Bret Weinstein always building rhetorical castles in the sky. He freely subs rhetorical complexity for an evidentiary basis, thinking if he can build a narratively consistent model in his mind, that must be how the world works.
But a working model, even if narratively consistent in its logic, is no substitute for evidence. There are any number of narratively consistent stories one might write in the margins around the known, but evidence remains evidence, and "sounds right" plus "fits in the gaps of my knowledge" does not constitute a proof.
So I’m visiting London for work this week, and I was out with some work colleagues after dinner when we noticed a slow drip, outpoor of five police cars (first one, then one, and then another three) all heading out in one direction. After that, there were maybe 10 cops in bright yellow vests walking in the same direction. (They weren’t moving with urgency, but you couldn’t help but notice how soon after they were patrolling the streets.)
Trying to figure out what was happening, my colleague (a local to London) offered a reason: sexual harrassment.
Apparently, sexual harassment (broadly speaking) occurs often enough in the Tubes where police respond.
When I asked him to clarify what he meant by “sexual harassment,” he stated it could either be physical or verbal. The Tubes get super crowded, especially later in the day: some times men will get a little too close to women.
So London, which is almost completely disarmed as a population, won’t hesitate to flood the streets with ...
