Costs of Earnest Allyship

A 28-year-old social democratic data scientist lost his job at @CivisAnalytics for tweeting an article by a biracial Princeton African-American studies scholar suggesting that riopting is politically counterproductive

This is horrifying.

Remember, they always come for their own first. The social-democratic data scientist is reaping what he’s sown.

You can jump around these terrible, terrible people like a trained poodle, repeating their slogans and going to their “peaceful protests.” And not in spite but because of your earnest “allyship” you will be hurt worse than anybody else.

14 thoughts on “Costs of Earnest Allyship”

  1. What I learned from following the link and reading the article:

    1) prose can, apparently, “reek of anti-blackness”

    2) quoting Martin Luther King in context “puts lives at stake” and is “offensive to black reporters and black people.”

    3) “It certainly was (and remains) true that the right poses a vastly greater danger to liberalism than does the far left.” (we hold these truths to be self-evident, obviously, and they remain true too)

    4) “the simplistic comparison of deaths at the hands of white police versus minorities fails to acknowledge both the broader patterns of mistreatment by police that falls short of outright murder, and the fear this creates, so that a single police murder can terrorize thousands and shape their view of the state in a way that a local murder cannot.” (Hai!! -one cannot help but stand in awe at the highly skilled use of verbal jujutsu)

    5) “One problem with this position is that, as many of us have argued, Trump is merely an especially gross outlier in his party’s more longstanding radical trend.” (This is how one mounts an convincing argument to defend free speech in 2020.)


    1. I still don’t understand why nobody has suggested canceling the Democratic party. The name carries horrible racist connotations. Whatever it is today, it’s undeniable that it was the party of the KKK. I suggest it gets disbanded immediately because even simply hearing the name is traumatizing.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. ” they always come for their own first”

    Because they’re more likely to have internalized the party narrative and put up a fight. You pick the low hanging fruit first before getting around to cutting down the tall trees…


  3. OT (almost): Does Klara like Paw Patrol? Cause apparently it’s going to be cancelled cause it shows positive depictions of the police….
    So…. either make sure she doesn’t see it, or gets over it or get packing for the re-education camps…


    1. Once this is all over, cop shows will be off TV, statues will be torn down, things named after racist people will change their names, etc., and very little meaningful criminal justice reform will take place. It will all just be a bunch of symbolic bullshit to placate bougie liberals.


  4. Some days ago I had a conversation with the most SJW-ish of my friends. The immediate topic was Stockwell Day (a Canadian conservative politician who said something insensitive and was fired from a couple of advisory boards and his show on CBC). I was trying to explain that, aside from any freedom of the speech arguments, squashing competing opinions is simply not practical: if people are not allowed to voice their opinions openly for fear of retaliation, and if there is no open debate, they will protest at the voting booth. And then everybody will be very surprised by somebody like Trump getting elected.
    Then he made an argument that some viewpoints should not be voiced in order to not give people the “wrong ideas”. On the good side – abolishing elections was not proposed yet…
    Then the argument shifted to that Stockwell Day is going to be OK anyway, and whatever happened to him is a minor thing compared to the legacy of oppression. To which I responded with a suggestion to actually visualize this experiment, with blindfolded lady justice weighing the sins of Stockwell Day against the whole “legacy of oppression”, 99% of which has nothing to do with Stockwell Day, making it an obviously rigged weighting procedure.
    And then I learned that me being able to debate like that comes from the place of privilege. The latter thing he said sort of half-jokingly, as if he does not truly believe in it yet… 🙂 To which I responded with “and I also like a good steak”. My friend is not a vegetarian, so he would not take it as personal mockery.
    Anyway, I may be wrong, but what I am trying to do is to let it be known to SJWs who are still capable of listening that their ideas do not have unconditional support even among the center-left people…


    1. It’s really good that you can have these conversations with people. I wouldn’t be able to do it. I’m not a patient preacher but a fire-and-brimstone one. When people say something I don’t like, I get an unpleasant facial expression that makes them not want to say it. The only place I get to debate anything is the blog because in RL nobody wants to. 🙂 At conferences, I really go after people.

      But I applaud what you are doing. If anybody can pull it off, it’s you.


      1. Thank you.
        If you believe that I debate non-emotionally, then I have created a wrong impression about myself. We should have a debate about something next time we meet. 🙂
        One thing that is helpful is to stick with debating the issues, and not the person. Even making faces is OK, as long as it is clear that there is no “how could YOU have thoughts/beliefs/ideas like that” behind making faces.
        Another useful stance comes from my experience with meddling in the affairs of my country of origin. I am a believer in moderates of each side policing their own extremists. This, of course, makes one unelectable if one aspires to some sort of leadership position (because one is not quite “ours” for any group) but this is a very good position for a faculty member or pretty much anybody else who is doing OK outside of politics. Besides, you are correct that extremist groups like to police their own ranks for ideological purity. Therefore, being “not quite ours” has certain advantages, in a paradoxial way it gives one some freedom… Maybe it is an illusory freedom, but it lowers the stakes and allows one to stay on track once arguments do occur.


        1. Do you know how there are people who suck all air out of a room the second they walk in? They don’t even do or say anything but everybody immediately wants not to be there. I have a feeling I get like that when people say things I don’t like.

          And then people say homeschooling. I’m about the worst person to have around all day.

          I can’t wait to be able to go back to Montreal, by the way!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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