I mean...

There’s delusion and then there is deluuuusion... https://t.co/P9CzzDHPTY

More from Werise

More from News

This week marks 12 months since Josephine Cashman supplied Andrew Bolt with a letter falsely attributed to a Yolngu lawman that Bolt published via NewsCorp on Jan 26 as parcel of his persecution of Bruce Pascoe. Cashman & Bolt still haven’t provided a satisfactory explanation

Terry Yumbulul didn’t write the letter and didn’t agree with its content. He said so himself in a video published the next day
https://t.co/IJ6ricZeRi and in a written statement published later the same day


The weird thing was, it soon emerged that large sections of the letter had been cribbed from other sources. Weird because as a Yolngu lawman, Terry didn’t need to borrow his knowledge from unrelated, alternate sources ... pretty much verbatim

The fallout was swift. Bolt was compelled to do a correction on his column and Cashman was just as swiftly dumped from her position of the Morrison government’s Senior Advisory Group for an Indigenous Voice to Government

There was no apology from either of them or from NewsCorp tho, and with the assistance of Sky News After Dark they desperately attempted to obfuscate the reality that everybody involved had been caught out and left red faced

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?
Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q