Ghost retweeted
1. Terry is replacing an 80 year old Bruce Wayne
2. Terry has his own distinct but familiar setting
3. He is not depicted as being better than Bruce, and Bruce is never diminished or humiliated to make Terry look good by comparison.
Ghost retweeted
Muito bem explicado e com uma paciência de santa para com a condescendência do Ricardo e o menosprezo da porta-voz de Marcelo.
Ghost retweeted
“Communism is great in theory, but doesn’t work in practice.”
Still hear that a lot.
But it’s like saying: “Well, the recipe is great but every time we bake a cake from it we end up poisoning everyone.”
Yeah, that doesn’t sound like a great recipe actually.
After many tens of millions dead, we should acknowledge that communism is bad in theory and bad in practice.
It’s economic illiteracy combined with horrific ideas about establishing a dictatorship (oh, temporarily sure) and persecuting an ever expanding list of enemies, which will eventually include everyone who points out that it’s not working.
The fact that it’s dressed up in sanctimonious, self-aggrandising rhetoric about freeing workers (who a lot of Marxists would shudder to have a conversation with) doesn’t make any of that better. It just provides an excuse to commit atrocities for the supposed great good - with that post-dictatorship utopia always at least one more murder away.
If it can reach the point of justifying the Nazi-Soviet Pact and persecuting entire nationalities then there is no low to which it cannot sink.
You know what is great in theory?
Democratic institutions and norms, checks and balances, independent civil societies, freedom of speech and assembly, human rights, etc, etc.
Those things are superior in theory, superior in practice, and there’s nothing remotely redeeming about those who would throw them away no matter where on the political spectrum they put themselves.
Ghost retweeted
i dont care im 🦭🦭 rolling 🔄🌀 rolling spinning 😵💫🌪️🤸 in my leafs 🍁🍂 autumn leafs 🍂🍁🧡🦭
Ghost retweeted
> be a high-flying MIT scientist
> discover mTOR
> expected to win a Nobel Prize some day
> have consensual relationship with younger female biology MIT professor
> she accuses him of sexual harassment, coercion and grooming after he declines a long term relationship with her
> MIT launches investigation
> MIT lets the accuser’s allies help pick the judges and threaten the president if he wasn’t destroyed
> lo and behold, investigation finds he violated MIT’s sexual relationship and anti-harassment policies
> he gets fired and resigns under threat of termination
> loses his lab
> he sues her for defamation
> jury awards him $6 million in defamation case and rejects her claims that she was coerced in any way
How did 13 members of a civilian jury come to a different conclusion than @MIT?
Answer: MIT’s investigation was not exactly independent thanks to coordinated female faculty collusion. It was a kangaroo court and the verdict was pre-determined
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES INSIDER INFLUENCE OVER MIT'S TENURE-REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia's involvement in the selection of Sabatini's tenure-review committee
On 27 September 2021, Kristin Knouse exchanged messages with Izabella Pena following a conversation with @MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia.
The court-disclosed messages reveal Kristin Knouse telling Izabella Pena:
🔴 “Sangeeta just called”
🔴 “they even asked for insight into who to put on the committee”
🔴 “AND she said she will go to Rafael Reif’s office and protest the decision if and when needed.”
Pena responded:
“At least they are asking her insight”
Knouse replied:
“Exactly”
“This is good”
⚠️ The evidence exposes a troubling channel of insider influence surrounding MIT's tenure-review process.
These contemporaneous communications document that Knouse understood Bhatia to have been consulted about the committee's composition and to be prepared to challenge its eventual decision directly with MIT President Rafael Reif.
Rather than an independent review insulated from interested parties, the messages reveal access to the committee-selection process by an academic aligned with the complainant, raising serious concerns about institutional impartiality and conflicts of interest.
This disclosure adds another significant piece to the growing documentary record surrounding the institutional handling of Professor @DMSabatini's case.
📑 REVIEW THW ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
