Saturday, May 07, 2016

Trump isn't responsible for passengers' fear of calculus

Unless Donald Trump loses the interest or dies, he will be the GOP nominee.

I have thought that he had the greatest chances among the candidates from August 2015 and was convinced the odds were above 50% since December 2015.

Various people who have made the predictions that Trump had no chance have erased their videos – for example, where is your prophesy now, Bill O'Reilly? ;-)

At any rate, leftists seem rather hysterical. The confused quantum interpreter Florin Moldoveanu has won a bet he didn't want to win because he thinks that Trump is a "proto-fascist dictator in the making".

Great. But that's nothing relatively to some other leftists' interpretation of an amusing story in the airplane.

The Washington Post published the story
Ivy League economist ethnically profiled, interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight
I will tell you what happened momentarily. But the point is that they claim that it was Trump's fault. This main point was immediately isolated and sold as a "gem" by Marginal Revolution and the Bolshevik Stalinist Pork, two left-wing bloggers, and probably many others.

OK, what happened? A male Italian American economics professor was calculating some differential equations – the Marginal Revolution thinks that they belong to algebra but they're actually calculus, but I hope you didn't expect these leftists to understand similar details – and the woman sitting next to him found the symbols suspicious, especially in combination with the curly hair of the professor, so she reported him, the airplane was delayed by 90 minutes, and the economist had to talk to some security men-in-black.

It's a happy end, the story is bizarre or funny. But you haven't heard the main point yet. The Washington Post has gotten a response from the economist, Guido Menzio, and he wrote:
“What might prevent an epidemic of paranoia? It is hard not to recognize in this incident, the ethos of [Donald] Trump’s voting base,” he wrote.
So the article was basically written with the purpose of saying that what happened is showing that something is wrong with Donald Trump. It's his fault!

This kind of interpretation is just amazing. Not even the communists were using the facts in a similarly hardcore twisted way. It's so stupid that at Pig's blog, I actually wasn't the first commenter to explain why it was stupid to blame Trump. Someone was faster than me: William Connolley, a UK Green Party apparatchik and the author of 851,917 Wikipedia edits performed in order to eradicate all traces of climate "denial" from the online encyclopedia. (Incidentally, yesterday, The Colorado Spring Gazette, the 2014 Pulitzer Prize Winner, wrote an unusual editorial criticizing some extremists' plans to bully climate skeptics.)

The Pig has a reason to think about himself. Now, he is officially a more unhinged leftist than an obsessive far green "editor". Connolley has asked why Obama – who has been the president for more than 7 years – hasn't been blamed for that airplane incident instead of Trump. I wrote that I agreed with Connolley. And The Pig replied that if the two of us (me and Connolley) believe that Obama has been whipping up the hysteria, he can't fix our mental problems anymore.

(The words "me and Connolley" sounds just like a funny comment by Ivan Mládek: the Japanese have small ears but they are 3 times more sensitive than the ears of us, the blacks and whites.)

I replied with a longer text saying that none of the politicians may be easily connected with the incident. The woman's behavior was largely irrational, idiosyncratic, but it also had a rational core. The terror on the airplanes is damn real and people with a similar skin color as the Italian men have done quite some bad things with the airplanes – and some of them probably started with some incomprehensible symbols and diagrams written on the paper.

If you allow me another specific example: unlike this overly careful female passenger, the neighbors of the terrorists in San Bernardino, California didn't report the suspicious accumulation of Middle Eastern men in the adjacent Muslims-owned house. It would be politically incorrect to point out a terrifying density of unknown Muslims on a Californian street (plus other strange things), wouldn't it? Sixteen people have paid for this omission with their lives. If the female passenger's theory were a little bit more plausible, she could have saved over a hundred of lives.

At the end of my longer comment for the Pig, I stated that if I had to choose in between the two badly oversimplified theories – it's Obama's fault and it's Trump's fault – I would surely choose the former. It's not only because Obama has actually overseen America for 7+ years. It's also because he made it clear that he doesn't want to protect America against certain threats too vigorously. And this intent or the lack of it – something that is obvious from his speeches about many related questions – is a reason to be more afraid, not less afraid. Trump wants to introduce policies that would increase the safety – these steps would also make it more likely from a woman's viewpoint that the incomprehensible symbols she is seeing on the airplane are a part of some creative business she doesn't understand, and not a destructive business she basically does understand.

Also, Obama has supervised the expansion of the police state that monitors the citizens (NSA...) and the citizens may have been taught that it's a great idea for them to monitor and report fellow Americans, too.

Many of the readers of the Washington Post have written wise comments. One of them was that to blame Trump for the incident was pretty much as irrational as the behavior of the woman. In both cases, someone is "deduced" to be responsible for some past act or a preparation of the future act based on some super-simplified, basically stereotypes about the people – basically on paranoia.

Other readers said that the woman couldn't have been Trump's supporter because she was female and the left-wing media constantly tell us that the females can't possibly support Trump, can they?

At any rate, some of the leftists are probably so shocked that they can't rationally analyze what kind of a propaganda is really "beyond the pale" and stupid enough even for many of the greenest men among themselves. Every at least slightly sensible and slightly neutral person must know that it's totally unfair to blame Trump for that airplane incident. If something, this cheap propaganda is likely to increase Trump's support.

Thankfully for the Democratic Party, at least some people in Hillary's campaign remained more professional and reasonable. This anti-Trump ad produced by Hillary's folks is actually funny. I largely disagree with most of those GOP politicians but Hillary's staff folks were capable of collecting quite a pile of juicy anti-Trump quotes, weren't they?

The woman probably didn't understand differential equations but she was convinced that the people doing "something like ∂ifferen≠ial equations" are behind all the terror attacks. That isn't quite an accurate opinion. The Pig, The Marginal Revolution, and other left-wing bloggers think that Trump is responsible for every irrational reaction to a different equation in the world. Finally, I know that I can blame The Donald for the anti-quantum zealots' misinterpretations of Schrödinger's equation, too. ;-)

Harvard student leaders must be bi-sexual or trans-sexual

Shocking news at Harvard. But maybe such things are no longer shocking.

President Faust has announced a new rule that will come to force in 2017. Members of male-only as well as female-only social clubs – and also Greek organizations – won't be allowed to become captains of sport teams or presidents of any student organizations on the campus. And they can't even be recommended for fellowships. Wow. All men who are not complete garbage have sometimes been members of all-male groups and gangs (and incidentally, hypocrite Faust is an alumnus of an all-female college by herself). Doesn't the feminazi also want to make a communist party membership mandatory for all students with any influence? I've seen such a setup.

Just look at the list of the famous members of one of the 8 original Gentlemen's clubs. Eliot, Gates, Ballmer, skaters, and dozens of others. Multiply it by eight and you get an idea of how much of the American greatness bitches such as Faust and their apologists (the totalitarian policy was originally proposed by one of the deans who got his job because his ethnic background is considered inferior – who is probably also behind the placemats and who co-initiated the crusade against the new student who dared to mock feminism) want to annihilate.

These leftists have the brutal arrogance to criticize McCarthy's policies – that guy basically wanted to deal with the genuine threat of communism in the U.S. But he was only asking adults about the memberships in the Communist Party. Faust, Rakesh, and similar poison of Harvard will be asking innocent students whether they have committed the crime of being members of single-sex clubs. You're much worse than McCarthy has ever been, aßholes.

Pundits at the Harvard Crimson that the policy doesn't even make sense as a method to "punish" self-confident boys. Because of her fanatical misandry, Faust will actually harm the female clubs much more than the male clubs. Virtually all commenters at the Harvard Crimson are terrified. Some students plan methods to fight the tyranny. One of the proposed methods is for lots of students who disagree with this policy to join the black women clubs etc. and destroy them from within, to show what this kind of "openness" actually represents. Others propose to start to use the Nazi salute to greet Faust and the rogue dean.

I wish the revolutionaries a lot of good luck. You need to consider defenestration, too.

No comments:

Post a Comment