Free Speech In The Uk

[Stuart Galbraith]

It's not a difficult concept to understand. The simple fact is that different people, especially between genders, have different interests. Does the idea that men and women find different things interesting need to be demonstrated?

 

What are you going to do? Mandate that women who choose to become lit majors MUST go into engineering? Are male engineers going to be mandated to go into ART when they don't want to?

 

Or are you going to pass over qualified candidates of X or Y gender/race in favor of less qualified candidates of A or B gender/race because of diversity? Becuase that's happening now.

 

Come on Ryan, this is getting hysterical. Nobody is mandating 50 percent of all engineers must be women. Im not convinced its a bad idea to encourage women to become engineers, because as it happens, they are damn good at it.

 

As far as the NHS, there is a very good reason why you should make it representive of society that funds it. It makes it easier to engage with the patients needs. And no, you are never going to make it a perfect match, but thats not a reason not to be aware of it and try to work with it in mind.

 

As far as Parliament, its no bad thing to have the house representative of the society that votes for it. And not only does that mean Muslims and other racial minorities, it also means not filling it full of lawyers.

[rmgill]

Come on Ryan, this is getting hysterical. Nobody is mandating 50 percent of all engineers must be women.

Aren't they? Have you looked at what the diversity folks demand? My point was to make you think about the issue. The goal is diversity right? What methods will be used? We're already seeing qualified people excluded over less qualified people. It's a clear next step.

 

Im not convinced its a bad idea to encourage women to become engineers, because as it happens, they are damn good at it.

That's not what's being argued about Stuart. Try and stay on topic. The issue is Diversity and how you get there. Ability isn't the issue.

 

 

As far as the NHS, there is a very good reason why you should make it representive of society that funds it. It makes it easier to engage with the patients needs. And no, you are never going to make it a perfect match, but thats not a reason not to be aware of it and try to work with it in mind.

But if you contrive to discourage one part of the population from seeking those jobs what happens? Men are being discouraged from post secondary education in the US. This is partly by changing the teaching in elementary and high schools in ways that discourage their learning. College admissions are also stacked against them for diversity reasons. So you get more female doctors. They hit 30. They quit to go raise a family. What then? You've got FEWER doctors for the same education load. So now you have a doctor's shortage.

 

As far as Parliament, its no bad thing to have the house representative of the society that votes for it. And not only does that mean Muslims and other racial minorities, it also means not filling it full of lawyers.

Again, different people go into different areas of occupation. Why aren't there more women billionaires? Do you know why? Why aren't there more women in the really high paying jobs?

What about hypergamy?

 

How are you going to make parliament (or other representative bodies demonstrate diversity? What's your mechanism going to be?

Edited July 9, 2018 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

I know what SOME diversity folk demand. Please, lets stop painting with the same broad brushes your maintenance crews use on the Golden Gate Bridge, ok?

 

Its not unreasonable to suggest that societies institutions are representative of the society they serve. For example, the police. Google 'Stephen Lawrence' and you will see what happens why they dont give a flying frig for the demographic's of the society they serve.

 

You don't have to agree with the Lesbian bra burners and the Faracan's 'All White people are evil' crowd to think if you are shareholders in society, societies institutions should represent you. I do, but not because some fuckwit with a political agenda bids me to be. I do because of an inherent sense of fairness.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[JWB]

Parliament could be made far more representative by ending the vote to appoint member through mass popular lottery. Who do you trust more, politicians or a jury?

[rmgill]

I know what SOME diversity folk demand. Please, lets stop painting with the same broad brushes your maintenance crews use on the Golden Gate Bridge, ok?

 

Its not unreasonable to suggest that societies institutions are representative of the society they serve. For example, the police. Google 'Stephen Lawrence' and you will see what happens why they dont give a flying frig for the demographic's of the society they serve.

 

So unless a police force has enough people of a given race/gender, they're presumptive racist? That's your insinuation. What's that about broad brushes? The US has plenty of blacks on police forces, you know what's STILL considered racist? Black cops stopping black citizens.

 

You don't have to agree with the Lesbian bra burners and the Faracan's 'All White people are evil' crowd to think if you are shareholders in society, societies institutions should represent you. I do, but not because some fuckwit with a political agenda bids me to be. I do because of an inherent sense of fairness.

You're dodging the questions Stuart.

 

Are diversity targets suggestions or are they mandates? If they're mandates, your use of "Its not unreasonable to suggest" is inaccurate. Do the mandates exclude candidates who are qualified but of the wrong race/gender? If the latter then they're not about being nice or fair.

Edited July 9, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

I fail to see how excluding the most qualified candidate based on their race or gender could be considered fair in any sense of the word.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Parliament could be made far more representative by ending the vote to appoint member through mass popular lottery. Who do you trust more, politicians or a jury?

 

Actually the house of Lords already appoints people based on the popularity of a PM, or that a great Grandfather offered sexual services to some past monarch.

 

I was in a jury. I cant speak for anyone else, but I was awesome.

[JWB]

I've been on jury twice. The first time I was the smartest guy in the room. The second time I was the dumbest. I am not sure what to make of that.

[NickM]

 

 

Sure...I read stories from the Guardian about the US & clearly they don't know "jack" about what's going on over here.

 

 

'Trump, something something, can't open jars now.....'

 

Nah, more along the lines of due to opiod addiction, the constitution should be suspended & the nation should be placed under UN Control.

[rmgill]

As if the UN could control New York City, let alone something larger.

[Paul G.]

Homogeneous populations tend to encourage homogeniality. Either actively or passively. "Diversity mandates" are unrealistic, and no thoughtful person (accept those pushing certain agendas) see them as a real thing. "Interest" in a career or study field is in large part grown. Promotion rather than disuasion is the key. People won't find interest in things they perceive the can't do.

[Ssnake]

All diversity means is creating organizations representive of the Society they work for or represent. Im not sure why this is quite such a difficult concept to understand.

 

Because it is a game that you can play forever without ever achieving "true diversity".

So, your first dimension is the biological sex? So you have only true equality if you have an even split of the team into men and women.

Except that you're now forgetting about non-binary (intersex, trans) minorities.

 

Okay, so you include that. Next up, skin color (because, there actually aren't "races" in the biological sense). So there's a quota for each skin shade to meet.

Ah - but do you also split them evenly between men, women, intersex and trans people? AND they are also qualified for the job?

 

Now, age discrimination!

Do we have a work force that has proportinal representation of black women aged 50-55 and asian trans people aged 35-40?

 

Next, we demand equal diversity at all job levels. Where team sizes are under 500, 1000 members, it'll be impossible to meet ALL of the criteria above with at least one representative, especially if they are also all supposed to be qualified. Which is becoming the least important requirement because it's easiest to gloss over. At which point you are rendering your organization utterly dysfunctional.

 

Plus, all these criteria only go skin deep. Where's intellectual diversity in this game?

The truth is, it's unwanted.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Ssnake

[R011]

If you have a society based primarily on merit, youll tend to have a workforce that more or less reflects the population. That won't mean every job will end up having the same composition as every other. Women and Asians would still tend to be underrepresented in firefighting, for instance.

 

If you want police to be representative of their community, encourage underrepresented peoples to apply and apply the same standards for actually hiring to them as for others. No one really benefits from an incompetent affirmative action hire.

[Jeff]

All diversity means is creating organizations representive of the Society they work for or represent. Im not sure why this is quite such a difficult concept to understand. Diversity could mean making parliament 50 percent female. Why would that be a bad thing?

 

There's part your problem. It usually requires some kind of compulsion to attain. It also necessitates the prejudicial action against others who aren't in the latest Venn diagram of aggrieved classes. How is taking away opportunity from one group due to an arbitrary thing like race or gender and giving it to another, going to do away prejudice? How do you MAKE parliament 50% female without taking away the voters' choice by having certain seats that can only be won by females?

 

We keep hearing about toxic masculinity and yet it is just such toxic masculinity that is saving 12 boys and a soccer coach in Thailand.

 

Do we mandate(force) a perfectly "representative" number on every job/elective office/club nationwide? Do we constantly change the make up of every job/elective office/club on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the demographics? At what interval do we update the mandated levels?

 

The Obama administration has skewed the criteria for air traffic controllers to make the ranks reflect "diversity" by giving lower scores to people who have actually completed schooling to become ATCs and by giving higher scores to groups of people who have zero practical experience or training in ATC type of jobs or who have scored lower in testing. It's not like ATC is an important job with lives at stake.

 

You dismiss these kind of facts because they are inconvenient to your thoughtless statement about making things more "representative". There's a lot more to consider than the throw away feelgood statement about making things more "representative". How do YOU figure on making things more "representative"? You made the statement, let us know how to make it happen that doesn't involve compulsion and disadvantaging others and lowering standards, particularly in jobs where lives are at stake?

[Chris Werb]

Ryan, I admit I did not read the entire NHS link you posted, but could you please point out to me where it states that a less well qualified person would be hired preferentially because of their membership of a minority? Likewise please point me to racial quotas. I have been in the NHS since 2004 and a union rep for much of that. So I think I'd have come across them at some point if they existed.

 

My personal experience of the NHS here is that people get hired on their merits. Careers and professions represent the sexes pretty much as you would expect. There are no female engineers and one female porter. On the other hand I am the only male ever to serve in the medical records department. Nursing is overwhelmingly female and nursing auxiliaries and domestics 100% so. Admin is overwhelmingly femsle too. Our only black and asian employees are hospital doctors. There are a few Australians. New Zealanders and South Africans in AHP and admin roles plus a Dutch GP. If we are trying to enforce a gender neutral, multethnic regime here, we are doing it very badly. Furthermore this hasnt changed in over a decade.

 

This is current, first hand experience of actual reality Ryan, not a link pulled off the internet.

[Colin]

If you have a society based primarily on merit, youll tend to have a workforce that more or less reflects the population. That won't mean every job will end up having the same composition as every other. Women and Asians would still tend to be underrepresented in firefighting, for instance.

 

If you want police to be representative of their community, encourage underrepresented peoples to apply and apply the same standards for actually hiring to them as for others. No one really benefits from an incompetent affirmative action hire.

Not to mention some ethnic groups hold certain jobs in disdain. Despite a very large and educated Persian community I see very few in the Federal or Provincial Civil Service. Mainly as they don't want to. You can get rich in business, but not government, at least not here.

[rmgill]

Ryan, I admit I did not read the entire NHS link you posted, but could you please point out to me where it states that a less well qualified person would be hired preferentially because of their membership of a minority? Likewise please point me to racial quotas. I have been in the NHS since 2004 and a union rep for much of that. So I think I'd have come across them at some point if they existed.

Did you see the infographics? It states the goals. Those goals and the hiring practices go hand in hand with diversity and inclusion targets. Look at the numerous points above on the subject from multiple other folks. I don't expect that the NHS will have such material publicly described, aside from the 50/50 split that they desire on the boards. Expect it eventually to be part of the sauce.

 

This is current, first hand experience of actual reality Ryan, not a link pulled off the internet.

Yes, and I'm QUITE aware of the reality in my own company and various examples around the US and Canada. One can see this in the western world. Targets on Diversity and Inclusion are the camel's nose.

 

Read the frikken Google Memo and the fall out from it.

Edited July 10, 2018 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

All diversity means is creating organizations representive of the Society they work for or represent. Im not sure why this is quite such a difficult concept to understand.

 

Because it is a game that you can play forever without ever achieving "true diversity".

So, your first dimension is the biological sex? So you have only true equality if you have an even split of the team into men and women.

Except that you're now forgetting about non-binary (intersex, trans) minorities.

 

Okay, so you include that. Next up, skin color (because, there actually aren't "races" in the biological sense). So there's a quota for each skin shade to meet.

Ah - but do you also split them evenly between men, women, intersex and trans people? AND they are also qualified for the job?

 

Now, age discrimination!

Do we have a work force that has proportinal representation of black women aged 50-55 and asian trans people aged 35-40?

 

Next, we demand equal diversity at all job levels. Where team sizes are under 500, 1000 members, it'll be impossible to meet ALL of the criteria above with at least one representative, especially if they are also all supposed to be qualified. Which is becoming the least important requirement because it's easiest to gloss over. At which point you are rendering your organization utterly dysfunctional.

 

Plus, all these criteria only go skin deep. Where's intellectual diversity in this game?

The truth is, it's unwanted.

 

 

The point is, you are never going to achieve full diversity. Its pointless even to try. That does not mean one cannot keep in mind that you have a society that is diverse and strive to make whatever organization you are building as representative of it as is reasonable. In that sense, and in that sense only, I think Diversity has a place. Where it doesnt work is in a plan to have fixed numbers. You are never going to get the skillset in all the people of a various ethnic group to achieve it. Where you can though, why not run with it?

 

Ive never been a big fan of the Parliamentary quota's on Women, that said when they say they are underrepresented in Parliament compared to the Society that votes for them, they have a point.

 

 

All diversity means is creating organizations representive of the Society they work for or represent. Im not sure why this is quite such a difficult concept to understand. Diversity could mean making parliament 50 percent female. Why would that be a bad thing?

 

There's part your problem. It usually requires some kind of compulsion to attain. It also necessitates the prejudicial action against others who aren't in the latest Venn diagram of aggrieved classes. How is taking away opportunity from one group due to an arbitrary thing like race or gender and giving it to another, going to do away prejudice? How do you MAKE parliament 50% female without taking away the voters' choice by having certain seats that can only be won by females?

 

We keep hearing about toxic masculinity and yet it is just such toxic masculinity that is saving 12 boys and a soccer coach in Thailand.

 

Do we mandate(force) a perfectly "representative" number on every job/elective office/club nationwide? Do we constantly change the make up of every job/elective office/club on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the demographics? At what interval do we update the mandated levels?

 

The Obama administration has skewed the criteria for air traffic controllers to make the ranks reflect "diversity" by giving lower scores to people who have actually completed schooling to become ATCs and by giving higher scores to groups of people who have zero practical experience or training in ATC type of jobs or who have scored lower in testing. It's not like ATC is an important job with lives at stake.

 

You dismiss these kind of facts because they are inconvenient to your thoughtless statement about making things more "representative". There's a lot more to consider than the throw away feelgood statement about making things more "representative". How do YOU figure on making things more "representative"? You made the statement, let us know how to make it happen that doesn't involve compulsion and disadvantaging others and lowering standards, particularly in jobs where lives are at stake?

 

 

Actually, diversity is saving those 12 kids in Thailand. The majority of the people involved are Thai Navy Seals, and they have a smattering of British, American's and at least one Dane. Why? Because being not culturally homgenous, they think in disimilar ways. Dissimilar ways that seem to have collectively come up with a solution.

 

Non Diversity is just another excuse for Groupthink. And its a bunch of all very smart guys all thinking alike that got us into the 2008 crash. Why should be be endorsing that?

[Jeff]

 

 

All diversity means is creating organizations representive of the Society they work for or represent. Im not sure why this is quite such a difficult concept to understand. Diversity could mean making parliament 50 percent female. Why would that be a bad thing?

There's part your problem. It usually requires some kind of compulsion to attain. It also necessitates the prejudicial action against others who aren't in the latest Venn diagram of aggrieved classes. How is taking away opportunity from one group due to an arbitrary thing like race or gender and giving it to another, going to do away prejudice? How do you MAKE parliament 50% female without taking away the voters' choice by having certain seats that can only be won by females?

 

We keep hearing about toxic masculinity and yet it is just such toxic masculinity that is saving 12 boys and a soccer coach in Thailand.

 

Do we mandate(force) a perfectly "representative" number on every job/elective office/club nationwide? Do we constantly change the make up of every job/elective office/club on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the demographics? At what interval do we update the mandated levels?

 

The Obama administration has skewed the criteria for air traffic controllers to make the ranks reflect "diversity" by giving lower scores to people who have actually completed schooling to become ATCs and by giving higher scores to groups of people who have zero practical experience or training in ATC type of jobs or who have scored lower in testing. It's not like ATC is an important job with lives at stake.

 

You dismiss these kind of facts because they are inconvenient to your thoughtless statement about making things more "representative". There's a lot more to consider than the throw away feelgood statement about making things more "representative". How do YOU figure on making things more "representative"? You made the statement, let us know how to make it happen that doesn't involve compulsion and disadvantaging others and lowering standards, particularly in jobs where lives are at stake?

 

Actually, diversity is saving those 12 kids in Thailand. The majority of the people involved are Thai Navy Seals, and they have a smattering of British, American's and at least one Dane. Why? Because being not culturally homgenous, they think in disimilar ways. Dissimilar ways that seem to have collectively come up with a solution.

 

Non Diversity is just another excuse for Groupthink. And its a bunch of all very smart guys all thinking alike that got us into the 2008 crash. Why should be be endorsing that?

 

Not much of an answer to my points. You cherry picked the Thailand thing to say "diversity" when I used it as an example against yours about 50/50 women being preferable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well pardon me if Ive got work to do and I cant address every point line by line. Everyone seems to want and pick and choose what I mean by 'diversity' when Im pretty explicit about what I mean.

[rmgill]

The point is, you are never going to achieve full diversity. Its pointless even to try.

Sort of. You attempt to make society as free as to allow equal opportunity. You allow people to pursue their own goals.

 

 

 

Ive never been a big fan of the Parliamentary quota's on Women, that said when they say they are underrepresented in Parliament compared to the Society that votes for them, they have a point.

Ever wonder why more men are in dangerous jobs? Do you have ANY point that rebuts the video above by Dr Peterson on personal choices between men and women in careers in Scandinavia? What about differences in high paying jobs like law? Why do so many women in those fields, who are arguably excellent at them, drop out by 30?

 

 

 

Actually, diversity is saving those 12 kids in Thailand.

No, that was competence. The divers were competent in their fields. If they'd been chosen for diversity there'd have been deaths. We could choose a bunch of people for an even more diverse crowd and then there'd have been lots of deaths.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

The point is, you are never going to achieve full diversity. Its pointless even to try.

Sort of. You attempt to make society as free as to allow equal opportunity. You allow people to pursue their own goals.

 

 

 

Ive never been a big fan of the Parliamentary quota's on Women, that said when they say they are underrepresented in Parliament compared to the Society that votes for them, they have a point.

Ever wonder why more men are in dangerous jobs? Do you have ANY point that rebuts the video above by Dr Peterson on personal choices between men and women in careers in Scandinavia? What about differences in high paying jobs like law? Why do so many women in those fields, who are arguably excellent at them, drop out by 30?

 

 

 

Actually, diversity is saving those 12 kids in Thailand.

No, that was competence. The divers were competent in their fields. If they'd been chosen for diversity there'd have been deaths. We could choose a bunch of people for an even more diverse crowd and then there'd have been lots of deaths.

 

 

Except thats not completely true either is it? Im listening to the grenfell inquiry, and there were women firefighters present there. There are 3 women pilots flying Typhoons at the moment. In the second world war, we had them delivering new build combat aircraft, not the worlds safest occupation by any means. My Grandmother filled 25 pounder shells in an ammunition factory. Again, not a safe occupation either. Historically, yes, women were in more dangerous positions in the past. I can point to the Soviets being keen to impress women labour in combat roles, and when the war was over removed them all because they considered it an emergency issue. Such changes may be due to cultural norms than any inability of the women involved. Women Police Officers were not common until society decided they should be, ditto Soldiers. Society makes these rules more often than we admit.

 

I might say, I admire Jordan Peterson for his free thinking, but lets not hand him a blank cheque and say he is right about everything, because he isnt.

 

Yes, you are right to say equal opportunity will sort this out. And yet, you can look to the educational achievement in British school's and see that background has an effect. Its very fashionable to deprecate this, but you never saw many atomic scientists emerge from London slums did you? There is a reason for that, and its not because the poor are as always as thick as two short planks. You cant make a society of equality without making a genuine effort to remove inequalities. Or at the very least, recognising there are inequalities and developing systems to work around them. Maybe that is less of a problem in your country, but it is true here and has been for a good many years.

 

I should add, I deprecate those whom think women or ethnic groups are entitled just because they are what they are. I come at it from the reverse perspective, its more the the society we live in that benefits by their presence, if they are qualified to be. We have to face up to the fact there are occasions when women and ethnic groups have been disqualified from participating in key parts of society just because of the cultural norms which we create. And if anyone thinks this is complete balls, I can only point to the life of Marie Curie and you will see my point. How many female scientists whom may have made equal discoveries up to that point were disqualified for being female? Or another example, Walter Tull, Britains first Black Army Officer. How many footballers, or Army Officers for that matter were dissuaded from being just because society decided they were unsuitable?

 

 

I might mock the efforts of the more extreme diversity campaigners, and you and Peterson are completely right to do so. All im suggesting is that such people build their bedrock on a reality that ought to be dealt with, and that just because they are the lunatic fringe, shouldnt make us think there is not a reality hidden in its shadow. Diversity has become an ugly word, and it just makes it easier to ignore realities that are still present.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

You have yet to establish that the NHS has a quota and discriminates against competence to fulfill it.

 

But then, you've been long on claims, short of understanding and deaf to counter-evidence on every similar topic for years, why change now?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, I think something is being lost in translation. When we say 'Diversity', they think it means 'Diversity' in the sense that Jordan Peterson rails against. Im not convinced we have reach the kind of absurdist levels the US and Canada have achieved. Well, not yet anyway.

 

Most of our far left seem to be more keen on removing imperialist symbols than setting diversity quota's.

[rmgill]

Except thats not completely true either is it? Im listening to the grenfell inquiry, and there were women firefighters present there.

More. US stats are 9 in 10 workplace deaths are men. Men work the more hazardous jobs as a rule. Some women fire fighters doesn't make it NOT true.

 

This isn't just prognostication Stuart. This is factual data on deaths in the US 9/10 workplace deaths are men. It's also factual data in the UK. 96% of worker fatalities in the UK in 2017/18 were men.

 

Demonstrably, men work the more dangerous jobs. You can see that from the fatality stats. It maps when you look at who does what jobs. You're not gonna find many women working the rig floors on North Sea Drilling platforms. Maybe as an MWD worm, but probably not as a drill or derrick hand.

 

Pointing to edge cases among women who work the dangerous jobs when the vast majority are men doesn't address the point at all. Generally people who go into working hard/dangerous jobs are unusual if they're women. This isn't hard to grasp. Talk to the women who do those tasks. They'll complain bitterly about the frail girls who can't keep up. And even then, women can't do the hard work that men can due to the differences in physique.

 

 

I might say, I admire Jordan Peterson for his free thinking, but lets not hand him a blank cheque and say he is right about everything, because he isnt.

So explain WHY he isn't. What is he wrong about? You DO realize he's not just talking about his own research right?

 

Yes, you are right to say equal opportunity will sort this out. And yet, you can look to the educational achievement in British school's and see that background has an effect. Its very fashionable to deprecate this, but you never saw many atomic scientists emerge from London slums did you? There is a reason for that, and its not because the poor are as always as thick as two short planks. You cant make a society of equality without making a genuine effort to remove inequalities. Or at the very least, recognising there are inequalities and developing systems to work around them. Maybe that is less of a problem in your country, but it is true here and has been for a good many years.

So you fix the issue by having quotas for nuke engineers from the slums? What if none are qualified? What then? Lower the standards?

 

 

I should add, I deprecate those whom think women or ethnic groups are entitled just because they are what they are. I come at it from the reverse perspective, its more the the society we live in that benefits by their presence, if they are qualified to be. We have to face up to the fact there are occasions when women and ethnic groups have been disqualified from participating in key parts of society just because of the cultural norms which we create. And if anyone thinks this is complete balls, I can only point to the life of Marie Curie and you will see my point. How many female scientists whom may have made equal discoveries up to that point were disqualified for being female? Or another example, Walter Tull, Britains first Black Army Officer. How many footballers, or Army Officers for that matter were dissuaded from being just because society decided they were unsuitable?

Physical or personality differences aren't societal barriers Stuart. Men and women differ in physicality dramatically. Look at Olympic records. Men and women differ in mental respects too. Look at violent criminal populations.

 

I might mock the efforts of the more extreme diversity campaigners, and you and Peterson are completely right to do so. All im suggesting is that such people build their bedrock on a reality that ought to be dealt with, and that just because they are the lunatic fringe, shouldnt make us think there is not a reality hidden in its shadow. Diversity has become an ugly word, and it just makes it easier to ignore realities that are still present.

The people who have made Diversity and Inclusion a dog whistle did so by their actions. Not be the actions of the conservatives, but by their soft bigotry of low expectations. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of an evolutionary biologist who was chased off her campus for uttering wrongthink.

Edited July 10, 2018 by rmgill