Categories
Amendment I redpill

Wuhan Flu Reminder: Political Correctness Kills

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/wuhan_flu_reminder_political_correctness_kills.html

Political correctness is not just harmless virtue-signaling navel-gazing by a bored “elite” first-world populace.  It is both a weapon and a disease that kills.

On January 31, on a day when the entire national press corps was fully focused on unserious impeachment theater, President Trump declared a national health emergency and implemented a travel ban to and from China. 

Apparently unhappy that Trump wasn’t curled up in the fetal position, all the usual suspects on the left screamed bloody murder, convinced he was trying to distract from their important issue.  Only a couple countries followed suit, since most were afraid they would be labeled as xenophobic or branded with the dreaded scarlet R. 

Joe Biden called it “hysterical xenophobia.”  He’s still thundering about Trump’s xenophobic bans during his occasional lucid moments.

Categories
Amendment I redpill

Wikipedia Deletes “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming” in Astonishing Act of Censorship

In another disgusting indication of where climate science/debate is at today, a handful of Wikipedia editors have “voted” to delete the immensely useful and topical page: “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming“…

Here’s the reasoning for the censorship given by one of the Wiki editors:

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

In other words, this decision was apparently taken by a single individual, the ‘Editor’, in Wiki parlance, points out Dr Roger Higgs. His/her “consensus” (ironic choice of word) is based on the online discussion among Wikipedia ‘Users’ at that site (link here), each of whom was evidently asked to vote on whether to “Keep” or “Delete” the page. However, far from a consensus, by my count (please check it) there were 35 Deletes and 19 Keeps. What qualifies the Editor to dictate that 35 to 19 constitutes a consensus, and use that claim to justify deleting a key document on arguably the most important (and most expensive) global social issue since World War Two?