Here, let us help @mjs_DC with this thread of Democrats and their propaganda wing who endorsed violence what they dishonestly called "peaceful

@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 2)
https://t.co/cpayZ2vRr2
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 3)
https://t.co/S0E0JK9Kea
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 4)
https://t.co/zJ0J5Wy2as
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 5)
https://t.co/tUbAy2uNwv
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 6)
https://t.co/xbR7IzCVDw
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 7)
https://t.co/Pj7p9tJYqU
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 8)
https://t.co/Od38P2PCSi
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 9)
https://t.co/sR3jJdsxGc
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 10)
https://t.co/U2mkFRd168
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 11)
Thank you @tomselliott. Great job documenting the stories and information the fake news media have failed to report on.
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC @tomselliott @threadreaderapp Please unroll.

More from News

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?