Author: Crowhill Report

From time to time I see articles about how some organization or other has made a decision “after carefully reviewing the science.”

I call BS.

What they mean is, “we’re scared to death of making a decision that will anger Karen.”

“COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning about how it spreads,” says the CDC’s recently updated guidelines. (Source: The CDC says coronavirus ‘does not spread easily’ on surfaces or objects. Here’s what we know.

Or, IOW, “the science” is all over the map and nobody’s really sure.

Does sanitizing surfaces and wearing gloves do any good? Yes, no, maybe, we’re not sure. Ask again next week.

Does wearing a mask help? No, then yes, then … wait a week and it will be no again.

Responding to this mess is a very complicated dance. Obviously we want to listen to the experts, but that bugle’s been making an indistinct sound. Sometimes it sounds like charge, sometimes retreat, and sometimes taps.

Decisions are (and should be) made politically, not scientifically.

The boys drink and review a low-calorie IPA: The One-y from Oscar Blues. Then they discuss outrage.

We hear a lot about “Karen” these days. Some people are always judging everybody for everything. But in the west, Karen is the exception that we mock.

In the Muslim world, everybody is upset about everything — big or small — all the time. Pigweed has had enough, and the boys discuss.

Maybe there’s a difference between “virtue signaling” and “shame signaling.”

While the boys drink Crowhill’s audacious braggot, they discuss some of Prager’s recent outrageous statements and the social media censorship of Prager University.

Prager suggests that the worldwide lockdown may be the greatest mistake in human history. Quite a claim, which the boys evaluate.

The next big issue about Prager is his censorship on YouTube and other social media outlets.

Who gave them the right to do this?

Many thanks to Burgess Video for putting this together.

People who know such things tell me that it’s a good idea to be discerning about whose connection request you accept on LinkedIn. The quality of your connections goes into some spooky score whatchamacallit that influences algorithmic joo joo, which influences your visibility / networking index. Or whatever.

My interpretation is that I shouldn’t accept too many connection requests from sales people who just want to pitch me something.

Unless she’s cute.

No, that’s not a conscious choice, but I know enough about marketing to know that such things are rolling around in the back of my brain when I evaluate a connection request.

Surely someone studying “implicit bias” in college has tested this, right? You use the same text in the profile, but for one you put the picture of some average-looking Indian dude, then a white guy, then a black guy, then an attractive woman ….

If you doubt that there’s female privilege in that part of the game, you’re not paying attention.