What is the end goal of those who wished to see Timothy Hunt forced to resign for having spoken a few innocuous words regarding coed laboratories?
The ultimate aim, of course, is that of Newspeak as described in Nineteen Eighty-Four: that certain things should not only be unsayable but unthinkable. No doubt those who formed the lynch mob that forced Professor Hunt’s resignation (thanks to the terminal pusillanimity of the university administration) would not much care for a parallel with the Kouachi brothers, who carried out the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and it is true that they did not actually kill the professor; but their desire to ensure that certain things not be said was the same as the murderers’, and their method of fulfilling their desire differed from that of the Kouachi brothers mainly in the sophistication of the means employed.
Totally agree with the good doctor. Looking at the edicts of ‘equality and diversity’, it seems that that oxymoron can cover anything that the pious choose to condemn, rather like the soviet counter-revolutionary clause 58, could be applied against any perceived activity.
But then was Tim Hunt of a similar political persuasion as his socialist colleague Paul Nurse? Hoisted by their own retard!?
Well said, Jimmy. I have often wondered about the contradiction inherent in supporting both equality and diversity, and I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone else remark on it until now.
I believe you missed this article from last December.
Thank you, guys, for your work on this website.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/denouncing-the-white-cop-shows-leftists-analysis-is-only-skin-deep/story-e6frg6zo-1227145247221
Thanks for letting us know. Apparently it’s subscriber-only. Any chance you could post an excerpt here, and I’ll share that on the main blog page?