Here’s a small sampling of #QProofs from the past 3 years.

How many coincidences before mathematically impossible?

#QAnon #WWG1WGA

https://t.co/YoBJGB1EUS
https://t.co/T1bCKt9XC8
DOITQ - coincidence
Twitter retweet - coincidence
Military Aircraft Callsign proofs:
• Air Force One = "Q 0"
• Q / Anon
• Trust17
POTUS [17] minute Deltas
https://t.co/V9r7L4ajxv
https://t.co/K0ceqRikPa
https://t.co/yIpQVWDLnh
#Obamagate
"Misspellings Matter" - Q
https://t.co/30osewoPbn
https://t.co/gPaBppwbY7
https://t.co/UC087fmRry

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?