Explaining Why “6%” is a load of COVID-19 BS

Jason Goldsmith

-

September 1, 2020

Explaining Why “6%” is a load of COVID-19 BS

Over the past weekend, the group-think of the internet has been abuzz presenting the asinine notion that CDC has revised down the number of deaths due to COVID-19, as some moron discovered that in 6% of cases COVID-19 was listed as the sole cause of death, and this somehow means the severity of the entire pandemic has been overexaggerated. This entire narrative is idiotic on three distinct levels, which apparently needs to be dumbed down so far for these people that I am forced to explain it in terms of The Legend of Zelda in hopes that might get the point across. So here we go, The Triforce:

Piece One: The Triforce of Ignorance – People (and especially the media) are ignoring how death certificates work

When you fill out a death certificate (and I have filled out many), you have list all of their medical problems that contributed to their death. Now, what is a medical problem? That is a specific thing related to a patient’s medical chart, but for these purposes it’s essentially a current medical issue, or past issue with ongoing ramifications. In this case, it is one that contributed to a patient’s death.

Here’s an example of a Death Certificate:

So… say a 45-year-old female comes into the hospital, with no past medical issues, with COVID-19. They won the suck-fest lottery, and developed pneumonia, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome, you don’t want that), and eventually a stroke too. Eventually, the patient sadly dies from COVID-19. On their death certificate I would then write that their immediate cause of death was ARDS, due to a consequence of pneumonia, due to a consequence of COVID-19. As a significant condition contributing to death (Part II in the example image) I would list stroke. They didn’t have any other medical problems (my example, my rules) so I wouldn’t list anything else here.
What does this all mean? IT MEANS THIS PERSON WHO WAS HEALTHY BEFORE WOULD NOT COUNT IN THE 6% OF PATIENTS REPORTED TO CDC as having died of COVID-19 as the sole cause of death, even though they got pneumonia due to COVID-19.

Two: The Triforce of Stupidity – Excess mortality numbers show the deaths are real

There are two interlinking pieces to this piece of the Triforce. First, many, many people have comorbidities that increase your risk of death from COVID-19. The most important one is hypertension. Almost half of all adult Americans have hypertension; yet most people don’t die from infectious illnesses in a given year from it. The same thing goes with diabetes, which affects 10.5% of Americans. While both conditions are associated with increased mortality, those numbers are baked into annual mortality rates.

This leads us to the second thing people are ignoring when perpetuating this crap. Since all these pre-existing conditions are already here (remember, they are pre-existing) their effect on mortality can be seen in our average annual mortality rate (per capita, of course, since we are accurate like that).

We can use this to model predicted annual mortality, look at what said model would predict as the total number of deaths to a given point in time (like today), and then compare that to the actual number of tallied deaths, to get a measure called excess mortality (aka excess deaths). And guess what, we have anywhere between ~160-200k (remember, there is a calculated range on the model with error and everything—so hawt) excess deaths this year, pretty much in line with the actual numbers and the predictions of a certain podcast guest on this affiliated website.

So yes, way more people are dying than normal, even given the general less-than-stellar health of Americans, thanks to the POS murder hobo that COVID-19 is.

Piece Three: Idiotic Bravery – 6% is scary as hell

This piece here is Triforce of Idiotic Bravery. Let’s say that the entire 6% of COVID-19 deaths with nothing else listed is real, and there is absolutely no contribution to that number from tired, worked-to-death physicians who simply only wrote down COVID-19 and not everything else wrong with the patient because the doctor’s motor skills had decayed too much from too much caffeine and not enough sleep to eek out anything more than that in a legible format.

If this were true, it is a horrifying number. That means that 6% of people dying from COVID or roughly 11,000 people were completely healthy individuals who were straight-up murdered by a hulked out version of the common cold. That is not good. That means if everyone got it (by say, completely ignoring the problem and removing all distancing and other efforts designed to combat the virus), we could expect a lot of healthy people to end up dead. It is actually hideously complicated to do the math to figure out how many healthy people would die in such a scenario, but the entire notion should be unsettling, not a comfort to those adults who are healthy.

In conclusion

This entire notion of there being a revision showing deaths due to COVID is really only 6% of what was previously reported is dumb. It ignores everything about how the data was collected and other corroborating data demonstrating the number of extra deaths we have had. Anyone pushing this narrative is either being deliberately deceitful, willfully incompetent, or so modeling exemplar Dunning-Kruger behaviors and needs to stick to smashing pots for rupees Ina video game.

Anatomy of a Catastrophe

Scrapper

-

August 28, 2020

9

How Rampant Stupidity Killed Two People in Kenosha

NOTE: Information about this incident is still emerging. This article will be updated as the facts evolve in this case. There is a lot of information hitting the web about what happened, and not all of it is good information or relevant to the thesis of this article. Bear with us while we try to keep up, okay?

Bullshido, at its heart, is a place of conflict. Founded on the principal that the best way to defeat stupidity is to confront and face it head on, our mission remains one of unceasing, unyielding confrontation. The universe, and far too often for comfort, the United States, seems hell-bent to provide us with opportunities for this sort of antagonistic introspection. And that is what brings us all to Kyle Rittenhouse.

There are a lot of opinions floating around about Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. Normally when we have an emotionally charged series of events like those surrounding young Mister Rittenhouse, the first and most immediate of these opinions can be quickly parsed into a few easy-to-comprehend categories. You have shrieking partisans, useful idiots, and raging assholes. Reasoned views addressing the complexity of the underlying issues tend not to come until much later because reasoning requires facts and objectivity. Both of which tend to be in short supply for the first forty-eight hours or so.

What makes the Rittenhouse incident so interesting is that virtually every expletive-laden opinion surrounding his actions and the actions of the involved parties has an objective truth at its hate-filled heart. That is a rare thing, and it baked my noodle pretty good when I noticed this ridiculous coincidence. Whatever your opinion of what happened in Kenosha, there is probably a solid factual foundation justifying it. I stewed on that for a while before a potential reason for this formed in my head. Are you ready?

Everyone involved in and around this tragedy is a fucking moron.

Whatever it is that pisses you off about the whole sad circus is supposed to piss you off. YOU ARE NOT WRONG, and I don’t even know what it is specifically that has you smashing the keys on your social media abattoir of choice. I’m not kidding. Pick your poison. I get it and I agree with you. Now to the part you won’t like…

Any discussion of this incident that does not acknowledge the dozens of poor decisions it took to make this catastrophe possible is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. That we cannot abide. You can be angry about virtually any aspect of the events, but if you think that gives you permission to ignore this horrific Rube-Goldberg machine of incompetence, delusion, and felonious stupidity, then you have clicked on the wrong goddamn article.

I’ve been trying to piece together the sequence of events for two days, and putting it all together is the mental equivalent of sucking down an extra-large milkshake as fast as you can. It hurt my brain in ways I’m not comfortable talking about. No matter how much bourbon I throw at my higher-order thinking centers, I keep returning to the same conclusion. To be blunt, it should not have been possible for this intricate chain of stupidity to have as many links as it does. Multiple systems failed in a very specific order to produce this outcome, and several people demonstrated astonishingly low levels of forethought in their actions.

Don’t believe me? Let’s break it all out, shall we?

Failure 1: Mother does not know best.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a fairly prototypical 17-year-old American male. That is to say he is an undercooked and emotionally underdeveloped man-child. He loves Donald Trump and dreams of being a police officer someday. He had nothing nice to say about Black Lives Matter and he always gives officers the benefit of the doubt. That’s just from his social media profile, by the way. These are his own, self-avowed positions. Now, I don’t expect his mother to point out the horrible cognitive dissonance of her son committing what is an egregious felony in most states, in the name of “protecting businesses,” but did she really not comprehend the potential consequences?

Obvious red flags notwithstanding, this shining star was given ILLEGAL(1) access to dangerous weapons and then insinuated himself into a HIGHLY TENSE SITUATION WITH THOSE WEAPONS(2), all with his mother’s approval. This served no purpose other than to reinforce his post-adolescent super-hero fantasies and place him in a situation he had virtually none of the physical and emotional tools to navigate. The coming catastrophe is now set into motion…

If his mother had simply told him his idea was moronic on every known level as well as several previously unknown tiers of quantum stupidity, we would have no incident to talk about.

Failure 1A: I keep getting older, they stay the same age…

Given tacit approval by his mother and the local PD, Kyle’s confidence within the paradigm of his delusions was allowed to grow despite his obvious incompetence. Had the local PD simply said, “You are not a cop. Put that gun away and go to your room, kid,” we have no incident.

Failure 1B: You need to be this tall to go on the riot ride.

He was not old enough to carry a gun in public (1). I can’t say this enough. His possession of that rifle was a goddamn felony in many states, and a misdemeanor in Wisconsin(1). It wasn’t even a well-thought-out ruse, either. Rittenhouse is reportedly 5’3” tall and 135 pounds. He cannot even grow a beard. Had any of the NUMEROUS police officers he interacted with that night looked at the baby-faced, undersized youth and said, “hey waitaminnit… are you over 18?” we would have no incident to discuss.

ADDENDUM: It gets worse. 19-year-old Dominick Black has been charged with purchasing the rifle on Kyle’s behalf. Kyle is not old enough to purchase a gun in any state, and it appears that he got his friend to make the buy for him. This is referred to as a “straw purchase” and is an egregious felony. Because that is exactly what this situation needed: one more moron rowing this douche-canoe up shit creek as fast as their little arms can propel them.

Failure 2: I don’t think it means what you think it means.

This was supposed to be a peaceful protest over legitimate civil rights issues with regard to the behavior of Kenosha’s civil servants. However, there is no objective description of what was occurring on the streets that does not at least allow for the fact some of the “protesting” was much more akin to “rioting.”

Furthermore, as is so often the case, a small cohort of participating protesters were actively and deliberately belligerent. They showed up to pick a fight, or at least seemed highly predisposed toward one. If you hate how the alt-right paints protesters as looters, rioters, and thugs, then you can blame these few guys for giving them the ammunition to do it. If the protests had not included people more interested in agitating than protesting, we would have no incident to discuss.

Failure 2A: It takes two to tango, but some people tango harder than others.

For reasons not yet entirely clear, some of these disingenuous people singled out the youngest, smallest, and least competent-looking member of the gun-toting idiots patrolling the streets and began harassing him. It is not clear exactly what started this, though it appears that Kyle was trying to put out a dumpster fire (The irony! It burns!) set by these “protestors”. It is entirely feasible that Kyle somehow instigated the deterioration of this interaction. It is equally possible that the convicted felon (Sexual assault of a minor) that he is seen arguing with on camera picked the fight. This one is a wash, because both parties participated in this waste of oxygen with equal enthusiasm at first. Had they not been committing arson, it might never have escalated. Had the grown adult men simply rolled their eyes at the immature wannabe and laughed at his stupid LARPing, we would have no incident to discuss.

Failure 2B: Bullies bullying bullies is the new bullying.

At some point, the convicted sex offender throws something at Kyle. It looks like Kyle’s counterfeit confidence in his mastery of the situation is shot, because he immediately attempts to retreat. This emboldens several of the more belligerent protesters, including the thrower. They elect to pursue Kyle.

I still, for the life of me cannot understand the ‘why’ of this. They had won. The silly man-child was defeated and running off with his tail between his legs. Had they let Kyle run away, we have no incident to discuss. But they just could not help themselves. It wasn’t enough to win, they had to rub it in. These are not protesters anymore. They’re now bullies and none too bright.

Failure 2C: Knowing when to quit is for quitters!

The bullies pursue the retreating Kyle. In the videos, Kyle is obviously in full retreat. I don’t know what is going through his head, but I suspect he had begun to realize that oper8r life is not the video game fantasy he thought it was. The delusions his parents should have trained out of him are crumbling. It could have been over then. Some hilarious YouTube videos of Kyle being chased off by a group of brave protesters would have been a crushing victory for the pursuers. Imagine the memes!

Of course, that is exactly when something truly, magnificently stupid happens. This will not be the stupidest thing to happen over the course of what follows. However, it will push the consequences for everybody’s foolishness across the point of no return.

Failure 3: Oh, dear God this isn’t funny anymore.

Some intellectual amoeba in the pursuing mob shoots a pistol in the air. It is on camera. It happened. That is the first shot fired, and the moron was not even aiming at anyone. He just lets one fly for the hell of it. That is the guy I hate the most in all this. There is no version of events that justified that shot. It served no other purpose than to escalate a highly precarious situation into a bloody nightmare. If he had kept his dick in his pants and his booger hook off the bang switch, it is probable that Kyle would have finished his undignified retreat, learned something about the world, and that could have been the end of it all. But wait! We still have not achieved maximum stupid yet.

Failure 3A: Nothing like the simulations.

Kyle turns at the sound of the shot, and one can only assume he is full-on panicking now. He does not have the emotional maturity or the training for this. A gun has been fired and he sees the same man who has already attacked him once rushing him and trying to grab his weapon. He fires multiple times, with little control of his weapon and no real plan of action. 7-8 shots can be heard, four strike his attacker. Witnesses report the others bounced off the ground. Some people think this is good marksmanship(4), I think missing half your shots at a distance of less than ten feet with a rifle is pretty damn mediocre. But Kyle is scared and it’s dark, so you can decide for yourself.

When the man drops Kyle either turns and continues to run away, or circles behind a car for cover, depending on which version you read.

Failure 3B: I need an adult!

Either way, the crowd begins to descend on Kyle once more. He flees the scene of the first shooting with several dozen people in hot pursuit. Seconds later, Kyle trips and falls on his stupid face because he is not properly trained, or even trained at all(4). He’s a seventeen-year-old out of shape LARPer now into the shit so deep he cannot even see his way out anymore. If he could walk and chew gum at the same time, the incident could have ended with only one fatality. Unfortunately, the universe isn’t done humiliating us yet.

Failure 3C: Into the breach.

Several protesters take advantage of Kyle’s fall to physically assault him. I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge that some of these people probably felt they were helping to apprehend a rampaging killer. That is noble. It is also stupid on at least two levels. First, Kyle was not a rampaging killer, nor did any of his behavior up to this point resemble one. Second, Kyle was well-armed and terrified. Nevertheless, unencumbered by comprehension or objective reasoning, several brave souls attacked.

The first to reach Kyle was a man who did several years in prison for strangling and restraining his girlfriend. Why is this relevant? If Kyle’s past as cop-worshiping Trump supporter is relevant, then the criminal history of a man engaged in felonious assault with a dangerous weapon is, too. That’s how objectivity works. The violent felon proceeds to kick at the downed man-child and follows that up by bashing Kyle with a skateboard. Surprising absolutely no one, this man is fatally shot mid-bludgeon. A second man rushes Kyle with a drawn pistol and no concept of how it works because he’s just sort of waving it at his side while charging A PANICKING MORON WITH AN AR-15. He too, is shot. He takes a round to the arm and retreats. (ADDENDUM and EDIT: It turns out that this third assailant was convicted of carrying a firearm while intoxicated in 2016, though it does not appear that he was legally prohibited from carrying a firearm at the time of the incident, as previously reported. In many states, this conviction would have resulted in loss or suspension of firearms license, hence the confusion.) These are all failures of both situational awareness and tactical judgement.

Again, had the attackers let the stupid idiot run away we have no incident. Had they not assaulted an armed person on the ground, we have no incident. Had everybody shown even a modicum of firearms skill or discipline, we have no incident. Had the law prevented ANYONE carrying a gun illegally from participating in this maelstrom of dumbassery, we have no incident.

Failure 4: Quality police work.

With no one else attacking, Kyle continues to flee. He flags down several cops as they approach the scene and tries to surrender. The responding police are not interested in what he has to say. They do not let him speak and instead order him to go home. Had the police performed any sort of police work that night (making sure that there were no 17-year-olds toting ARs on the streets, for instance), we have no incident. Had they stopped to gather any intel about the scene, we would have much less of a clusterfuck.

Okay. I’m exhausted just parsing all that out.

Putting together the events and participants, I can only marvel at how far we have fallen. This incident is the clearest, most starkly damning example of how poorly our civil systems are functioning. So much had to go wrong for this to happen, and so many people had to fail their basic intelligence rolls to make it come together the way it did. This is a story with absolutely no “good guys.”

So, go ahead and be mad, folks. You have the right. No matter how or why your hackles are up, you have a leg to stand on thanks to a real team effort from various idiots. Fire up the old social media hate machine and get to typing ‘cuz this one has it all, folks! Let’s go to the checklist!

White privilege: White kid illegally carrying an AR-15 shoots three people and can’t even get arrested when he surrenders? Hell yeah. That’s gotta be the white privilege gold medal right there. If you don’t think that the same interaction would not have gone MUCH differently for a black man, I encourage you to look up the event that sparked this whole mess in the first place.

Police incompetence: Where do I start? Every cop who interacted with Rittenhouse and failed to card him needs to be suspended and retrained. Full stop. Look at any picture of Kyle Rittenhouse and ask yourself, “Would a convenience store clerk card him for a carton of cigarettes?” Don’t bother answering. We already know. That’s just bad police work coming and going. There is no other valid interpretation of that screw up.

Failure of Law and Order™: Two convicted felons(3) picked a fight with kid during some riots. It is absolutely unfair to hold protesters responsible for the actions of a few bad apples. Conversely, you cannot pretend there are no bad apples. That’s also how objectivity works. If you believe that a few bad cops warrants defunding the whole of law enforcement, or if you’ve ever argued that a few bad gun owners is justification for banning guns, then you might want to take a good look at some of the peaceful protests we have been enjoying in 2020. If you are mad, save some of that righteous fury for those who give a peaceful movement a bad name. There is plenty of stupid to go around, please apply your scorn appropriately.

Gun control: Everybody who has any opinion on guns in the US should be mad about this one. The anti-gun crowd should be livid that Kyle was able to walk around with an illegal weapon without any consequences. The third victim was not expressly forbidden to have a gun, yet one could argue that he should have been. Most of the pro-gun crowd is definitely mad about this stuff, too. See? You already agree on something!

Anyone who fancies themselves a shooter should be apoplectic over the incredibly poor weapon-handling by every single person with a gun. The asshole who fired the first shot for no damn reason should be arrested and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Kyle needs a prison term for even having a gun at all (his abysmal skills notwithstanding)(1). The third victim running around with zero muzzle control got his bicep blown off so I suppose he has been punished enough, except for the fact that in m ost states he would have been a prohibited person. The point is that nobody looks good, here.

In conclusion…

This incident is a warning. It is a gasping canary in the coal mine of endemic, systemic, pervasive stupidity infecting numerous levels of what we like to think of as our society. It’s not (insert your pet issue here) that makes it worse, it’s our inability to address any of the stupidity without collapsing in to militant thought-camps that refuse to acknowledge any position that is not their own. WE screwed this up. Not THEM.

US.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a call to action. Nobody was in the right, everybody made it worse. You want blame? Fine. Blame the leaders we elected, blame our influencers, blame our media, blame our prejudices, blame guns, blame pop culture. But do me one favor first. Look in the mirror and accept your share of the blame for the petty vendettas and the bitterness we can’t let go of even when it hurts us. We’re all so focused on winning the arguments that we have forgotten to solve the goddamn problems.

We don’t have to argue about Kyle Rittenhouse if we don’t want to. He’s not the real problem, anyway. What happened in Kenosha was the result of a very preventable series of failures across the board. If we can accept that, then it gets much easier to take a deep a breath and say as one united people:

“Oh, shit. That’s not a good sign, is it?”

Footnote (1): Kyle’s lawyer has cited an obscure rule in Wisconsin law that allows minors to carry rifles if they are under the supervision of an adult who can legally do so. This rule exists so minors can get to the shooting range or their hunting spots with their rifles legally if there is an adult present. It’s a good rule. Does it apply in this case? Maybe, if you kind of squint your eyes and ignore all the surrounding context. Where was the responsible adult supervising Kyle? I posit that the intervention of at least ONE GODDAMN RESPONSIBLE ADULT might have changed the outcome by quite a bit. But there appear to be none present at any point. There is some conflict in how the law is written which is creating some contentious debate about what the law requires, though at least two lawyers have advised me that there is little chance Rittenhouse was in compliance with Wisconsin law even with this loophole. The matter will be settled by the courts in any case. Until the courts rule otherwise, it is my position that Kyle was not in compliance with Wisconsin law. It now appears that the rifle was secured via “straw purchase,” making his possession of the weapon in any capacity illegal, and virtually guaranteeing Kyle will not escape this without charges.

Footnote (2): Kyle’s lawyer has claimed that he was in the area that day prior to the riots working as a community lifeguard. He was then asked to help clean graffiti at a local school. After that, a local business owner asked for help protecting his car dealership from rioters whereupon a friend loaned Kyle the AR-15 in question. Is any of this true? It looks like at least some of it is likely, except that the rifle appears to have been acquired via illegal straw purchase. It is still held as fact that his mother transported him to and from the riots, and there is some indication that she was participating as a civilian guard in the same manner her son was. At the very least, most accounts agree that Kyle had his mother’s approval and blessing to be in Kenosha with that rifle.

Footnote (3): Here is a link to an article that lists the criminal records of Kyle’s victims with supporting documentation. The article has it’s own thesis that you may or may not find compelling. I don’t care, because they did a good job getting all the information on the victims into one place with references. That’s all I wanted.

Footnote (4): I have heard from many people that Kyle showed good muzzle control and trigger discipline. They feel that my characterization of his skills is unfair. I think these people are setting the bar way too low for teenagers carrying rifles on public streets during riots. Trigger discipline and muzzle control are the BARE MINIMUM skills for firearms handling of any kind. My ten-year-old has both. Not blowing your own foot off does not an operator make, and pretending that his barely adequate performance is anything other is not a good look for the pro-2A community. Rittenhouse displayed extremely poor physical readiness, tactical awareness, forethought, shot placement, and general communications skills throughout the whole mess. He was a minimally trained amateur and it showed. If Rittenhouse is a competent shooter then the average range-day hobbyist who actually puts effort in is a goddamn Navy SeAL by comparison.

On Character and The Duty to Vote Accordingly

News

Editorial Board

-

August 25, 2020

1

On Character and The Duty to Vote Accordingly

“All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

Bullshido is non-partisan–always has and always will be. We do not throw our weight behind candidates or parties. So, you know, it is kind of hard to write in a time of hyper-partisanship without wading into those waters. And every election season, the low-hanging fruit of writing is an impassioned essay trying to guilt readers into deciding for whom to vote.

I hate those articles. And this article isn’t one of them.

See, Bullshido’s purpose has never been to tell our community what to think. Our purpose is to teach them how to think. That is a crucial distinction.

So this made it difficult when we were requested to write about the Presidency–specifically whether or not personal character should or should not be a factor in deciding who should be President. (Thanks @MarcRGrant for the request on twitter). But, anything worth doing is difficult and I am the “publish your values” guy so of course I’m going to do it.

Personal character absolutely should be a critical factor in deciding the President. As the highest elected official, the President–like all elected officials–represents the collective soul of the country. The President is not a reflection of us–the President is us. The President is the country’s representative to the world–the President’s values are attributed to the people that elected the President to office. The President is, in many respects, the absolute best of us and the absolute worst of us synthesized into one (likely insufferable) human being.

Think of the Monroe Doctrine–where President Monroe boldly told Europe to stop mucking about in the Americas under threat of retaliation. Or President Teddy Roosevelt’s tough stance on monopolies and the like. These actions characterize and summarize the collective views of the nation at the time. Under Monroe, we valued freedom from Colonialism, and under Teddy we valued economic fairness (and wicked cool mustaches. And Presidents who did judo. And were tough as shit. Can we seriously get a new Teddy Roosevelt, please?)

Heck, consider the actions of President Adams or F.D.R.–both of whom acted in horrifically unconstitutional and indefensible ways. Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act into law in direct violation of the First Amendment. FDR ignored the plight of Jews living under Nazi rule and locked people in concentration camps for being possibly Japanese. What do these actions say about the people of the country at the time? The fear and uncertainty and anxiety of the country is palpable through the President–as well as the racial and xenophobic undertones of a populace that would later require the Army to de-segregate schools.

Or consider the Presidencies of Johnson and his successor, Nixon. Under Johnson, we achieved some of the most important legislation ever passed by Congress–the Civil Rights Act. That was swiftly rebuked by voters who made clear they weren’t super comfortable with all people being treated equally by electing Nixon–who created the war on drugs specifically to harm minority communities.

Every elected official presents a snapshot of the values of the people they represent. Voters in one state nominated an accused pedophile for elected office–signaling that being creepy with teens is less important to them than being on the correct side of the aisle. Voters in another state nominated a conspiracy theorist for a Congressional seat. Heck, numerous towns throughout the nation have elected dogs to be the mayor. (I would also submit that those towns are smart for creating an executive so useless that even a good boi can hold office)

Each of these actions represent the values of the constituency. Those constituencies, however, are relatively small compared to the Presidency. So while a congressional candidate may represent a small district, the President represents the nation.

These values that are displayed by elected officials are a representation of us as a whole. Through that lens, of course, it is vitally important to be cognizant of the personal values and character of the candidates for the highest office in the land.

And just as those values are reflective of us individually, they are reflective–of us collectively. The Presidency doesn’t just show us who we are as a person but it shows us who we are as a people–more importantly, it shows the world who we are as a country. When we elect xenophobes, Americans are xenophobic. When we elect interventionalists, it is Americans who are nosey busy-bodies. When we elect compassionate and thoughtful leaders, Americans are compassionate and thoughtful.

…as those values are reflective of us individually, they are reflective–of us collectively. The Presidency doesn’t just show us who we are as a person but it shows us who we are as a people–more importantly, it shows the world who we are as a country
…

So, if the President’s personal character is the same as our personal character–or at the very least, an unpolished reflection of it–it is inarguable that the personal character of the President should be a large factor in deciding from whom to vote. Luckily, evaluating character is something that has already been done–and many of us may have even learned it in kindergarten!

According to charactercounts.org, the Six Pillars of Character (which is apparently a registered trademark ) are:

Trustworthiness
Respect
Responsibility
Fairness
Caring
Citizenship.

I’ve never been one to reinvent the wheel, so let’s talk in depth about these in the context of evaluating a Presidential candidate.

Trustworthiness

The President is the leader of the free world and at the helm of the finest and most powerful military force to ever exist. To be worthy of that power, the President must be trustworthy. That means being honest, reliable, courageous–willing to review the evidence and change their position if they are wrong. If we elect a dishonest President–say, one who routinely breaches contracts and fails to pay contractors–we are admitting we, ourselves our dishonest. If we elect a President who avoids the media and storms off when confronted with tough questions–we are admitting that we, ourselves, are cowards. We are signaling that these traits are not only held by us but that they are acceptable and even something to be admired.

Respect

The President wields tremendous authority–both domestically and abroad. To use that authority properly, the President must be well-informed. Subordinates must feel comfortable to voice dissenting views and to present bad news without fear of retribution. A President who abuses subordinates and dissenters is an inept President. A President who wields the authority of their office to attack and belittle citizens is inept. By electing such a President, we are signaling our comfort with burying our heads in the sand. We are signaling a distinct lack of respect for ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Responsibility

A President accepts responsibility. As the head of the Federal government, all responsibility begins and ends with the Presidency–for the good and the bad. A President who refuses to accept responsibility is a President who is unaccountable. Such a President is rash and hasty with their actions–knowing full well the consequences can be shifted onto someone else. By electing such a President, we signal our comfort with shirking responsibility and blaming others. We signal our unwillingness to hold ourselves and others accountable.

Fairness

The President is the head of the Federal Government–the Chief Executive with the important responsibility of enforcing federal laws. The enforcement of those laws must be conducted in a uniform manner. No one should be above the law for any reason–not by virtue of connections, status, wealth, or power. For laws to have meaning they must apply to us all or else they should not apply to anyone. As the chief enforcer of these laws, the President is vested with broad discretion on whether (or how) to enforce these laws. Electing a President who would use this broad power to interfere with investigations, commute or pardon friends and supporters without good cause, or otherwise stray from the ideal of impartial justice signals our comfort with a justice system that is anything but just.

Caring

A President wields tremendous power–both formal power through things like grants and the like and informal power through implicit endorsements. The President can use this power for good–by calling attention to injustice or indignity and lending the weight of the office to help those in need. The President can also use this power to magnify injustice or indignity and to embolden bad-faith actors. By electing a President who does not care about others–a President who routinely attacks, insults, and belittles others–we signal our own predilection to pushing others down instead of helping to lift them up.

Citizenship

A President, above all, should be accountable to the law and should work to make this country, this world, better. A President is not just a citizen of the United States but a citizen of the World–and as such, has a responsibility to try and make the world a better place. A President should be a uniting force, not a dividing force. A President should not ignore atrocity or indignity. There is only one planet and electing a President who alienates our Nation from the world signals our failure to understand that.

I want to make clear that I’m not telling you, dear reader, for whom to vote. I’m only asking you to consider the personal character of the Candidates–and whether that character is reflective of your own–because the personal character of the President is our character. You can control how America is viewed in the world simply by casting your vote. You decide the values of this nation so please, vote for the candidate that best represents the values you hold most dear.

And I also realize that some people reading this will think I’m making a case against a specific candidate. I’m not–though I would say if the shoe fits, lace that motherfucker up and wear it.

The right to vote is one of the most important rights we have. (Though ranked-choice voting would make it even more important and meaningful…but that’s another article). I’m not nearly pretentious enough to tell you how to vote. I only ask you to consider this article in deciding, for yourself, how to cast that vote.

And most importantly, get out and vote. If you vote by mail, send in your ballot early. If you vote in person, please be safe and wear a mask.

Lastly, if you do have any requests or topics you’d like to see Bullshido or myself write about, feel free to reach out to us on twitter @bullshido or @derek_debus (or on Facebook. Or we do have a website, you know). We’re always looking for new article topics so please keep the requests coming!

Mental Weakness and the “Just World” Fallacy

Phrost

-

August 16, 2020

0

Mental Weakness and the “Just World” Fallacy

Every culture teaches its children a version of how the world works that is simplified down to a level kids can understand. But frankly, few cultures do it well, in a way that prepares their children for the harsh realities they will face as adults. And sadly, a lot of them simplify things down to such a sugary fairy tale that some children never outgrow it—going on to be demi-adults with a childish worldview.

This is, obviously, a problem.

Death’s Hot Take

In Terry Pratchett’s beloved fantasy novel “Hogfather”, there is a conversation between Death and his granddaughter that brushes up against the issue:

Susan: “All right,” said Susan. “I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.”
Death: REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
Susan: “Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—”
Death: YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
Susan: “So we can believe the big ones?”
Death: YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
Susan: “They’re not the same at all!”
Death: YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET — Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
Susan: “Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—”
Death: MY POINT EXACTLY.

Pratchett’s point here is sincere and heartfelt, but comes down on the wrong side of the issue. There is an implicit, elitist smugness, even if unintentional, that accompanies the line of thinking that people can’t rationally understand the value of a thing and need to be manipulated into an irrational belief about it for their own good. It assumes that people are children, that they are mentally weak, and such weakness needs to be worked around rather than addressed directly.

It is one thing to make an informed choice that justice and fairness matter because you understand that a world without them would be nasty and brutish. It is entirely another thing to brainwash people into believing those values are woven into the fabric of the universe itself because you do not trust them to think for themselves. And this difference is important if you care about improving actual outcomes, because people who learn they don’t have to think for themselves tend to have their thinking done by those without their best interests in mind—weakness invites predators.

The Just World Fallacy

When you put a name to this line of thinking its nonsensical nature becomes clear to just about anyone. Of course the world isn’t a just place, of course life isn’t fair. And then you walk away and immediately go about the rest of your day operating as if it is true anyway. You mumble “what goes around comes around” when your asshole neighbor falls off his roof. You pass a homeless person on the street and shake your head at their obviously bad life choices. And when something terrible happens to someone you actually care about, you secretly wonder if “Karma” brought it upon them.

The consequences of the this mindset are clear: if you believe the world is “just”, in its very nature, you have no personal responsibility to pursue making it better. You have no duty to intervene when you see someone being assaulted in public, you do not have to care about world events, politics, or even your neighbor screaming in pain impaled on your shared fence if you don’t want to. Just turn up the TV a little bit. If people truly “get what they deserve”, by some supernatural mechanism, you can go about doing whatever you want to do without any guilt. “Everything happens for a reason”, after all, right?

The consequences of the this mindset are clear: if you believe the world is “just”, in its very nature, you have no personal responsibility to pursue making IT BETTER.

Well, yes, but no. Everything happens for a multitude of reasons, not any singular reason, and the drive to reduce anything down to a single cause is partly the product of the fact that people don’t want to think very hard about things outside of their control. Doing so is well-beyond uncomfortable, it can be downright terrifying to acknowledge how utterly random the causes of events are. And even more so, the fact that everything happens for a reason, doesn’t mean everything happens for a purpose.

Again, this kind of thinking is the product of weak minds, and you don’t overcome weakness by ignoring it.

There are really only two responses to being under a heavy burden—whether literally with a barbell in the gym or figuratively in an adult awareness of the indifferent nature of the world: get crushed by it or get stronger. It takes mental strength to acknowledge that the world is not a “just” place, that the good often suffer while the evil prosper, and that there is no justice for anyone save for what we pursue at great expense. The childish belief that there are angels and demons shaping the outcomes of our lives must give way to the wisdom that we are our own angels and demons.

And for anyone who isn’t weak, this is a call to action.

Sources and More Information

Lerner, M. (1978). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.

Derek Debus Joins the Board at Bullshido

News

Editorial Board

-

August 13, 2020

0

Derek Debus Joins the Board at Bullshido

Recently, I have been asked to join the Board of Directors for Bullshido. I eagerly jumped at the opportunity and am humbled by the invitation.

Bullshido is an incredible place. It started over 20 years ago under a different name – before getting sued by a nameless corporation with an affinity for red and yellow branding – with a very different mission from the one we shoulder today.

Bullshido started in the generations of Bloodsport and other hilariously out-of-touch martial arts movies. It grew watching a 180lb Brazilian guy choke out some of the best “martial artists” in the world. It found its original purpose in exposing bullshit in the martial arts. Our membership grew and we welcomed all challengers. Claim to fight with your chi? Let’s put that to the test. Think that your _ing _un kung fu can beat Brazilian jiu jitsu? We’ll be your huckleberry.

In so doing, we built up a following of dangerous meatheads who love the martial arts and thinks that getting punched in the head is a great stress reliever. We built up huge forums to discuss every conceivable martial arts discipline. We encouraged our members to get together for friendly sparring matches – called Throwdowns – and to video tape them for the community to watch and enjoy.

And that’s where I first joined the website. A young teenager with a love of grappling sports, I jumped onto the boards with all the awkwardness a near-friendless teenager could muster. If I wasn’t at jiu jitsu, judo, or sambo practice I would be on the boards talking about jiu jitsu, judo, and sambo. I’d help organize Michigan Throwdowns and count some of my closest and longest friends to people I met solely to fight. Seriously, my friend Alex kicks me in the junk every time we spar – without fail.

And yet, eventually, like all things, Bullshido changed. The martial arts community had transformed from hero-worshipping acolytes to peer-reviewing meatheads ready to put their money where their mouth was. Bullshit in the martial arts was, for the first time in human history, on the decline.

Unfortunately, a new style of complete and total BS popped up. Pseudo-academics and bad-faith hucksters rose up to misrepresent facts and mislead as many people as they possibly could. They argued that chocolate was an octave of sun energy or that the coronavirus vaccine is a democrat hoax or any number of completely nonsensical bullshit you see on the internet these days that almost sorta kinda makes you stop and go “this is so fucking stupid”.

That’s when we realized we had an obligation. Bullshido had spent decades cultivating a following of dangerous motherfuckers who knew how to kick ass and take names. We had an obligation to make sure our collective of dangerous motherfuckers were not stupid, dangerous motherfuckers.

So we set out, again, to dispel bullshit in science, academics, the law, and anywhere else it hides away from the sunlight. Our goal is to not only inform our audience in a non-biased, fact-centric way (we are routinely recognized as one of the least-biased new organizations out there). Our goal is not only to call the balls and the strikes regardless of who is at bat or on the mound.

Our most important goal is to teach our collective of dangerous motherfuckers how to think critically. Every day, we are working towards the Digital Agora – a place where rigorous debate over matters of substance can take place.

As a new board member, I will be helping to transition Bullshido into a not-for-profit entity. I will also work on building relationships with fantastic guests and guest-writers for our podcast and op-ed sections. I am so excited to have joined this board and to advance these incredibly important ideals.

Bullshido is not a person, or even a small group of people – it is a collective of like-minded enthusiasts of rigorous peer-review and study with the singular purpose of making the world a smarter place. I could not be more humbled or honored to help advance these principles as a member of the Board.

-Derek Debus

The Bar Exam is BS

BS
News

Editorial Board

-

August 7, 2020

2

Let’s talk about the bar exam. The bar exam is, ostensibly, a means of testing “minimum competence” to ensure that new law graduates are sufficiently not-terrible enough to practice law. But it is complete and total nonsense, from the start. I’m not even going to address the specific issues with administering a bar exam with thousands of applicants in a single room during a global pandemic. Instead, I’m going to convince you that the bar exam is entirely useless in its current form.

See, originally, there was no bar exam for new lawyers. Graduates from law school were granted the privilege of practicing by virtue of their diploma. A few states – namely Wisconsin – still do things this way for graduates of a Wisconsin state law school. But that all changed as African-Americans began to attend law schools in the 40s and 50s. At that time, pearl-clutching bar associations were terrified at the prospect of treating all people equally. So they created the bar exam specifically as a barrier to entry for newly minted Black lawyers. Incorrigible.

Sketch of Charlotte E. Ray, the first black woman attorney, 1872. She had to close her practice after a few short years due to a lack of clients and became a schoolteacher.

This process of exclusion has not stopped. It seems at every opportunity the law school racket finds new ways to make joining the least-diverse-white-collar-profession even more difficult for those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Just look at these costs:

LSAT – required for admission to most law schools: Almost $300 in fees and report generation.
MPRE – an ethics test required for licensure in most jurisdictions: $125.
Prep Course (because you need one to have any hope of passing): $1300-$3000
Bar Exam: $505
Laptop fee: $125
Character and Fitness: $300
Post-bar admission fees: $580.

Not to mention the 3 months of not working to study for the bar. And 3 months of not working while waiting for bar results. Is it any wonder why its so hard for the economically disadvantaged to become lawyers?

And what does the bar exam do? Well, in the vast majority of the country, States administer the exact same bar exam. Its called the “uniform bar examination” and it exclusively tests general (read: outdated, overruled, abrogated, or otherwise inapplicable) law. It doesn’t test state-specific law, just the generalities. So, you spend 3 months learning law that is absolutely and totally inapplicable to what you’ll do after licensure.

It tests upwards of 13 different subjects – each of which has a near-infinite number of rules and sub-rules and exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

It is entirely closed book. So, it takes most applicants about 3 months of dedicated studying with a professional test prep course to gain a working knowledge of all the fake law you need to pass the bar.

But what does legal practice look like? Well, for the vast majority of lawyers it involves researching and writing. Lawyers don’t have the law memorized by heart – and even when we do, we still go and verify that its still the law because stuff changes constantly.

So, the bar exam does not approximate legal practice at all and for the vast majority of lawyers does not actually test the law they will be practicing.

Okay, need more evidence that the bar exam is useless? The National Conference of Bar Examiners is the organization that administers the UBE. The NCBE’s president has never taken the bar exam – she was licensed through diploma privilege. The NCBE’s general counsel has never taken the bar exam – they were licensed through diploma privilege. Rules for thee but not for me seems to be the sentiment at the NCBE. (Yet, ironically, the NCBE President is releasing a forthcoming blog post about why diploma privilege is a terrible idea that will ruin the legal profession).

The bar exam originated as a racist endeavor to keep the legal profession white. It continues as a literal cash-cow that makes bar associations and the NCBE yacht-loads of money off the backs of the people who can least afford it. And it does absolutely nothing to protect the public from shitty lawyers. The bar exam is a test of your ability to memorize. Memorizing the law, however, is not what lawyers do. Lawyers read the law, digest it, synthesize it, and apply it. We don’t memorize it.

Not saying it’s a racket, but you could play tennis with it.

This brings us to the second part of the problem: The American Bar Association. The ABA accredits law schools. Literally almost any law school. Arizona Summit Law School (where I did my first year of law school before transferring to a real school) was accredited even though less than 30% of its graduates passed the bar. Charlotte School of Law? Same deal. Cooley. Thomas Jefferson. Honestly, there are more bad law schools than good ones and a great deal of them are “accredited” by the ABA.

In a perfect world, ABA accreditation would a) mean something and b) be sufficient evidence of competency for a graduate of an ABA-accredited school. But an ABA accreditation is functionally useless (unless your school somehow doesn’t have it) because my dog could start a law school and very possibly get it accredited. It is almost no measure of quality.

Yet, this brings us to the third part of the problem: shitty lawyers still exist. Even with ABA accreditation and a bar exam testing “minimum competency” at your ability to memorize outdated and inapplicable law, there are still absolutely terrible lawyers out there.

What is the solution? Well, honestly, it’s simple. One Midwest jurisdiction already happened upon the proper solution in response to the simple reality that you can’t hold an in-person bar examination safely during a global pandemic. They still administer a bar exam but it is a narrowly tailored, open-book examination of state law. This is a COVID-19 accommodation but it truly reveals the unnecessary nature of the bar exam as currently constituted.

Per the second paragraph of the attached memorandum we have already established that there is a precedent for you shutting the hell up, Todd.

But still, that’s crazy, right? An examination that actually tests a lawyer’s ability to research and write. That’s perfect. It can be taken from home, online. It can be ran through the same integrity/plagiarism software every online class uses to make sure its students aren’t cheating. And it actually tests the skills a lawyer will use every day.

I’m sure there will be lawyers reading this and getting red in the face. That’s fine but I implore those reading to ask themselves: is the bar exam necessary or are you just upset you had to do it and want to make everyone else do it, too?

We can do better. We shouldn’t be clinging to the past because we have “always done things that way”. (Also, we haven’t always done them that way). Innovation is never-ending and the bar exam demonstrably is in need of innovation. The bar exam is an outmoded hazing ritual with racist origins that exists solely to extract cash from those least in a position to afford it. It is time to reform it into something functional and worthwhile.

16 Covid Update 3 – Revenge of the Sick

News
Podcast

Bullshido News

-

August 5, 2020

0

Dr. Jason Goldsmith (MD, PhD) and the crew delve into the latest information on the clusterfracas that is the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States.

Among the topics discussed include the reasons why both testing and vaccines aren’t as far along as most people would expect, the utter garbage of popular science news, and a surprising take on sending kids back to school. Also, Phrost yells at people who don’t want to wear masks.

Bullshido · 16 Covid Update 3 – Revenge Of The Sick

Subscribe on one of these popular platforms

The Art of Fighting BS Podcast on Spotify

The Art of Fighting BS Podcast on iTunes

The Art of Fighting BS Podcast on Google Play

The Art of Fighting BS Podcast on Stitcher

Wearing Masks: the Right Thing, or Being Forced to do it

Health
News

Editorial Board

-

July 24, 2020

0

Wearing Masks: the Right Thing, or Being Forced to do it

First, you should wear a mask when around other people and in enclosed spaces. This isn’t even up for debate – the science is absolutely settled on the role masks play in limiting the spread of infection.

I could emphasize that masks protect OTHER people from you. I could emphasize that YOU can spread COVID-19 up to three days before you show symptoms. I could emphasize how settled the science is on these points but let’s be real – if you could understand the science and methodology you wouldn’t be whining about wearing a mask.

It is literally the barest, most minor of inconveniences that will both protect people and allow things to get back to normal sooner. If the possibility of saving a human life by wearing a piece of cloth over your sewer-like mouth isn’t enough then won’t you please think of the economy?

Clearly, I support mask usage unequivocally. But one thing I cannot support is the recent trend of instituting criminal liability for not wearing a mask. In several states, it is a misdemeanor to be out in public without a mask.

That is misguided and counterproductive, particularly in the midst of the very real and very important national conversation about policing.

Every criminal law on the books creates the opportunity for implicit or explicit bias in its enforcement. Consider the following facts: Officers observe a car with black men in it. Officers continue to observe because they subjectively believed that these men were drug dealers – solely because they were black and driving in a nice car. These officers followed and waited for the driver to commit a minor traffic violation – accelerating too quickly or rolling through a stop sign or the like – and used that as pretext to stop the drivers. Put simply, the officers thought that these black men were drug dealers based on the color of their skin and waited for a minor traffic infraction to give them legal cover to act on their biases.

*Man in Philadelphia dragged off public transportation by police for not wearing a mask.*

And the Supreme Court upheld that action because there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offense had been committed. It didn’t matter that the officers were detectives in an unmarked vehicle that ordinarily do not pull people over for minor traffic offenses. It didn’t matter that, at face value, the driver was stopped solely for being black. The fact that there was a minor traffic violation was enough to end the inquiry.

This piece is not about implicit biases evident in law enforcement – suffice it to say they exist. This piece is not about explicit biases and racism in law enforcement – suffice it to say it exists. These are human failings and as long as law enforcement is conducted by humans these failings will, inevitably, exist.

What kind of society are we trying to build anyway?

This piece is about subjecting people to criminal penalties for not wearing a mask. As demonstrated above, creating criminal liability for failing to wear a mask only gives more opportunity for implicit and explicit biases to rear their ugly heads.

Moreover, the authority granted to the State when it suspects a citizen of violating criminal law is vast. Consider these facts: A woman in Texas was pulled over for a misdemeanor seatbelt violation. At the time, this carried a maximum penalty of $25 dollars. The officer who pulled her over arrested her and booked her into jail. The Supreme Court upheld this as well, stating that arrest for even a minor violation punishable only by a fine was permissible.

Once booked, you can be strip-searched, body cavity searched, and held for up to 48 hours before seeing a judge. All of that is permissible for a petty offense like a seatbelt violation and it would very likely be permissible for not wearing a mask. That is absolute insanity.

Woman strip searched by mixed-gender officers after booking for a misdemeanor. **Source.**

Lastly, and the most compelling point given the national discussion on policing, is enforcement of criminal law necessarily creates the opportunity for violence. A suspect can escalate, an Officer can escalate, a bystander can escalate. The enforcement of criminal law creates the circumstances for a person – Officer, suspect, or innocent bystander – to be injured or even killed. In Minnesota, a man alleged to have passed a counterfeit $20 was slowly murdered when an officer kneeled on his neck for almost ten minutes. In New York, a man alleged to have sold a loose cigarette (a minor misdemeanor, like wearing a mask) was killed during an enforcement action. In Georgia, a man suspected of committing a DUI (another misdemeanor) violently attacked two police officers, disarmed one of their taser and attempted to use it on officers before being shot.

It is an inescapable truth that enforcing criminal laws creates the conditions necessary for violence to occur. This is as true for violent crimes as it is for minor misdemeanors.

That’s not to say that criminal law is unnecessary. It’s not to say that criminal laws should not be enforced – they absolutely should.

But as a society we need to weigh the costs and benefits of increasing our dizzying array of criminal laws. Absent substantial necessity and a compelling reason, we as a society should avoid adding more criminal laws on the books.

Criminalizing not wearing a mask makes things more dangerous for everyone. It creates more opportunities for violence against police officers. It creates more opportunities for violence against suspects and innocent bystanders. It creates more opportunity for disproportionate and unfair enforcement. It adds yet another responsibility onto the shoulders of police officers who are already overworked and overburdened with ancillary roles they were never trained or designed to fill.

Wearing a mask is important and vitally necessary to ending this pandemic and saving lives. Yet no reasonable person would agree that someone not wearing a mask deserves to be arrested, booked into jail, and strip-searched. No reasonable person would agree that someone not wearing a mask is worth a police officer or the suspect getting hurt.

Moreover, mask laws are counter-productive. Police (at least those agencies that haven’t outright said they would not enforce mask laws) would find someone not wearing a mask and then arrest and book them into jail. Where they are, statistically, much more likely to be exposed to COVID-19. Then they’ll get released, shortly thereafter, and be free to potentially spread COVID-19? All because they violated a law intended to help limit the spread of COVID-19? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Pandemic? Prisons? Yeah we already read this book and know how it ends.

While criminal laws related to mask usage come from a place of good intentions, they are horribly misguided and may ultimately cause more harm than they purport to avoid. While any expansion of the criminal code should be viewed with suspicion, mask laws in particular are susceptible to unfair, unequal enforcement. Accordingly, the States that have passed such laws should repeal them immediately and any State considering adopting them should immediately reverse course.

Microaggressions and Nematodes: The Scientific Worm Community Goes Karen Over a Joke

News
Science

Phrost

-

July 22, 2020

14

Microaggressions and Nematodes: The Scientific Worm Community Goes Karen Over a Joke

Save your face by sitting on your palms while reading this. Scroll with your feet or something.

Here’s what we’re going to do: at the bottom of this article will be the tweet that everyone got upset about. But before we get there we will bask in the warm glow of the angry replies to it. And when we’re done we’ll let you decide if there really is a monster at the end of this book.

“It’s an obscure reference, but it checks out Sir.”

Here we go, in no particular order (because it doesn’t matter and time is a social construct and we’re not putting much effort into this ridiculousness):

Oh wow it must be serious if you’re reconsidering submitting your research article over a joke. How dare he?

IT’S NOT A JOKE ABOUT WORMS, IT’S WHAT I WANT IT TO BE ABOUT!

The topic of discussion:

And Here’s The Offending Tweet:

Yes, that’s the joke. Michael Eisen, editor of a peer-reviewed journal, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, made a joke in response to a science-themed thread for jokes, and all of the above replies ensued. “That’s it” indeed. Darwin help us.

Parting Shot:

SOURCES

Meh start here if you have the stomach.

WTF is C. elegans?