Having subscribed to his blog for years, eh. He's very skeptical about US government policy re: coronavirus, but mostly in an evidence-based way: for example, he's vaccinated, but thinks lockdowns and masks are ineffective in the long run. He also has a politically incorrect sideline in poking fun at the absurdities of university wokeness and gender fluidity, but this too mostly takes the form of calling out various self-contradictions and exploitable loopholes.

In what way is he a crank?

What do you mean specifically? I don't see anything hard core right wing.

His takes on Trump, #metoo, LGBTQ, etc are consistently framed in a manner that would appeal to the Scott Adams crowd.

I'm sure it appeals to a fair portion of the audience here but I found it unpalatable.

So you're just making vague and unsupported allegations based on your own political prejudices. Got it.

Fine, you want crank? Have some crank: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2021/11/05/stoking-coronap...

philg's writing is deeply ironic and can rarely be taken at face value. For example, the title "Stoking coronapanic is a good way to destroy traditional religion?" is basically pointing out the correlation between corona restrictions and the decline in attendance. He's not claiming this is intentional, the snark comes from him noting that if somebody were to design a policy to reduce churchgoing, doubling down on corona restrictions would be a great way to do it.

Interpreting intent can be challenging, but I'm not seeing irony in his writing. Let's put it this way, his work is not Onion worthy.

Calling somebody ugly and then saying "just kidding!" is not irony. He's got an ax to grind and what he's put forth is reads as an accusation.

Religion (at least Christianity) is on the decline in Europe and that trend started well before COVID. There's lots of interesting aspects to that but to frame it as "Humanists hate religion and are trying to kill it" is disingenuous at best.

Just enjoy his content that doesn't bother you. Nothing wrong with being right wing or skeptical to wokeness.

> skeptical to wokeness

The fact that awareness and concern over the abuses of fellow human beings is a pejorative is wrong.

The excesses of same are indeed excesses, e.g., the hostility to opposing of any conservative speech is wrong. But as someone who now might be identified as woke, let me just share this:

Racism is deeply embedded in this country and my "wokeness" was about realizing how fucking deep and pervasive it is. There's millions of Americans who believe that Black people are literally beneath them, e.g., not worthy of the rights of White people.

That's fucked up. Do you disagree with the passage:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Wokeness is believing that statement and realizing that it not being held to.