Colin Wright
@SwipeWright • 297,441 subscribers
Evolutionary Biology PhD | CEO/Editor-in-Chief @RealLastStand | Fellow @ManhattanInst | Academic Advisor @Theory_Society | Truth First. 📧: cwright1859 @ gmail
Shorts
Videos
!["Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win...the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change." No thanks.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1840231811554664541/ext_tw_video_thumb/1840221461954396160/pu/img/ndEnFgPRYknY2Cl8.jpg)
MacKenzie Scott has donated over $26 billion to nonprofits. Around $1 billion of that ($786M confirmed but many donation amounts aren't disclosed) has funded 226 organizations focused either fully or partly on "gender identity." This funds children's access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible and often sterilizing surgeries. She is directly funding the largest medical scandal against children we've ever seen. Meanwhile, the entire movement opposing sex and gender pseudoscience engulfing science, medicine, and culture runs on maybe ~$10M annually. Hard to say exactly, but it's minuscule in comparison. We are so out-funded it's laughable. If you're extremely wealthy, consider donating to competent organizations help combat the behemoth we're up against. No organization turns donation money into real policy change more efficiently than the Manhattan Institute (Manhattan Institute). (Disclosure: I work there. But it's true) The fight against pediatric gender "medicine" and sex pseudoscience is far from over.
Colin Wright1,022,751 views • 1 month ago
Noam Chomsky on the pseudointellectualism of postmodern literary theorists. "If you look at what's happening, I think it's pretty easy to figure out what's going on. I mean, suppose you're a literary scholar at some elite university or an anthropologist or whatever. If you do your work seriously, that's fine, but you don't get any big prizes for it. On the other hand, you take a look over in the rest of the university, and you got these guys in the physics department and the math department, and they have all kind of complicated theories, which, of course, we can't understand, but they they seem to understand them. And they have principles and they deduce complicated things from the principles and they do experiments, and they find either they work or they don't work. "And so that's really impressive stuff, so I want to be like that too. So I want to have a theory in in the humanities, you know, literary criticism, anthropology, and so on. There's a field called 'theory.' We're just like the physicists. They talk incomprehensibly, we can talk incomprehensibly. They have big words, we'll have big words. They draw far reaching conclusions, we'll draw far reaching conclusions. We're just as prestigious as they are. "Now if they say, well, look, we're doing real science and you guys aren't, that's white male sexist, bourgeois, whatever the answer is. How are we any different from them? Okay. That's appealing." h/t King Crocoduck
Colin Wright11,875,574 views • 1 year ago
ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE! We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.” But that’s not really true. Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear. And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense. This isn’t exactly new. In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship. Two decades later, James Lindsay, anti-Communist, Helen Pluckrose , and Peter Boghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory. The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing. And today, the problem is even worse. We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.” But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults. That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children. And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.” That is untenable. So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (Theory and Society (Springer Nature)), and I decided to do something about it. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.” The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it. A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks. Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention? If yes, it gets published. And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue. That’s how science is supposed to work. Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen. That’s what we’ve done. Now it’s time for academics to use it. Read our announcement on the The Wall Street Journal below. 🔗
Colin Wright1,001,555 views • 2 months ago
A reminder that Candace Owens doesn't believe dinosaurs existed. She calls dinosaurs "fake and gay," and finds it suspicious that only paleontologists seem to be the ones finding their bones. (Spoiler: it's because paleontologists know where to look and actually go on digs)
Colin Wright332,931 views • 1 month ago
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it? TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.
Colin Wright4,195,312 views • 2 years ago
The Democrats will expand the Supreme Court. BUTTIGIEG: "I think it's not so radical to suggest a different makeup of the Supreme Court. By the way… You know what article of the Constitution says that there are 9 Supreme Court justices? Trick question, it's not in there!"
Colin Wright702,174 views • 6 months ago
I'm celebrating my first Father's Day today with Christina Buttons, even though our kid is about the size of a cherry, doesn't yet have a name, and we don't know if it's a boy or a girl. I hope that's allowed! I've wanted nothing more the last 6 years than to be a dad! 🥳
Colin Wright137,598 views • 1 month ago
Anthropologist Michael P. Masters made two false claims on Joe Rogan’s latest episode. First, he incorrectly claimed that “we all start out as females.” This is a widespread misconception. In reality, humans begin development in a sexually undifferentiated state with bipotential gonads. Sexual differentiation occurs around weeks 6–8 of embryonic development. Second, he referred to an “island in the Pacific” where children are supposedly born female and then turn into males at puberty. He claimed these children “are girls” and that their “ovaries descend as testicles” during puberty. The place he is referring to is likely Papua New Guinea, but this is more often associated with a village named Salinas in the Dominican Republic. More importantly, he is misrepresenting the condition. It affects around 1 in 170 male births in Papua New Guinea, and about 1 in 90 male births in Salinas, and these children are NOT girls. They are boys (male) who merely appear female at birth due to a rare genetic condition called 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. This condition prevents the body from producing dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in utero, which is necessary for the development of male external genitalia. This is the same condition that male athletes Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif have. Contrary to what Masters says, these individuals are NOT born with “ovaries” that later “descend as testicles.” They are born with normal internal testes, which descend at puberty, at which point they also develop a penis. They are simply boys with a DSD that frequently gets them incorrectly recorded as female at birth. h/t Zagros Ozkan for the clip!
Colin Wright404,641 views • 7 months ago
Sam Harris articulating why "using human shields" versus "being deterred by them" tells you "everything you need to know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies." TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that everything you need to know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies can be understood on the topic of human shields. Who uses human shields? Well, Hamas certainly does. They shoot their rockets from residential neighborhoods, from beside schools, and hospitals, and mosques. Muslims in other recent conflicts, in Iraq and elsewhere, have also used human shields. They have laid their rifles on the shoulders of their own children and shot from behind their bodies. Consider the moral difference between using human shields and being deterred by them. That is the difference we’re talking about. The Israelis and other Western powers are deterred, however imperfectly, by the Muslim use of human shields in these conflicts, as we should be. It is morally abhorrent to kill noncombatants if you can avoid it. It’s certainly abhorrent to shoot through the bodies of children to get at your adversary. But take a moment to reflect on how contemptible this behavior is. And understand how cynical it is. The Muslims are acting on the assumption—the knowledge, in fact—that the infidels with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields. They consider the Jews the spawn of apes and pigs—and yet they rely on the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants. Now imagine reversing the roles here. Imagine how fatuous—indeed how comical it would be—for the Israelis to attempt to use human shields to deter the Palestinians. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit. If you’re going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.
Colin Wright1,635,262 views • 2 years ago
Mass censorship is coming to Canada. It's going to get really bad.
Colin Wright605,223 views • 1 year ago
Recently, on Chris Williamson's podcast, said it's "not true" that "there are only two sexes" in humans. He also claimed that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." I'd like to address both claims directly to help clear up some confusion. THE SEX BINARY First, Eric used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, and when prompted to clarify he explicitly claimed sex (as well as gender) was not binary. He brought up people with intersex conditions as the reason why he believes this. But the existence of people with rare intersex conditions does not in any way negate the reality of the sex binary. That’s because the sex binary simply means “there are only two sexes,” and this is true because there are only two types of gametes. Males and females are universally defined by the gametes they have the function to produce, with males producing small gametes (sperm) and females producing large ones (ova). The sex binary does not mean “everyone is either male or female.” This may seem overly pedantic, bit it’s an important distinction. It may be possible that a person can be so sexually ambiguous as to defy categorization as either male or female, but sex ambiguity is not a third sex. The existence and prevalence of complex DSDs or so-called “intersex” conditions is irrelevant to the question of how many sexes there are. So, on this point, Eric is simply confused about what sexes are at a fundamental level. There are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes—sperm and ova. I agree with Eric that we need to be compassionate and accommodating of people who might be sexually ambiguous. But claiming it’s “no true” that “there are only two sexes’ is definitely not the way to go about this. Apart from being incorrect, it carries a tremendous amount of baggage that I believe Eric and I would both agree must be avoided. BRAIN SEX Lastly, Eric said he believed it’s true that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." Again, I believe this is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding about what sexes are. Simply put, brains do not and cannot have their own sex that differs from the body. Whole organisms have a sex, individual organs do not. However, it is true that various body parts and organs can differ in the degree of how masculinized or feminized they are or appear. Hands are a great example of this, as their morphology is sensitive to in utero testosterone levels. As a result, some females have very masculine looking hands, and some males have very feminine looking hands. But no matter how masculine a female’s hands may be, it would never be correct to say that she has “male hands on a female body.” The same goes for brains and any other organ or appendage. While the brains of males and females can vary in the degree to which they are masculinized or feminized, it is never the case that a person can possess the brain of the opposite sex, even if they deeply feel that way. Eric, I’m a fan of yours and believe you possess tremendous insight on many topics, but I think you need to give this specific topic some more thought. I would be more than happy to chat with you about this if you’re ever interested. I think it's extremely important. Watch the whole podcast at the link below. 🔗
Colin Wright1,059,715 views • 2 years ago
I'm not sure you're ready for this. Last night I posted an insane academic paper titled "Loving the Brine Shrimp: Exploring Queer Feminist Blue Posthumanities to Reimagine the ‘America’s Dead Sea’." That paper included a section near the end where the author claimed, via performance art, "to challenge the dominant scientific, industrial, and cultural use of brine shrimp by responding to them as lovable objects." They made... a video. It's titled "Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp," and depicts the author and her queer colleagues, dressed as brides, venturing out into the Great Salt Lake in Utah, CO, to make wedding vows and "express their human love towards the vulnerable yet tough brine shrimp." The author describes it as "a communal bath in the GSL, which some of us, including myself, perceived as making love to the lake." In the video, they receive psychic consent from the brine shrimp to marry them. It gets better. "To avoid potential harm to living critters, vows were made to the brine shrimp’s exponentially enlarged augmented reality image, which popped up at the lake’s shore above the humans’ heads." You really have to see it to believe it. Fortunately, President Dr RollerGator MVIP PhD managed to find the entire video, which he appropriately edited to include Mystery Science Theater 3000 silhouettes. 🤣 Grab some 🍿 and enjoy the show! And remember: Trust The Science.
Colin Wright523,002 views • 1 year ago