anti-whitism on wikipedia

not a big surprise, i know, but someone managed to slip in some anti-whitism on the entry about john webster’s “The White Devil.” here’s what it says under the background section right now (6 a.m. PT) [my emphasis]:

“The title of The White Devil refers to a popular contemporary proverb which held that white people are ‘the white devils of the world, that white people brought evil to the world.’ The play explores the differences between the reality of people and the way they depict themselves as good, ‘white’, or pure.”

*facepalm*

no it doesn’t (regarding the first sentence, that is).

first of all, the proverb in question is “the white devil is worse than the black,” and it simply means that a hypocritical bad person (i.e. one pretending to be good) is worse than a bad person who is upfront about it.

and secondly — nice try, retard (no offense to low-iq people). if you had half a brain, you’d realize that your little edit job doesn’t even make any sense. (hint: you should’ve edited the second sentence, too, so that the two sentences would kinda/sorta match in meaning.)

here’s a screen-cap. click on it for a LARGER version, which should open in a new tab/window:

previously: wikiPCedia

(note: comments do not require an email. stoopid.)

Advertisements

ANOTHER watsoning in the air?!

i see from altright that kanazawa is now being “investigated” by the lse for his “controversial” blog post.

jesus h. christ!

how many watsonings have there been so far?: james watson, larry summers, chris brand, lazar greenfield … charles murray certainly didn’t have an easy time over “the bell curve.” i’m sure i’m forgetting someone.

now, maybe, kanazawa?

this is ridiculous. thinking people cannot put up with this anymore. it really is a full-blown witch-hunt. there’s no other way to describe this behavior.

edit: or inquisition, i guess.

previously: the offensive mr. kanazawa

update 05/21: see also dennis.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

another day…

…another watsoning.

this time it’s a (once) respected doctor by the name of lazar greenfield. here’s what he wrote that’s gotten him into hot water — this was in his st. valentine’s day editorial in the official newspaper of the american college of surgeons:

“As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

ok. so maybe the closing joke is a little tasteless for a professional journal. but that, of course, is not what the good doc is in deep sh*t for. apparently, everyone’s now questioning if he — AND the whole american college of surgeons — is sexist, racist, hates gays & lesbians, pulls the wings off flies and kicks small dogs. ok, ok. not the last two. but the rest — i kid you not!:

“While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned, and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or advances….

“It is less clear what attitudes Dr. Greenfield or other leaders of the organization have toward the college’s gay and lesbian members. ‘I think race and religion have made a lot more progress in the college than women, and particularly gay women or men,’ Dr. Brophy said. ‘This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen the word ‘lesbian’ used in a piece or associated with the college. Ever.'”

ok. now even i got why watson was watsoned. i mean, i didn’t understand it, of course — but even i know that you can’t say anything even remotely implying any differences between the races, especially if it reflects badly on non-whites, and even if your intentions are good.

but i really don’t get how what greenfield said was politically incorrect. ok. the joke at the end was a bit tasteless (i found it funny, tho — of course, that prolly confirms that it’s tasteless!) — but the rest of it is sound, afaics. if people have a problem with the FACTS, why don’t they go and try to disprove them?! (that’s a rhetorical question. don’t worry. i get it. we’re talking about power and political correctness here.) i mean, here’s the original research about depression in women and semen. GO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS AGAIN and see if it holds up or not!

sheesh.

and what the h*ck did he say about lesbians (and gays) that was offensive? just that their menstrual cycles don’t synchronize when they live together? (i never knew that.) what — WHAT — is offensive about pointing out that (apparent) FACT?!

i know, i know. we’re ALL THE SAME! heaven forbid someone points out any differences between people. ’cause then it will be TEOTWAWKI!!!!

(*roll eyes*)

(note: comments do not require an email.)