “Mr. Tucker” is also a dig that emphasizes that, his pontifications on medicine, public health, and science aside, he is not a physician or scientist.

I do note that when you referred to her, you used either “Peggy Noonan” or “Ms. Noonan.” Not just first name.

But yes, the name usages are glaring in many contexts. It’s really common on panels. Men get introduced and addressed as “Doctor” or “professor” so and so, women by first names.

Orac didn’t miss much by not being able to read the entire Peggy Noonan column. It’s the most nauseatingly fawning piece she’s written since before the 2016 election when she was all agog about the Donald Trump phenomenon. In short, Taylor Swift is in the class of Elvis and the Beatles, has single-handedly rejuvenated the American economy and makes everyone glad to be alive. As Nero Wolfe might have said, Pfui.

Tucker: “I sent link after link and was very friendly.”

“At that point, you stopped replying”

That sounds very much like antivax conspiracy theorists who complain about how their relatives ignore their warnings, and they don’t get invited to holiday gatherings any more. 🙁

Orac didn’t need to put her name in the title of the post:
her enraptured thralls and PR department probably do searches for recent images daily so at least some traffic will be directed his way.
Actually, I’ve encountered legitimate news people include song titles in their posts/ intros to pull in fans.

Because Orac knows music I can imagine his take on her product so I’ll also leave my own opinion out because I venture that readers can guess knowing my background in psychology and being a feminist.

“I venture that readers can guess knowing my background in psychology and being a feminist.”

A leftist and feminist? Then you will not have Taylor Swift’s appearance.

So you only care about a woman’s appearance, and not her intelligence. Good to know.

I am a retired aerospace engineer (so now you know I am over sixty years old). Early in my career a co-worker called me “sweetie” on a phone call. I politely asked him to not call me that. He was offended and asked what he should call me. I simply said he should call me “Chris” because that is my name.

Was that you? Obviously not, since you would not know the difference between an eigenvalue and an eigenvector.

“So you only care about a woman’s appearance, and not her intelligence.”

Wished it was that simple.

“I am a retired aerospace engineer (so now you know I am over sixty years old). Early in my career a co-worker called me “sweetie” on a phone call. I politely asked him to not call me that. He was offended and asked what he should call me. I simply said he should call me “Chris” because that is my name.
Was that you? Obviously not, since you would not know the difference between an eigenvalue and an eigenvector.”

@ Denice
The spontaneous responses of Chris, Orac and Lawrence may be interpreted as an assistance, a protection even. No need for feminism with them around.

Tucker and the Brownstone Institute wanted to prevent millions of people from ever leaving their homes again. The state of Massachusetts limited my travel for a few months, but never as strictly as Tucker’s “focused protection” would have required. And he claims to be defending my freedom?!

“Uncalled for”? “Misogynistic”?

And all I said was “A leftist and feminist? Then you will not have Taylor Swift’s appearance.”
I don’t know about Denice’s appearance. And perhaps she isn’t much of a leftist.

But fact remains fact: the typical leftist woman – pray she’s not a feminist leftist – typically just isn’t.. what I’m not allowed to say. Nevertheless can be noticed everywhere. And since Denice wrote about her background in psychology, perhaps she has an explanation for the phenomenon.
Can we say that perhaps leftism is genotypical? Or is it that the phenotype has been distorted by leftism? Wth is going on?
And a bit off topic, what’s the explanation for the typical lecturing übermensch attitude of so many m/f leftists?

Btw, nothing wrong with a bit of feminism, it’s just that leftist feminism / feminist leftism will stand for what we notice even more.

Initially not much more then just a remark about the striking consistency between a typical leftwing woman and the likely appearance.
Question remains the logic behind the phenomenon. Would you have an explanation?

Btw not ad hominem to Denice.
The way she treats the less popular at this forum advocates for her. And a sympathetic woman has beauty by default.

he striking consistency between a typical leftwing woman and the likely appearance.

which doesn’t exist anywhere outside the small mind of a right wing bigot and misogynist.

It’s easy: right-wing authoritarians like lucas don’t view women as people, only objects (he’s demonstrated that before, as has igor). It comes out most strongly when they’re dealing with strong women who speak their minds instead of simply repeating things men say “as they should do”.

Why bother rebutting Orac when someone on another thread has already done such an excellent job. Thank you, ‘Potnoy Bliss’!

Orac, give it up already. The level of intellectual dishonesty you assert calls into question who/what you represent, and why. But, that’s besides the point.

Your post is the definitive example of a straw man argument. The straw man is GBD. It’s a straw man because of the massive, obvious elephant in the room, and laughably obvious hole in your premise about GBD….you have zero proof ..ZERO … to prove….even infer….that the non-GBD policies foisted on the public to manage COVID worked. We have copious proof of the disaster of those policies….the social/developmental/scholastic implications on locked down children; the disasterous financial results on the economy….which the same geniuses who locked down the economy decided printing a tillion of new debt was a good way to fix the economic destruction wrought by the “non GBD” approach. The inflation we now face was directly caused by the disasterous , unnecessary lockdown policy. How about the destruction of once great cities like New York and San Fran, thanks to the lock downs.

Despite these self evident and obvious facts about the fruits of the “non GBD” approach….you offer not one iota of proof as to how the “non GBD” approach worked….let alone was better than the “GBD” approach. Basically the idea of your assertion is, as was the case with the incompetents in charge , “I’m the expert, so shut up”. I challenge you Orac….show one study….anything….that proves or even highly suggests that the “non GBD” approach “worked” as in changed the trajectory of the COVID virus. Put a link out for such proof….double dog dare you. You won’t, because you can’t. Hence why, as a perfect leftist tactic, you employ derogatory labels to describe the wrong thinkers…notably “eugenicists” ….of course, you can’t show any proof the “non GBD” approach did anything good, so, of course, make the other side look abhorrent.

The most hillarious aspect of your post is your lament about the impact on public health….for you to wallow in the BS you wallow in, shows you lack even a smidgen of self awareness. You are 100% right that one of the worst casualties of the pandemic is the credibility of public health institutions.

But that lack of credibility is well earned….since public health “experts”, like you, refuse to admit to the incredible destruction caused by your “expert opines”…and, the fact “experts”, like you, lack proof of just about anything, yet you remain disturbingly self righteous. Maybe the fact COVID rapidly morphed into nothing more than a cold for just about everyone, yet “experts” like you insisted on pointless, destructive measures for months has something to do with why the public doesn’t trust public health “experts” (like you).

All that said, I am not asserting the GBD approach was “good” or “bad”. My point is, you got nothing in terms of data to prove the approach unleashed on the US did anything beneficial.

Oh, no! An antivaxxer has mastered “cut and paste” technology. Whatever will Big-“Prevent-Children-Dying” do? (other than point and laugh, of course)

“Why bother rebutting Orac when someone on another thread has already done such an excellent job. Thank you, ‘Potnoy Bliss’!”

If your idea of refutation is ‘nuh uh’.

You coul compare COVID deaths in a country that follopwed GBD policy (Sweden) to country that did not (Finland).
Sweden was much helped by fact that it neighbours did not follow GDB.

“Of course, he’s also full of crap that SARS-CoV-2 “never closed a single business.” True, businesses were closed temporarily by government orders”
I also imagine more than a few business closed because their owner died, so the virus would be directly responsible for those.

“Closed due to staff illness” wasn’t exactly rare here over the last couple of winters.
Similarly we had schools (here in NZ) that were rostering year levels home because so many staff were off with covid.

I went fishing for a fan base and only got a basic contrarian.

I stated what many people are thinking:
a performer catalogues symptoms as song content which revolve around whom she is pursuing, involved with or rejected by- usually the same person- AND gets legions of girls and women to buy multiple copies of her product, vastly enriching her YET she identifies as a feminist.
That’s a fit topic for both psychologists and feminists.
Appearance is only the icing on the cake.

I was hoping a significant number of fans would comment affecting Orac’s traffic and providing fodder for DB et al.

“Appearance is only the icing on the cake.”
In your opinion there’s no relation between character and appearance?

As an exercise, Lucas, why don’t you list the things that influence someone’s appearance? See if you can find more than the one you’ve latched on to.

I stated what many people are thinking:
a performer catalogues symptoms as song content which revolve around whom she is pursuing, involved with or rejected by- usually the same person- AND gets legions of girls and women to buy multiple copies of her product,

I’ve always thought of her music as bubble gum pop, but the kind of bubble gum that people stick on the bottom of park benches.

Harsh? Probably. I’ve reached the age where I don’t really care

@ldw56old

“It’s easy: right-wing authoritarians like lucas”

By your previous definition I was a libertarian. So this is the typical how it suits you again.
But no, not right-wing and by all means not left-wing. Politics is for the impressionable that are fooled a life long. And that need a group for identification and confirmation.

“don’t view women as people, only objects (he’s demonstrated that before, as has igor).”

And still I have no answer to my simple question. And we all observe it.

“It comes out most strongly when they’re dealing with strong women who speak their minds instead”

Let the strong women speak then. Denice, your 50 cents?

Have a look at our Raisa Blommestijn in an interview as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pISlcmLbeHU&t=2s
Or have a look at our Eva Vlaardingerbroek in another interview (about a.o. feminism) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQp6_pv8fq4
Both intelligent, ‘strong’ women, just like Denice. Just a glance and it’s obvious they’re NOT not the typical leftist. Open and fresh expression, above-board.
Now, for what reason does the ‘icing on the cake’ usually phenotypically differ so much between these leftists and the rest of the population? Iow, what’s wrong with them that it so clearly shows off? You tell me.

By your previous definition I was a libertarian. So this is the typical how it suits you again.

Scratch a libertarian, and nine times out of ten you’ll find a fascist underneath, as I like to say.

I said these women clearly aren’t leftists and this is correct. I do not know what exactly is your message here?

I guess you are the extremist if you position someone like Eva next to Adolf the painter (who btw was an extreme leftist, like we discussed before). How dare you?
Eva doesn’t hate feminism at all, Renate. She’s against ‘modern feminism’ as far as it has “fallen under the spell of cultural-marxism. Yuk! The woman is right here, Renate.

Not that I’m following her, but what I’ve heard her say wasn’t extreme and isn’t specific right-wing rhethoric. What have I missed?
I don’t think she is the hating kind at all, Renate. She is much too friendly to be hateful. Please show me where she demonstrates hate against other human beings. You made me curious.

Hitler was just a leftist in your weird mind. If Hitler was a leftist, I suppose Thierry Baudet is leftist as well.

…Adolf the painter (who btw was an extreme leftist, like we discussed before).

Nope. As was pointed out, the Nazis were NOT leftists. They lied about being socialist. In fact, Nazism was a flavour of Fascism.

“By your previous definition I was a libertarian. ”

There is no difference between modern libertarians and right wing authoritarians: both groups embrace people like you: unable/unwilling to learn, dismissive of any data that shows they are wrong, racist, misogynist, and habitual liars. Your asinine assertion of personal views and your opinion of what constitutes attractiveness is no surprise for your ilk: a purely fictional relationship between two things that are, in reality, unrelated. But, since you can use it to dismiss women bold enough to speak out and prove your views wrong, you use it.

You are truly a despicable person — but that’s been clear for a long time.

“There is no difference between modern libertarians and right wing authoritarians”

Crap. Libertarianism is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while authoritarianism is defined as the opposite: the belief that authority should be obeyed.
Why don’t you think before you write?

“both groups embrace people like you”

Good for them but I embrace none of both. That’s called neutrality. Consider it too, ldw.

“Your asinine assertion of personal views and your opinion of what constitutes attractiveness is no surprise for your ilk: a purely fictional relationship between two things that are, in reality, unrelated.”

Attractiveness is reasonably objective, ldw. If you want a discussion on beauty – in nature in general or specifically women – I’m yours. Who knows an Industrial Designer can learn from a Mathematician (well this should be since math plays a role in the design of organisms).

No ldw, the relationship is there. So far no one but you denies this, even the women here don’t.
Now why don’t you proof / show the opposite with that big mouth of yours? Millions of women on the www, so easy to search for some typical leftist women with an attractive appearance and let us know who you found. LGB alphabet women (usually typical leftists as well (!)) being much worse. Why the appearance if it’s all sound what they stand for?
Never given it a thought, ldw? Something doesn’t add up, feel free to find out what that is or as usual stick your head in the sand.

“No ldw, the relationship is there.”

No surprise, the misogynist low-life sticks to his fictional belief.
Your devotion to your ignorant beliefs, denial of history, and hard core denial of facts is strong. Not things decent people would be proud of, but you’ve shown yourself to be far from a decent person.

@Orac

“Scratch a libertarian, and nine times out of ten you’ll find a fascist underneath, as I like to say.”

As usual the list swells with each post that isn’t much appreciated. Where’s the racist joker?

Oh I don’t know Orac, fascism is against liberalism for the greater part. But turn it around and you might not be so wrong that there’s fascists in liberalists. As a generalisation it’s hard to prove the statement, I guess.
I myself don’t like big governments at all, too many restrictions and meddling of governments has a choking effect on freedom; go live in The Netherlands and you already know what I mean.
What’s good here is high taxation, I’m a proponent as it redistributes wealth that otherwise gets too concentrated; you have that problem over there. It doesn’t work in the long run: dissatisfaction, even civil wars broke out sometimes.
Communist equality doesn’t work either: too many freeloaders and corruption everywhere.
Fascism would be a disaster, since it is after owning and controling all of a nation, even the life, the thinking, the feeling. Socialism once in control has turned out to be equal worse or worse, everywhere it landed. I would flee my country for it as it’s damn dangerous.
I do believe however in one ideology with one leader that executes the matters of strategic concern. But this ‘one leader’ being a human opens the door for just another sick minded authoritarian.
Often you wonder how and why still so many get motivated for all these ism’s, academics no exception. Let it go, it leads you to nothing in the end. Get lost with those moron governments. Behave normal and live in peace with your neighbour. Do something for the kids in your area.

@Dorit Reiss

“You’re not actually helping yourself by doubling down on what earned you the criticism above.”

I won’t lose sleep over it.
Ask an intellectual question and you end up with garbage without an answer.
Would I expect any of the leftists admit “Lucas, you’re right (or wrong, whatever) and this is my explanation’? Na. And since so predictable, the bat into the hen house was the goal.

@ldw56old

“”he striking consistency between a typical leftwing woman and the likely appearance.”
which doesn’t exist anywhere outside the small mind of a right wing bigot and misogynist”

Oh come on, are you blind? Or is this the usual denial?
You’re on an island. We all know it exists!

“it’s obvious they’re NOT not the typical leftist. Open and fresh expression, above-board.”

This is reminiscent of Naomi Wolf’s obnoxious habit* of posting photos of women scientists and government officials whose views she hates, in order to sneer at their looks and facial expressions.

I hear that Wolf used to be highly regarded as a feminist. It’s hard to imagine now.

*when she’s not retweeting every virulent antivax crank under the sun.

@ DB:

“.. Naomi Wolf used to be highly regarded as a feminist.”
But even her first book was riddled with inaccuracies as were later attempts including her dissertation – mis-interpreting terminology, citing figures off by orders of magnitude. ( see Wikipedia; The New Republic on her “madness”, etc).

She presents an earth shattering revelation and scrambles to justify it.
On Substack, she declared huge amounts of deaths/ miscarriages/ damages from mRNA vaccines gleaned by her army of “investigators”. More recently, she played psychologist/ sociologist by asserting that, post vaccines/ pandemic mitigation, people have been transformed into “zombies” citing her own observations and the work of a German neuroscientist who claims spike proteins ( from viruses or vaccines) have destroyed their autobiographical memory.

Although she claims “liberal” cred, it seems that the other side has adopted her.

It’s tough to decide on the craziest thing Naomi Wolf has said. There are so many contenders.

“Each time that she declared, usually via Twitter, that Anthony Fauci was Satan, or that children who wore masks had lost the ability to smile, that the vaccines were a “software platform that can receive uploads,” or that she had uncovered a plot by Apple “to deliver vaccines [with] nanopatticles [sic] that let you travel back in time,” ripples of consternation followed.”

http://newrepublic.com/article/175254/naomi-klein-naomi-wolf-doppelganger-journey-unnerving-world

Increasingly I wonder if the explanation for so many new passengers on the crazy train is that Covid infection has the capacity to rewire human brains, even more than toxoplasmosis.

http://sites.dartmouth.edu/dujs/2010/05/30/rewiring-the-brain-insanity-by-parasite/

@Aarno Syvänen

“I guess leftist just a general insult to you. It actual meaning depends on country,”

Indeed it’s an insult! It’s a varnish under which falsity, fakeness, hate, hypocricy and often excess lurks.
People who feel attracted to this are ugly people. And so often this is visible in appearance.

@NumberWang

“As an exercise, Lucas, why don’t you list the things that influence someone’s appearance? See if you can find more than the one you’ve latched on to.”

Good question, but it’s what I left here as a question in the first place. Anyway.
‘Eyes are the mirror of the soul’, eyes often betray who we are. In business and trading you’d better watch the eyes before anything else: unreliability can be read from the face more often then not. A rotten personality hardly ever shows up as a friendly and open facial expression f.e.
I just wrote in a post to Aarno that I tend to identify leftism often as a varnish under which I see falsity, fakeness, hate, hypocricy and excess. And that if we develop / possess such characteristics, it will not make us more attractive: it does likely show up in appearance.
Certainly not all leftists are alike, rediculous to suppose so. But it’s no exception that leftism is used as a tool for such unhealthy purposes as described and if so, how will you prevent it from showing up?

Monozygotic twins raised under different conditions will likely differ in appearance. Which means that we will develop certain physical features because of the choices we make. Who knows typical leftists made choices that set them back in appearance? You tell me, I don’t know.

Another possible explanation is exclusion because of inherited appearance or way of life that might us end up in a group where we feel more accepted (left), leading to a concentration there.

Now it’s your turn.

“Monozygotic twins raised under different conditions will likely differ in appearance. Which means that we will develop certain physical features because of the choices we make.”

Obviously your reasoning is incomplete and it seems you are having trouble with my question. Why else might the twins differ in appearance? How about lack/excess of food/money? Exposure to different physical environments or social structure? All of these can change appearances such as weight, skin condition/colour and tone, clothing choices, hair colour/style, attitude, character and politics.

I’ve grown to expect, shallow reasoning from right wingers because they so often oblige.

Heh. I have no objections to the idea of social influences affecting appearance, just to mindless generalisations. If I said that you can recognise a right winger by the plastic surgery, make-up and the cold, dead eyes of a shark above a sanctimonious, self important sneer, I’d be missing all the gammons. /snark

@ Dr Bruce and NumberWang:

You guys!

Of course beliefs are reflected in appearance: the men pictured in The Guardian article
spend time and money to look like that! **
Concerning she-who-shall-not-be-named ( Orac’s photo)_ no one looks that way naturally: it takes work***.

Do conservative women express stylistic norms that focus upon traditional roles for women? Observing political women, former
Conservative PMs May and Truss have business woman hair as does US VP Harris, a liberal. Nothing outlandish with them.
But if you look at the US Congress: Senator Blackburn and Representatives Boebert and Taylor Greene have what I call actress/ model hair. So do Wolf and the women Lucas linked.

Leftist women may not accept societal norms on how women should appear so they may not want to be ultra thin or “look like a model”. In addition, many may not be straight or white so why would they want to appear so? Interestingly, Wolf’s first book discussed how women and girls starve themselves beautiful- although she got the numbers very wrong.

Men like the leaders shown have wild hair that expresses youth and sexuality although hair loss is actually caused by androgens.

Personally, I suggest the Cate Blanchett solution :
she portrayed Bob Dylan, an androgenous conductor and Queen of the Elves, why shouldn’t we all, if we so choose?

** A plastic surgeon stated that Trump’s hair hides scarring from a hair transplant gone wrong decades ago
*** and Pat McGrath

Well yes, but his narrow assumptions about appearance equalling politics could mean he’s missing out. Those could be the hate filled eyes of of a political soul mate.

@NumberWang

“Monozygotic twins raised under different conditions will likely differ in appearance. Which means that we will develop certain physical features because of the choices we make.”

“Obviously your reasoning is incomplete and it seems you are having trouble with my question.”

Perhaps your question was incomplete and the reasoning was fine?

“Why else might the twins differ in appearance? How about lack/excess of food/money? Exposure to different physical environments or social structure? All of these can change appearances such as weight, skin condition/colour and tone, clothing choices, hair colour/style, attitude, character and politics.”

The question wasn’t about an exhaustive list of factors that might cause such twins differ in appearance. I just gave the example to prove that factors other then genetics, determine our appearance as well. There has to be some explanation for the (let’s say subjectively (not true btw) in order not to upset too much) inferior appearance of the typical leftist woman. And so I continued: “we might develop certain physical features because of the choices we make. Who knows typical leftists made choices that set them back in appearance?” Iow, changing the phenotype in a negative way.

“I’ve grown to expect, shallow reasoning from right wingers because they so often oblige.”

This is why you as a profound person, known for your intellectual depth and understanding, may feel free to give possible reasons for said phenomenon, other then the factors already given.
There have to be reasons for the discernible inferiority (that anyone except ldw56 can see). What other factors could be at play?

Adding another – more intriguing – question: what does this say about modern leftism?

“The question wasn’t about an exhaustive list of factors that might cause such twins differ in appearance. I just gave the example to prove that factors other then genetics, determine our appearance as well.”

Bullshit. You clearly said that you could always identify left wing women by their appearance and that that appearance was ugly. Since there are plenty of reasons for appearance, other than political affiliation, this is clearly not true.

“This is why you as a profound person, known for your intellectual depth and understanding”

Heh. I wish. It may look that way to the right wing masses but I’m just a nit-picking piss taker really.

@Renate

I said these women clearly aren’t leftists and this is correct. I do not know what exactly is your message here? I guess you are the extremist if you position someone like Eva next to Adolf the painter (who btw was an extreme leftist, like we discussed before). How dare you? Eva doesn’t hate feminism… Continue reading Untitled

“Hitler was just a leftist in your weird mind. If Hitler was a leftist, I suppose Thierry Baudet is leftist as well.”

We discussed Nazism being a left wing expression at length a while ago. About two years back I posted an extensive list here of its leftist traits.
Leftists switched the label sometime in history from left to right. But apart from definitions, what you should know is that socialist structures once in power have resulted in what you call extreme / ultra right. I would be aware of just another silly experiment, Renate. It seems leftists share this self destructive desire for socialism. Many if not most universities are full of such morons. Impossible to explain to anyone that values life and freedom. What is wrong with you, really?
Buy a gun and shoot yourself through the head, if you like destruction and death.

May I remind you that you blamed Eva Vlaardingerbroek of being a “rightwing extremist”. Why do leftist consider it legitimate to easily make such accusations without any proof? I guess it’s kind of coarse to say the least, Renate. Are you aware that you can damage a person like that? Is that what you want?
So again: what have I missed that indicates she is this extremist. So as yet, please share a link and show me precisely what to read or listen.

@Julian Frost

“Nope. As was pointed out,”

Always this psycho card. Boring.

“the Nazis were NOT leftists. They lied about being socialist. In fact, Nazism was a flavour of Fascism.”

No Julian, it were capitalists protecting their wealth and freedom. Right?
Yes and no can take long. You have to define to start with. And know exactly what was going on here, not where you live. Do you?
And btw, who wrote your history book, Julian?

@ldw56old, @the rest

“Lucas doesn’t reason: that implies logic and use of facts. He twists or ignores facts to create a story that matches his views”

So far I’ve merely asked for an explanation (besides some kick-off, since no one dares to speak out) for leftwing inferior appearance that’s obvious and widespread.
Ldw, since you’re the only one contradicting, your denial seems to be the evident twist here.
I asked you to proof otherwise; like I invited you to, just by adding some links to typical leftwing beauty, this could have easily been done; but despite millions of pictures on the web, it’s been awfully quiet. I guess I’m right then?

If you’re the scientist you claim, you’re supposed to spot deviations and then explain them. Why not here, ldw?

There is an explanation for everything. So again, why does typical leftism attract and / or create what’s plain unattractive, ugly and often hideous?
Let me assist you – so I keep it simple.

Suppose you step into a crowd and you notice it consists of evil looking criminals, sure you’ll agree this isn’t just another household party. Likely you’re dealing with a criminal organisation. The attendants reveal something about the organisation, right?
Same question about an organisation where ugly and hideous seems to be the benchmark. What would that reveal? Nothing?
Or could such visible distortion be the likely indication of some crookedness, perversion perhaps, traceable in and specific for the organisation? No need to answer the question for you.
Which brings us to the question what’s specifically leftwing.

Since you’re fighting just another war, could it be that warmongering and aggression is the explaining factor? No, right-wingers are equally well at it and there said phenomenon is not typical.
We have to look into what is absent in the conservative camp but shows up in yours. And this is LGBTQZ etc. related progressivity!

Agreed, minorities should be kept save. But that’s not the route you’ve chosen; no, if humanity was your true goal – like you claim it is – you would have shown commitment for sexually abused children, child trafficking, child labor, women exploitation, poverty, hunger; all much more threatening than LGBT+ related matters. But you’re absent there as a group; which not just makes you hypocrytes. Worse, under that layer of correctness and feelings of superiority of yours, there’s lawlessness.
What have we? Purple fridays, drag queens shows, even at school being barely four years old, our kids are obliged to learn about anal sex and how to play that game. I could go on for a while, but let’s spare ourselves more details.
What you leftists do is give perversion a full stage. In fact you worship it. Which means you ARE perverted.
Now ask yourselves: isn’t this decline exactly what shows up in the appearance of so many of you? What else could it be?

“you would have shown commitment for sexually abused children, child trafficking, child labor, women exploitation, poverty, hunger”

Weirdly, it is possible to do all these things at once. Why is it that people assume big news campaigns are the only game in town?

Looking at your list, I’m glad that you are keen to prevent such things as child beauty pageants and forcing women into narrowly defined acceptable roles. Not to mention, increasing foreign aid, international cooperation, supporting domestic measures to reduce homelessness and protection from bigots of those in the LBTQ+ community.

I suppose Lucas is more conserned about the abuse of children by the elites, who are all pedophiles, or the abuse of children by the LBGTQ+ community who tell them they should be gay, or trans or whatever. People like Lucas are not really worried about the real dangers for children, but only at immaginay dangers, that are associated with elites and the LBGTQ+-community. They are more worried about children learning about sex and about learning them to say no to people who want something from them, they don’t want.

@Denice

“But if you look at the US Congress: Senator Blackburn and Representatives Boebert and Taylor Greene have what I call actress/ model hair. So do Wolf and the women Lucas linked.”

Even dragging such women through the mud wouldn’t give them the repellent appearance of so many typical leftist women. You cannot change beauty much throug hairstyle or make-up either. It’s there or it’s not.
Interestingly enough beauty is often even identified with characteristics as sympathetic, nice, friendly. Apparently you don’t need to be a beauty queen to own beauty.

“Leftist women may not accept societal norms on how women should appear so they may not want to be ultra thin or “look like a model”.”

What’s the relation between acceptance of societal norms and beauty / attractiveness? And it’s not about some pounds more or less either. Sorry Denise, you’re looking a bit in a wrong direction.

Oh, Lucas..

The basic issue is that women and girls choose how they want to appear which could possibly reflect their ideology, social groups and general cultural milieu.
An article for you: Wikipedia Feminine Beauty Ideals

These standards are not immutable but vary with culture and time.
Ideals/ Icons usually are the product of choice, work and expense.
The singer pictured does not look that way by chance alone: she’s perfected her look through years of effort, professional help and expense in order to be acceptable to a certain audience. Other performers might choose different standards. An easily visible contrast can be racial differences in what is considered desirable/ beautiful or how different age groups react to an example of ‘beauty’. An actress from the 1950s might be considered too fat today; androgenous models from the 1920s or 1960s might be considered too boyish.
See artists Peter Paul Reubens vs Sandro Botticelli. Ancient Greek sculpture vs Amedeo Modigliani.

Not everything can be attributed to biology/ reproductive success although symmetrical features may indicate ‘health’ whilst extreme thinness can be associated with lack of fertility / below a particular BMI.

Maybe another regular commenter can expand upon my start.

I think that a white skin was also popular in the past, because it ment one didn’t have to work on the land. Later a tanned skin became polular, because it ment one could go on vacation to sunnier countries.

B.t.w., there is a Dutch feminist claiming that drag queens are the same as blackface.

@ Renate:

Because I am more familiar with left/ right differentiation in English speaking countries, I looked at The Guardian piece about your recent elections AND the party system seems rather complex, to say the least.

So maybe, just maybe, Lucas might be talking about other issues to divide these positions BUT
there are basic talking points going back to the French Revolution when the right, labelled because of its physical place in the chambre, supported l’ancienne regime, and the left comprised of the revolutionaries sitting on the other side.

There are quite a few articles ( Wikipedia etc) but most seem to identify the right with conservatism and the left with liberals and progressivism. In other words, preserving social order, rules, traditions etc or changing them. HOWEVER, they all put Nazis on the right and Communists on the left. A confounding issue for readers may be that the most well known examples of either were authoritarian – Germany 1930s-40s and the USSR and China.
Modern appellation is confusing because of issues like free markets, internationalism, size of governments, minority rights, environmental law and self expression. Coalition rule further complicates it.

Well politics seem to get rather complicated. In some way things can more or less divided in 4 quarters. You get social progressive and social conservative and cultural progressive an cultural conservative.
At this moment our biggest (or least small) party is cultural conservative. In some ways they pretend to be social progressive, by wanting pension-age back to 65 and some other things, that are a bit associated with the left, but to me it’s more to cater a certain public, which is worried about their income (in a way a bit like Trump in the US). It’s a very nationalistic party, wanting to leave Europe and some other things that even worry businesses. The other parties, that are supposed to form a government range from traditional conservative (liberal in our country) and 2 other parties, that are culturally conservative and not sure where they stand socially. One is very much catering farmers and people in rural areas and the other is, perhaps about some social problems, like housing and things, but still quite conservative.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading