That’s funny

Kathy Griffin has criticised the lack of women on Forbes magazine’s latest list of the world’s best-paid comedians.

The Emmy Award-winning comedian tweeted the top 10 of Forbes’ list along with the words: “No Women.”

Here’s the list;

She’s quite accurate in her observation; none of the 10 highest earning comedians in 2018 were women (or even, to comply with the modern parlance, “men with vaginas“).

The responses to her tweet were quite amusing and seem to fall into two distinct camps;

1. This is outrageous and damning proof of an oppressive patriarchy operating in the comedy industry, or

2. It’s a list of the comedians people choose to spend their own money on, the ten most competent comedians active in 2018, in other words, you unfunny and stupid woman.

Only one of those world views can be correct.

Bill’s Opinion

Comedy is a brutal job to choose. Nobody makes it to the top of the tree without learning their craft through thousands of hours of effort, failure, perseverance and continuous improvement.

During that time, your pay very closely matches your success rate at making people laugh. It’s a reasonably efficient market, in other words.

There is another interesting distinguishing factor between the comedians on the list above and many of the names suggested by the nutters in the “its duh patriarchy” camp, such as Amy Schumer, Samantha Bee, Lesley Jones, and Sarah Silverman; their recent material has deprioritised the comedic quality of their work in favour of attacking Trump supporters or men. That’s their choice but they perhaps shouldn’t be surprised that men and Trump supporters don’t choose to pay money for that type of act.

But, yes; “no funny women”, eh, Kathy;

What did the Romans ever do for us?

UOW academics, including visiting fellow Sarah Keenan who handed in her resignation, woke on Monday to news the university had signed a deal with the Ramsay Centre to establish the country’s first degree in Western Civilisation.

Under a deal signed on Friday and made public on Monday, The Ramsay Centre will pay for 10 academics to teach the three-year degree, and give 30 students a year more than $27,000 each towards their living expenses while they study.

The background to this is that part of the fortune of the late Paul Ramsay was bequeathed to setting up a course on “Western Civilisation”. It’s caused several universities more than a little heartache; on the one hand, funding for a degree course in 2019 is very welcome, particularly in the current funding climate. On the other hand, universities have gone down the rat hole of SJW lunacy and are hostage to utter nutters with the title, “Professor”, as we have seen previously.

As with all of these political minefields, the people shouting the loudest are usually the ones operating with a low resolution view of the underlying facts.

In all of the coverage of the conflicts between activist academics and the Ramsay Centre, not one column inch has been dedicated to explaining which part of the proposed curriculum they take most offence from.

To assist the readership of his organ, here is the proposed curriculum;

Shocking stuff, eh?

Personally, I’m outraged that Malthus, Marx, Engels, Rousseau and Foucault are given the oxygen of publicity on a course supposedly on the subject of “civilisation”. I assume that’s the position of the offended academics too?

Bill’s Opinion

The proposed curriculum looks like an extremely interesting and balanced course. The reading material doesn’t, Prima Facie, scream “white supremacy”, does it? In fact, it even includes the godawful 60s French nutters, which we’d all be better off forgetting, frankly.

As for those who object to the course, we only need look at what they do for a living;

Dr Keenan, who is based at the Birkbeck School of Law, resigned as a visiting fellow at the university’s Legal Intersections Research Centre  because she would not support an institution that leant its name to the Ramsay Centre.

This is the LIRC’s work;

And this is Dr. Keenan;

In fact, one need only look at that joyless face to know that anything she dislikes is probably going to be a lot of fun.

To hell with your intersectional law.

Brexit BATNA

The suggestion that Brexit negotiations are going poorly for the UK is a difficult one to refute.

By any objective measure, the “deal” Theresa May has been touting as the best possible outcome clearly doesn’t implement what the voters demanded she implement; The United Kingdom would still be subject to the majority of rules and regulations of the EU institutions but without the current ability to influence (albeit fractionally) the creation and amendment of said rules.

Negotiation is a very specific skill requiring a thoughtful strategy, access to as many relevant data points as possible and the maturity and strength of character to compromise or hold to key principles.

Many professionals earn a good living from undertaking the role of negotiator on behalf of clients; depending on the transaction one is undertaking, a lawyer, for example, is acting as your negotiator.

However, the one aspect a professional negotiator or, in the case of Brexit, a huge army of negotiators, can’t control is the competence and moral character of the “client”.

Imagine, for example, if the Prime Minister and cabinet were firmly of the opinion that the British public had chosen the correct option in the referendum and that the EU was a corrupt den of anti-democratic authoritarians who couldn’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith. The Brexit negotiations’ timeline might have looked something like this;

– 24th June 2016 – Article 50 delivered to the EU along with a telephone number printed on a business card with the words, “Your call is important to us. Please do let us know if you have an offer which you feel may be of interest to the people of the United Kingdom. Please note, this number will only be staffed between 2pm and 3pm on the first Tuesday of each month“.

– 24th June 2016 – The “Direct Debit” arrangements from all UK government bank accounts to the EU are cancelled.

– 24th June 2016 – The responsibility for the detailed planning for a move to WTO rules on 24th June 2018 is delegated to the relevant agencies and peak industry bodies. Note; delegated not micro-managed, as this is what they get paid for.

– That’s it. If the EU offered any deal that improves on WTO arrangements whilst still resulting in the UK leaving, a separate team would be tasked with reviewing and comparing it. However, work on the WTO option would continue at full speed.

That this, or a version thereof, wasn’t the approach tells us (and, more importantly, told the EU negotiation team) one crucial fact. The UK government has never had a credible BATNA. There was no palatable Plan B ready in case the EU negotiated in bad faith, nor was one even contemplated.

The EU haven’t played this particularly well, they didn’t need to, the UK negotiators were hamstrung from the start by a clear requirement from the “client” that a deal must be done at all cost…… which is the equivalent of trying to negotiate the price of an ice-cream while you have a crying child with you.

Bill’s Opinion

In years to come, Theresa May’s incompetent handling of the negotiations will be seen as a case study in what not to do.

That statement assumes, of course, that she really did intend to implement an exit from the EU, its rules, regulations and institutions.

Many observers might question that assumption.

For whom the pell tolls

There is an active press suppression order in Australia, courtesy of the Victorian courts.

A prominent Australian has been convicted of a serious crime but the press are restricted from reporting on which (in)famous Australian in staring at some time in the big house.

Australian twitter is all over this like a cheap suit, bleating on about freedom of the press and the lunacy of a court order that can be sidestepped with about 10 seconds of work on Google.

However, before all the brave Australian journalists give themselves the Woodward and Bernstien Award for bravery under fire, let’s just remind them of their previous finest hour;

First up, the Sydney Morning Herald, tagline (without a hint of irony); “Independent. Always“.

To be balanced, here’s the News Corp version of the same headline;

Once you’ve Googled the name of the Victorian kiddy-fiddler, go back and search for how your most trusted news source reported this previous case. The ABC, the commercial TV news channels, all papers, etc. were similarly taciturn on precisely which ex-pat Australian was helping British police with their enquiries.

For those of you who don’t recall this episode in the long and painful death of Australian journalism, the “entertainer” wasn’t Barry Humphries or Clive James, but Rolf Harris. There wasn’t a court order preventing the press from naming him, they were just scared.

In fact, it was only when the British tabloid, The Sun (a newspaper that the other newspapers sneer at snobbishly), broke ranks and named him that the other organisations followed suit. Even then, several of our brave members of the Fourth Estate ended up reporting on The Sun reporting his name, in a pathetic attempt to head off a court case in the event they’d screwed up in a legal way.

Bill’s Opinion

Maybe there was a time when journalists deserved our respect, trust and, in times of repression by courts and governments, sympathy.

This would not be that time.

 

 

Oh Canada

For decades, Canadians were the butt of many cruel jokes about how pathetic and effeminate their nation was, with a vague notion that they were the indolent, slightly retarded younger sibling of the successful USA, smoking weed in their underwear and playing video games whilst the older brother was pulling double shifts at work.

In 2015, Canadians thought long and hard about how to deal with this unfair criticism and came to the collective conclusion that the best plan of attack would be to elect a former ski instructor, gap year backpacker and professional trustafarian, Justin Trudeau, as their leader.

As a consequence, they’ve deservedly got legislation such as this gem;

Canadian government nationalises journalism.

Actually, that should probably read “Canadian government further nationalises journalism” as they already annually spunk half a billion Canadian dollars (about $75.43 US and a couple of Tim Horton donuts) on the CBC. One supposes an addition $120m a year isn’t going to be that noticeable, therefore.

Anyone with the mildest knowledge of history and just the slightest tendency toward cynicism will find the language used to announce this “innovation” (yes, that’s how one likely recipient of taxpayer largesse described it) has creepy echoes from a previous time;

An independent panel comprised of members of the news and journalism industry will flesh out the application of the moves announced in Wednesday’s fall economic statement. In particular, the group will decide which journalism jobs and which news organizations are eligible for the new funding.

Independently deciding who amongst them will receive free money? Yes, that sounds fine, I’m sure.

Oh, and it’s not an across the board subsidy then? Not every news outlet and journalist will benefit?

The government said the package will aim to help “trusted” news organizations, but will leave it to the media industry to define the application of the new initiatives.

Trust is a difficult thing to define, isn’t it? It’s almost easier to define the conditions where one doesn’t have it. After all, as the man said, “there’s only two men I trust in this world; I’m one and you ain’t the other one“.

Bill’s Opinion

As with so many issues facing us on a daily basis, it is a dangerous mistake to assume a single cause. The legislation has an underlying assumption that there is only one major cause to the economic decline of the traditional media sector; that digital media has broken the business model.

That may well be a major contributing factor but what hasn’t been considered is that there may be another cause of similar importance. Amusingly, there’s a clue in the press release; Canadians are no longer prepared to pay for traditional media because the speed of delivery and far wider choice of digital sources has opened their eyes to quite how biased and limited the traditional media has been. They’ve lost trust, in other words.

So now they have the worst of both worlds; Canadians are going to pay for journalism they don’t want to read……forever.

Forever?

Yes; ask yourself, under what circumstances will a Canadian government ever be able to announce a closing of this funding source once it has been embedded for a couple of years?

The independent media will wail and moan from the highest steeples and undermine any political party that so much as hints that the time has come to stop subsidising journalism that nobody reads.

Going for Gold in the Victim Olympics

Q. How interested are you in the details of what your colleagues do, and with whom, when they are not at the office?

A. Not at all, I’ve got a hundred things to get through on my things to do list and thinking about what Roger from Accounts gets up to in bed is neither of interest or value to my working day.

B. Mildly curious but only out of morbid curiosity because Roger from Accounts seems like a complete car crash of a human.

C. It’s the most important part of my job, forget the parts of my job description about delivering products to our customers on time and for a profit, I need all the details of where and in whom Roger pokes his snag. We’ll get on to the core business of the company once we’ve sorted the sexuality questions of every colleague.

If you answered (C), James Adonis wants you for a sunbeam;

Life as a bisexual man at work

By James Adonis

Barely a week goes by without some mention in the media about gay men, lesbians or trans men and women. The same applies in academic research. Of all the colours in the LGBTIQ rainbow, there have been countless studies on each of those letters except, it seems, the letter B, for bisexuals.

Oh oh, brace for incoming accusations that we are all awful people again for reasons we previously weren’t aware of.

What makes this a curious trend is that bisexuals comprise the largest proportion of this minority group and yet they “remain the most invisible and under-researched” of the lot. That’s the realisation that prompted a study due to be published soon in the Journal, of Vocational Behaviour.

Ah, another fine subject for free grant money research study, we are certain.

The researchers were intrigued by the experiences that bisexual employees encounter (or is that endure?) in the workplace. That intrigue stems from prior research which has revealed gay men and lesbians are six times as likely to be out at work than their bisexual colleagues. Bisexuals also report greater anxiety, stress, depression, panic attacks, compulsive behaviour and substance abuse.

Wait, more than transgender folks, those people with a suicide rate equivalent to inmates of holocaust camps and the gulags? Can we fact check this please?

In this latest study, which comprised more than 200 people, the bias against bisexual personnel was exposed as presiding quite strongly among gay men and lesbians, too. That’s surprising because it means it’s not just heterosexuals who actively discriminate but minority groups as well. In other words, those being discriminated against are themselves doing the discriminating. This is especially targeted towards bisexual men; far more than bisexual women.

More than 200 people we studied? Well, with a sample size that large we are clearly looking at a scientific endeavour that is on a par with the scale of the Human Genome Project. 

These consequences arise due to a pervasive human need to categorise. People are either black or white, male or female, young or old, and of course gay or straight. To suddenly meet someone who doesn’t squeeze into a binary code is too confronting and confusing for many individuals – particularly when the person they’re meeting is a bisexual man – and so they subsequently perceive them as “indecisive, inauthentic and untrustworthy”.

Or maybe the 200 people you interviewed were unusually indecisive, inauthentic and untrustworthy regardless of where they stick their genitalia outside the office environment? Correlation or causation? 

Here’s another point to ponder; humans are particularly competent at judging authenticity. It’s likely an ancient evolutionary feature that served our ancestors well. If your survey shows an unusual statistical trend towards judging these people to be inauthentic, why assume that it’s the fault of the observer and not a result of some characteristic of the observed? 

As a result, the researchers believe there are serious implications for employers, specifically in relation to staff turnover and career progression. Faced with such discomfort in the workplace, it’s not unreasonable to expect bisexual employees to hop from one job to another seeking an escape from bosses who “reward stereotypically masculine behaviour by their male employees”.

Wait, what? Bosses reward stereotypical masculine behavior? In which fucking universe? Have you actually visited an office in 2018? They are about as masculine as a Liberace Christmas Special and have been for the best part of a decade.

Apart from the obvious implication of that last sentence – that the denigration of non-masculinity in workplaces should cease – it’s also recommended employers make space for bisexual employees in their diversity policies, staff associations, training programs and initiatives. To this day, they tend to be neglected.

Oh goody, more diversity training. That’s what this company needs to turn the shareprice around.

As someone who’s been openly gay at work for over two decades, this research has made me try to think of a bisexual colleague I’ve had, either from the past or the present. None spring to mind. There have been plenty of gays, lesbians, trans people and queer folk but not a single one who’s been out as bisexual. When reflecting on the statistic noted earlier, that bisexuals make up the greatest proportion of LGBTIQ people, that’s quite an astonishing realisation.

Or perhaps they didn’t find you attractive enough to make the effort to flirt with you?

Bill’s Opinion

If we work together, please don’t tell me about your sex life. No, really; I just don’t care. It’s not important to our relationship at work. 

On a similar theme, I’d don’t want to know that you do Boot Camp, Cross Fit, are vegan, teetotal, Christian, believe in climate change, like quinoa, once met William Shatner, or any other number of facts completely irrelevant to our working relationship.

From the study’s own summary;

Our data reveal several important findings, the most striking of which is the divergence of experiences, attitudes, and outcomes between men and women who are bisexual.

People are different. Who knew?

First, we found evidence of more bias against bisexual men than bisexual women.

Your sample size was 200 people. So perhaps 100 bisexual men and 100 bisexual women? You’re drawing conclusions from a study that could fit in a village primary school’s assembly hall? Ah, science is fun.

Second, our data show that bisexual men are less likely to disclose their sexual orientation at work both prior to and during employment. Third, bisexual men report experiencing more workplace discrimination than do bisexual women, and they also report increased minority stress, psychological distress, and substance use.

Hang on, apart from for vacancies at brothels, when do sexual preferences get discussed at a job interview? Reverse that statement above and consider the legal case you’d be slapped with if, “…and which way do you swing?” was asked just after the obligatory, “….what previous experience do you have in this area?”.

Dear bisexual people, we’re just not that interested. Sorry.

Career advice for your children

In the future, there will be a great deal of money to be made as a lawyer, psychologist or gender re-re-assignment surgeon (yes, the double “re” was deliberate).

Why?

I had my bits chopped off to become a lady and now I’m not so sure it was a good idea. Who do I sue?

Which, as regrets go, is somewhat more material than, “I wish I’d bought tickets to see Roxette before they stopped touring”.

For the past 17 years, Jeremy Bate has lived as a woman.

But now, after hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery, he believes it has all been a mistake.

At the age of 52, Mr Bate now says he was never anything other than a man and has called for more support for people questioning their gender.

Oh, that’s awkward.

What caused this awful mistake?

At the age of 35, Mr Bate transitioned from his biological sex after a devastating relationship breakdown exacerbated a gender confusion he says was originally caused by an anti-miscarriage drug his mother took when he was in utero.

One supposes the “pro” of the anti-miscarriage drug was that he was born and not stillborn.

We’re not offered any medical opinion on the likelihood that anti-miscarriage drugs cause or even correlate with gender dismorphia but this is the Sydney Morning Herald. If you want journalism, you need to go elsewhere.

Nathan Hondros might want to consider the possibility that a pregnant mother reading this today ceases her anti-miscarriage drugs and her baby dies as a consequence of his mental and professional sloth, but hey….

About four months ago Mr Bate started reading deeply about the science and ideology of gender and he began to question what had happened to him.

Apologies if this seems insensitive but wasn’t the time to question the dogma at least 17.5 years ago?

He said he raised questions in online transgender support groups, but was blocked almost immediately because he was “challenging the accepted wisdom” and was accused of being “transphobic”.

Then he became angry.

Only then?

After a decade and a half of walking with a limp and maintaining a surgical wound between his legs it was only after someone was rude to him on the internet that he became a little vexed? This is a man woman man with the patience of a saint.

He was angry at the system for letting him down, he was angry at those he believes have an ideological agenda and he was angry there was no support.

There seems to be a name missing from that list of people to be angry at though. Give me a moment, it’ll come to me eventually.

Mr Bate said he was shocked when transgender support groups to which he belonged “turned on him”.

“It sends alarm bells to me, because they don’t want to tolerate anyone moving away from it,” he said.

“They’d rather think I was never a proper trans in the first place, because they just can’t stand the idea.

“Their basic ideology is that you have to have been born that way, and if you can turn away from it, then that cancels their argument.”

Well, quite. Isn’t the entire point of the transgender movement is that this is an inherent natural condition, like homosexuality, and therefore the best way to care for individuals presenting themselves as transgender is to agree and provide them with support and free “treatment”?

To suggest that it’s something you can be and then, after further contemplation suddenly not be kind of destroys that whole “it’s definitely not a mental illness, you horrid transphobe” narrative.

Bill’s Opinion

It’s a serious suggestion; encourage your children to study and train in professions poised to benefit from what I am copyrighting as the “Transgender Regret Industry” which will likely see peak revenue around the 2030 decade. There’s gold in them there knockers hills.

One of the biggest payouts will be to the child that Emma Sakild is currently publicly abusing in Sydney as a result of her obvious Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy condition.

Hoping that Master Bate would recognise that he was in any way culpable for the decision at age 35 to chop off his gonads is clearly a revelation too far. However, we think it’s best to end with his own words on the matter;

Mr Bate said he would have been better off if he had counselling to help him become more comfortable with the body he was born in.

Ya don’t fucking say, Sherlock, ya don’t fucking say?

Pips preparing to squeak

House prices are a matter of opinion whereas debt is real.

Mervin King, former Governor of the Bank of England.

The fun continues apace in Australia as people too young to have ever experienced a significant downturn are coming to terms with the first in their adult lives.

Our old friend, The Pwoperdee Doctor, is calling on the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut interest rates, not for him, you understand, but for the sake of the kids;

And later this week, more questionable content from The Doctor;

His content sometimes seems suspiciously like financial advice. This, for example, seems to be encouraging first time buyers into a falling market;

Since when was instant negative equity ‘The Great Australian Dream’?

Here’s a question for The Doctor; would you advise a close relative of yours to buy their first property today or wait a while for the falls to flatline? If not, be prepared for a little legal action in a year or two seeking a contribution from you for giving poor advice when someone sitting in a 2 bed apartment finds it’s now worth $100k less than they paid for it.

Over at the Sydney Morning Herald, a media outlet that previously relied almost entirely on its property listing subsidiary for any chance of making a profit most years, reality is starting to sink in.

One has to enjoy the circular nature of Finder’s Graham Cooke’s logic and his demonstration of a Nobel Laureate’s mastery of mathematics;

Yes folks, that’s right; if property falls by 20%, people who bought recently with a 20% or less deposit will be in negative equity. I bet he had a team of monkeys up all night with calculators working that out.

Actually, it’s worse because stamp duty is several percent depending on the jurisdiction so negative equity is achieved earlier.

This is all so unexpected, of course. Nobody could have seen this coming.

Which reminds us of Taleb’s classic chart from ‘Black Swan’;

Meanwhile, theres an interesting bet on between the Kouk and Tony Locantro;

Specifically, we are wagering $15,000 to $2,500 that Sydney or Melbourne or national wide house prices will or will not fall by more than 35 per cent from their peak at any stage before and up to the December quarter 2021.

 

Bill’s Opinion

 

At the current trajectory, Stephen Koukoulas will lose $15,000.

Of course, no market ever moves in a straight line and, as we saw in 2008, expecting any government to simply let markets run their course in a downturn is a very naive position to take.

It’s far more likely that interest rates will be cut, regulators will be told to ease lending restrictions, banks will be reminded who really owns them and the Millennials will be encouraged into another generational wealth transfer over to their parents’ generation.

By the way, this is all happening at a point in the economic cycle where money should still be made. The USA is unlikely to go into recession in 2019 and that should have been good news for the Australian economy. That the mood seems not so cheery in the “Lucky Country” speaks volumes.

If you’re about to buy your first property, why not wait until you’ve seen 3 to 6 months of no falls in prices, just to be certain you’re not jumping in a year too early?

Ask a financial planner (a good one, not one who relies on selling you “products”) whether some physical silver or gold might be a good thing to own right now, perhaps? Ask also about uranium mining shares.

After all, there’s always an inherent risk to catching falling knives…..

Corporate protection rackets

Spotted recently at a place of work;

An accreditation that the workplace is “breastfeeding friendly”?

Okaaaaaay.

What’s going on here, do we think?

Surely very few people in 2018 would be so vehemently against helping mothers to continue breastfeeding for as long as they wish after childbirth (well, perhaps not too long that the child could write a letter in cursive script requesting a portion)?

So why the need for an accreditation agency to provide fancy certificates which, in effect, do little but state that, “this employer isn’t a dickhead about breastfeeding“?

Well, perhaps it’s something to do with the fact that one has to pay to be accredited?

The website is suspiciously cagey about how much this accreditation will cost. “Call us for a quote” for a service that can’t be much more than a quick visit to the dedicated room and a browse of the written policy?

Hmm, smells like a scam.

Bill’s Opinion

As we’ve seen with monopolies on virtue signalling, such as White Ribbon, what begins as a laudable idea soon takes on a momentum and becomes self-justifying. The moment fees are charged for the charity’s official seal of approval, it can be fairly certain that the charity has corrupted its purpose.

In fact, the ABA isn’t actually a charity at all, it’s a private “training” business that receives revenue from two almost equal sources; the fees from its protection racket and generous donations from the Australian taxpayer;

That’s a nice business you’ve got there, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it like a negative press campaign about being a bad place for young mothers to work“….

Hiding in plain sight

Oscar Wilde learned the hard way that sometimes it’s expedient to keep a low profile and not draw attention to behaviour that, when exposed to the judgement of the wider society, may not be as acceptable as you may have previously thought.

Sydney University have recently suspended a lecturer for presenting an image of the Israeli flag with a swastika transposed on it….. in a lecture, i.e. not at some private speaking engagement but as part of an official university course. A search of the Sydney University website drew a blank when looking for “Anti-Zionist Studies” or “Anti-Semitism 101” but it’s probably called something else more academicky.

That Professor Tim Anderson is an unreconstructed radical Communist is apparent from even the most cursory glance at his social media accounts, but his history of being wrong about absolutely everything predates the Internet; back in the 1970s, he was involved in a radical group responsible for a bomb attack that killed two innocent garbage collectors. He was imprisoned but had the conviction overturned on appeal.

Regardless of his innocence in the act of terrorism, this is a man who has no moral quandaries with the regimes of Venezuela, Syria and North Korea and has made many visits to these hellholes where he fawned over their dictators. In fact, his life work seems to be in orbit around a simple philosophy; western democracy is bad, authoritarian collectivism in whatever form is good.

That Sydney University ever employed him in the first place is hard to understand. It’s difficult to comprehend quite what academic value there is to be had for students to listen to lectures from someone who pines for a Socialist utopia where we finally, after all these false starts resulting in just a couple of hundred million murders, get the correct version of Socialism.

Should he be prevented from stating his opinions, however loopy they are? Of course not.

Should he be paid to do so by the generosity of the Australian taxpayer? Nah.

Since the suspension, 30 of his fellow academics have broken cover and signed an open letter in support of Anderson.

Amusingly, the letter doesn’t explicitly use the words “free speech“, one assumes because this is a term that has recently been associated with the non-left. I hesitate to use the term “right” as the definitions have shifted so massively in the last half decade or so resulting in classical liberals being called Nazis for defending the rights of people to say things with which they disagree.

Instead, we see the term “academic freedom” used as a proxy for “free speech“.

Ok, what’s their record on free speech then? After all, your arguments for free speech look somewhat insipid if they are limited only to speech with which you agree.

Here’s the open letter with the list of Comrade Anderson’s apologists helpfully listed at the bottom.

Let’s have a dip in to the cess pit of unreconstructed Marxism and radical left lunacy that makes up that list;

Fruitloop #1: Stuart Rosewarne. From his university bio; “Stuart Rosewarne’s research and teaching interests are in environmental and ecological economics, critical socialist ecology, international political economy, and the political economy of gender.

Critical Socialist ecology? You can be damn certain the one thing he’s not critical of in the slightest is Socialism.

Fruitloop #2: Rebecca Pearse. “Beck” wants us to decolonise the curriculum and some other word salad we can’t translate into English.

Fruitloop #3: Dr. Nick Riemer. Nick’s twitter account shows he’s drunk the climate change KoolAid, supports open borders and, of course is an activist in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) cause, an organisation with a correlation rate trending close to 1.0 of anti-Semitic members;

Fruitloop #4: Dr. Dave Brophy. Dave likes the usual causes of his colleagues but with a slight focus on criticising the Chinese government, which may indicate that all is not yet lost with regards to his ability to actually think for himself. Of course, he’s fully signed up to the BDS bollocks too though;

Fruitloop #5: Dr. Linda Connor. Linda is an anthropologist but seems totally obsessed far more interested in climate change than her field of research, judging by her Twitter account. Presumably she’s classed as an academic expert when people collect statistics proving that 97% of experts believe in catastrophic man-made climate change.

Fruitloop #6: Dr. Jake Lynch. Jake is just your common or garden BDS supporter, so much so in fact, that he had to (successfully) defend himself in court against charges of anti-Semitism.

Bill’s Opinion

Defenders of free speechacademic freedom” would be more credible if they could demonstrate any track record of standing in solidarity for people with opinions they completely reject. The simplest of internet searches on almost everyone on the list of academics supporting terrorist sympathiser and murderous dictators’ ally, Comrade Tim Anderson, proves they are all living in the same radical left wing echo chamber.

Here’s a clue to those beardy hippies in the Faculty of Arts and Social Science; ask your real scientist mates from the engineering department to sign up too.

Here’s another clue; why not channel Voltaire and defend the rights of people with whom you disagree to speak and we might take you a little more seriously. Perhaps start by inviting this tour onto campus;

What can we learn from this depressing episode of cultural Marxism?

Simple; if you have a family member or friend considering studying humanities at the University of Sydney, use every persuasive tool at your disposal to change their minds before they fall down the rabbithole of radical left brainwashing. The “education” they will receive will be useless for anything of tangible benefit to themselves or the world.

As Pandora learned though, there’s always hope;

Finally….. we found ONE!

Not a Fruitloop: Dr. Colin Wight. Colin must feel extremely lonely at the University of Sydney, as he is probably the only academic on the campus who understands nuance and accepts the possibility that very little in life is ever black or white;