british politicians as musical artists, a thread:

https://t.co/S2vefFqzcb
https://t.co/0EzpO26xZV
https://t.co/zMHZnYdWXg
https://t.co/ye5P1uCf5Y
https://t.co/qfu7gPWksv
https://t.co/SqDuAwzj3P
https://t.co/LOWhWNdGKq
https://t.co/vQSh1Xkm3I
https://t.co/jDTBHGmdcP
https://t.co/WUsoeHryLB
(we don’t want mini tests)
https://t.co/cSh3dkWsP0
https://t.co/SPUiXoTDR5
https://t.co/2hcTxjFNoY
https://t.co/D4otdmNMXY
(not a politician, but has as much power)
end of thread <3

More from Culture

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?