So three academics were just revealed to be behind a sting on academic disciplines like gender studies, cultural studies, fat studies, queer studies etc. (e.g. Michael Kimmel and the like's nonsense masculinity talk) to prove that these fields are run by ideology and have no bases in science. They had papers published in the TOP PEER-REVIEWED (this is important) journals in these fields that pushed for ideas like fat bodybuilding to stop fat-shaming, chaining up school kids to punish them for privilege, proving rape culture exists by looking studying dogs humping in a park, replacing words from Hitler's Mein Kampf with feminist buzzwords and scholars in the fields accepted and praised the works!
​
This is the ideological bullshit behind our quarantining and rubbish terms like Michael Kimmel's 'positive masculinity' which spreads out into the world. Hats off to these three for exposing this bullshit, hopefully people start to sit up and take notice of what's actually happening
​
Here's a video explaining what they did and why (it's funny): https://youtu.be/kVk9a5Jcd1k
Wall Street Journal article verifying what they did and showing the journals shock (LOL) at being pranked: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950
kylerosa21 5y ago
This is important. I'm glad you posted this and am almost inclined to suggest that this should be put on the sidebar.
U-94 5y ago
There's not much one can do online but I will say that if this topic ever comes up in conversation IRL, I will happily laugh and mock any purveyor or defendant of 'gender studies' and their ilk. I will do so in such a grandiose, condescending manner. Oh yes. It will be beautiful. (gets glassy eyed)
But yeah on reddit no point trying to type angry comments.
universalabundance1 5y ago
Please spread the word on this!!!
NightwingTRP 5y ago
Mein Kampf where the word jew is replaced with man.... is officially accepted by academic feminism. Who on TRP is surprised to discover this? This is why I am anti-feminist and I consider it a very rational position.
Dawnguards 5y ago
So now we need academics to prove it? Common sense isnt an option anymore? Sadtimes
CrazyHorseInvincible 5y ago
Stickied.
If you watch the video, it becomes clear that this is not a right-wing takedown, or a Project Veritas expose (valid as those are). These are insiders, members of the left-wing academic culture, who would probably be appalled by TRP and everything it stands for.
This SJW nonsense is starting to appall even their own ideological base.
Like TRP, the SJWs have isolated themselves in a community of people who agree with them in order to spitball ideas. However, unlike TRP, they have not taken those ideas and validated them by attempting to produce a real-world result.
This has caused them to be reliant solely upon the agreement of people who already think like they do for their definition of truth... and the definition of truth they produce is then ennobled in the eyes of the public by their academic credentials, despite its lack of any empirical validation at all.
That's /u/Whisper's concept of "Science!ism", precisely illustrated.
We don't have to do anything to defeat these idiots. They will defeat themselves.
niczar 5y ago
Chomsky, who's a quintessential leftist, has been criticizing postmodernism in academia for nearly 40 years. He basically accused the humanities departments of doing cargo cult science (though not using that expression) by trying to steal the aura of actual science by using its terminology but not its methods.
He knows too well, as an actual scientist who successfully applied actual science to what was beforehand a very soft science (linguistic). His work from the late 40s on formal languages is fundamental to compiler theory and is taught in CS classes.
Rbot_ov3rl04d 5y ago
I am pretty liberal in most instances, The SJW ideology is toxic and destructive. They are just as bad if not worse than the extreme right when it comes to opposing views and ideas, even moderately different than their own.
​
I got downvoted all the way to hell yesterday for suggesting on a sub that making hate speech illegal was dangerous af, and could be used to silence any group that those in power disagree with.
​
The responses were unlike anything I've ever seen. I was fucking defending the 1st amendment, and these rabid hyper liberals called me every name in the book including Nazi, racist, bigot etc.
FrankVillain 5y ago
Excellent, natural selection.
The-Red-Vagabond 5y ago
Only the strongest will survive
Whisper 5y ago
Thanks for spotting this, but there's something here that's dead wrong.
These academics, and you, when you talk about them, are careful to point out that they are left-leaning. To casual observation and thinking, it may seem to make their case stronger... after all, it defends them from counter-accusations of political bias.
But would right-wing thinkers have somehow produced a more undetectable grade of nonsense? Would this have somehow been unfair?
The facts are the facts.
These researchers, in pointing out that they are left-wing, and you, in echoing this point, are simply revealing how much your own thought processes have been influenced by the postmodernist idea that who is speaking matters along with what is being said.
Truth is true, and falsity false, regardless of who speaks it. While the expertise of the speaker does matter in deciding who is likely to be speaking the truth, the identity, opinions, and even biases of the speaker are irrelevant when the content can be tested.
And any content that cannot be tested has no business being regarded as scholarship rather than fruitless speculation.
Rian_Stone 5y ago
I like how Cicero deals with this, and it makes sense why that detail is important.
You're focused a lot on 2, which is important, and stands on it's own merits. calling them left leaving addresses 1. Right wingers are evil, realpolitic, manipulative etc. Of course I can dismiss the out group out of hand. and lets face it, going after the golden goose gets peoples 3 riled up.
If I get this right, you're focused on whether soemthing is true or not (it is) OP and the author are focused on persuasion, in which case, this being an inside job is just as vital
Whisper 5y ago
True... except I am not addressing academics. I am addressing their audience.
There is no point in attempting to persuade academics not to engage in deception, both of themselves and others... they have been incentivized to do so.
However, others have no incentive to listen once the lack of useful truth has been revealed.
SexdictatorLucifer 5y ago
One of the biggest redpills is realizing the world doesn't give a shit about truth, will spit in its face, and actually prefers lies. Number 2, and what Whisper addresses, is actually (and sadly) the least important of the three. People are won over by persuasion, good packaging, emotion, and a good story. Majority of humans, especially women, just want to be passive, entertained, while occasionally feel like they are a part of the play. They don't give a shit about truth. That is why the shepherds of humanity are the ones who find a way to provide the masses what they crave, while also implanting truth.
It's fun to think that we're advanced enough for our population to be convinced by truth alone, like us, but we're the same group of people from 5000 years ago. They don't want redpills, and they never did. They want a fun story about a coat of many colors or whatever the fuck else you can think of to sneak the truth into their fucking heads.
sadomasochrist 5y ago
We have a saying in our house. "Nobody cares." I've been developing an idea behind this that more or less the primary engagement model of the average person is fantasy, not reality.
Rian_Stone 5y ago
Oh yeah, assuming it's not media spin, some kind of Henry Cavil is going to be the manosphere cheerleader. Charming, hot guy saying women ain't shit because of getting raked through the mud...
Immuchtooawesome 5y ago
Does anyone know where I can find these works? Google isn't helping me as I want it to.
deek0146 5y ago
Yea, I'd like to see how heavily they had to edit Mein Kampf in order for it to pass peer review.
tomdx7 5y ago
Dude, description in the video. Mein kampf should be second portion of “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.”
[deleted]
[deleted]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
It's really funny until you realize how much power these people actually have. Also realize that this report will not matter. Nothing will change. Will the state legislatures defund these programs and fire the professors? No. It has been obvious for years that this is going on and no one has done anything. They are dug in tight as a tick.
Blackhawk2479 5y ago
I find it very telling that these institutions, when confronted with the knowledge that they were duped, find issue only with the submittal of hoax papers for peer review, not with their own review system for accepting them.
The liberal left has never been about getting its own house in order though, has it.
evolveorwither 5y ago
Hilarious, astounding, and pathetic all at once. They rewrote a section of MEIN KAMPF and it was accepted in a prestigious journal. Simply amazing.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
dogkindrepresent 5y ago
The secret is no one ever really peer reviews these papers as it's impossible to figure out what they're on about.
rebuildingMyself 5y ago
Lots of big words and it fits the feminist narrative? Approved!
CopperFox3c 5y ago
As a practicing PhD scientist, I should point out that this kind of bias affects all science, even biology and genetics. But that is not to say that gender studies doesn't push the ideological BS to the extreme.
It is the difference between science and scientism. And a reminder to always take a skeptical, rational view of "the truth".
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
It's more than just bias and scientism. We're accepting the widespread adoption of non-falsifiable theories.
whenfoom 5y ago
People can more easily understand ideological strategy than complicated subjects. As groups become more 'inclusive,' you can only expect the internal subject matter to be made more accessible to more people. And if that group is infiltrated by people who are more worried about looking smart than being smart, you can expect ideology to become the ruling dynamic.
NightwingTRP 5y ago
My friend who is a PhD researcher complains frequently that one of the biggest problems faced at the top of academia is that there are simply not enough truly intelligent folks for all the positions available and they are subsequently being filled by people who are just not bright enough, because the standards have been lowered in order to ensure the growth of the sciences. He makes similar complaints about the medical profession, since his research has him in contact with the doctors of the future, the lowering of standards means that there are some really stupid people who have a decent memory, who are now in charge of your health. They can remember many facts, but don't really understand it... there's a reason I need a drink or two when he starts talking about these things. One of these people may hold our lives in their hands one day soon....
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Plus affirmative action. God only knows how many unqualified people are pushed into high IQ positions every year. There is no way that the cumulative effect of affirmative action has not had a measurable negative effect. I'd love to see some economist write a paper trying to quantify this.
I've long ago come to the conclusion that most doctors really aren't that smart. It's pretty scary.
Omnidempotent 5y ago
Weird, that's the exact opposite of what I've always heard which is that there are too many people getting PhD's and not enough jobs to go around.
valvadi 5y ago
His point does not conflict with your point. While there probably are too many PhD's out there, many of them obtained their degree solely due to lowered degree standards. So there are more PhD's than jobs but not enough truly intelligent people who actually understand their field to fill all the positions. The vast majority of positions are filled with morons. Its the same in law and why finding a good attorney is quite difficult.
beginner_ 5y ago
It doesn't. There are many phd/post-doc positions because they are cheap labor. However once you grow out of that, competition get tough assuming your are just average.
NightwingTRP 5y ago
Country difference perhaps? Maybe a field difference?
red_powder 5y ago
Assuming you're in the US, maybe you're referring to postdoctoral positions rather than faculty positions? Science does continue to need lots and lots of postdocs, it's true; it demands highly credentialed people who will work long hours for peanuts and the promise of faculty positions, which aren't in fact available. And in the "harder" STEM areas, which more seamlessly connect with industry, the word is out and fewer and fewer freshly minted PhD's are taking the bait.
Geronus 5y ago
Your observation isn't incompatible with the OP's. Just because there's not enough "truly intelligent" folk to fill all the positions, doesn't mean there isn't also a long line of unqualified mediocrities queuing up to fill those spots.
[deleted]
HopeFarmer 5y ago
A relative of mine is currently in a genetics PhD program. His adviser and most other prominent people in the field are consciously dishonest about the implications of major discoveries. They know it could ruin their careers to acknowledge politically inconvenient explanations related to race, sex, sexuality, aggression, or intelligence. To be clear, these are not obscure, cutting edge findings but basic well-understood observations that they cannot freely discuss. Some of the guys with their heads farther up their asses try to rationalize it, saying they feel scientists have a responsibility to protect the public from findings they might "misinterpret." There are plenty of people in the field without an extreme personal bias, but the nature of research funding and the structure of academia effectively forces them to agree with the PC consensus on anything that might be controversial.
One of the major examples of this issue in biology is Stephen Jay Gould. He laid out a bunch of politically motivated bullshit that the general public and many scientists have come to accept as common sense or consensus. He was famous for "debunking" Samuel Morton's skull measurements from the 19th century. People still cite this as a great revelation of "Scientific Racism" despite the fact that it has been revealed to be totally wrong. Samuel Morton's work was impeccable and remarkably unbiased.
The impact of nonsense like Gould's becomes ossified in the academic mainstream with help from unscrupulous assholes like Malcolm Gladwell who make a career of preaching scientism to the PC masses and producing plausible support for leftist politics. Gender studies is built on doing this kind of thing. You could study genders in a scientific way, but the field of gender studies is founded on working toward specific conclusions, not scientific inquiry. It exists to fuel the political machine that forces bias into fields like biology. If you want to fix the bias in biology, it makes sense to start by destroying the gender/feminist/sociology academic machine.
[deleted] 5y ago
What are these inconvenient explanations? Could you share examples?
dogkindrepresent 5y ago
That nonsense is ossified in the public mainstream which is even more disturbing.
BlackTemplar1989 5y ago
This reminds me of a german politician and author, who published a book and generated a gargantuan shitstorm. One of his main points were that intelligence is passed down from parents to a certain degree. He didn't state, that is was the sole factor when dertemining the intelligence of a kid, but certainly plays an important role. So dumb parents would be much more likely to have dumb offspring.
Holy shit did they go nuts. Most medias didn't even bother to read the book. they just jumped on the hate-train and tore him apart. this guy was an outcast for years and you'd done well not to agree to his theories in public, lest you'd face the same fate.
Fun part however was the massive cognitive dissonance. When I listened to my acquaintances everyone agreed, that two ingenious musicians would likely produce highly talented offspring. Two world-class athletes would propably sire the next Usain Bolt, but the child of two brilliant math professors can only be brilliant because they could help him with his homework. There's no way this has anything to do with genetics.
This would be fucking hilarious if it were not for a high percentage of the population that had been infected with this ideology.
[deleted] 5y ago
One of the theories I've heard by evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein is the reason for humans impressive adaptability is due to having not necessarily a blank slate, but the blankest of slates among all animals. The only comparison that would make sense on a purely genetic level is that of world-class athletes ex: fast twitching muscle fibers and higher lung capacity. As far as having a higher than average cognitive ability, a lot has to do with prenatal effects. Was the mother experiencing high levels of cortisol on the daily during her pregnancy? Something as simple as eating corn (which is the means of sustenance among many poor, less developed nations) blocks niacin absorption and lowers serotonin which is linked to higher aggression and crime. More educated parents are more likely to research and be up to date with the latest science on neurology and will most likely adopt a somewhat strict health regime of no exposure to VOC's, BPA, pesticides not only during their life but also during prenatal development. Let's say you do have parents with high IQ's but while the mother is pregnant, have her live near a medical waste incinerator and consume produce heavily sprayed with pesticides and eat a ton of corn and see how similar the brain development and IQ the child will have to the parents.
beginner_ 5y ago
Genetics >>> Environment.
Or basically the environment only matters if it is very bad like abusive parents and such.
Yeah, you might be blue pilled because you were raised by a single mom but did not become dumb because of that, it only formed your inner beliefs / ideology but not your IQ or eye color.
Anecdotal evidence but when I look at my siblings and parents which all had pretty much the same environment it's clear that even character traits are inherited (extroversion/intoversion, empathy, ...). I mean if from a single cell a new human can be created that looks similar to it's parents after tens of thousands of cell divisions, it's gets the same nose shape why on is it so hard to believe them same happens in the brain, eg IQ, character,...
Jake_le_Dog 5y ago
There are huge environmental factors though. I think sometimes it's pretty hard to distinguish between the two, but so many things that at first seem to be genetic are hugely distorted by the nurturing environment.
There's just not enough data to support either side of the argument completely. Take this new trend of Orthotropics for example, I've only recently learned of the practice by watching the 21 studios Mike Mew talk, but man, that was a pretty convincing talk about the development of facial structure as a result of habits.
What I've observed, is that genetics really play their roles at the extreme ends of sports, sexual marketplace, work, crafts, etc. if we're not looking at the exceptional savant-type people. It's really really complicated. Until a certain degree anyone can learn to Snatch a heavy load, but only the one with the addition of awesome genetics can win the olympic weightlifting medal, and still you see he trains just as hard, or harder than everyone else.
Blurred lines.
Flynn-Lives 5y ago
Not real science in reputable journals
Rabbit-Punch 5y ago
I thought scientism was applying science outside of it's bounds, as a proxy for spirituality and philosophy.
CopperFox3c 5y ago
Read this. Scientism is basically a fundamental misunderstanding of "knowledge".
whenfoom 5y ago
That was the idea for awhile. Now it's got more pseudointellectual connotations. But then again, the first implied pseudointellectualism as well.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
ITS_A_MINDSET 5y ago
Critically engage with the literature, understand how and why the conclusions of key studies were reached.
viyacondios 5y ago
Science at its core involves making falsifiable claims. If I propose a theory, there needs to be an experiment that could prove it wrong. That which explains everything, explains nothing.
max_peenor 5y ago
The traditional method to believe science is when the engineers took over.
There was a time when the vast majority of science was related to the physical world. We left the abstract world be handled by philosophers and theologies. Following the enlightenment, malcontents realized that they could use accepted methods (culminating in the scientific method as we know it today) to wrap their ephemeral, vacuous thoughts and desires into something gullible people might see as legitimate. It started with progressive bleating bullshit in tennis courts in France and has culminated with pussy hats and privilege tests.
So you want to know what to believe? Is it something in the real world or is it something in our heads? Start there.
beginner_ 5y ago
Fair point because most things in modern science you can't test / confirm yourself even if you understand it like higgs-boson, you simply need to believe they got it right. But then that is also an example of research with so many people and competition involved, you hardly get anything that is better "peer-reviewed".
So the really big stuff usually either will turn out to be right and work or will be detected as fraud (eg. the South Korean guy some yeas back).
Were cautious is needed is with most rather lame papers published in the field of interest. Publishing is needed for PhDs and for getting funds so everything that gets accepted, gets out. In my area there is so much BS going around, sooner or later this will destroy science.
You would think that crap doesn't get published in such a reputable journal. You're wrong. Either they (=Science editors) lacked the knowledge of the specific topic or simply didn't look at the stuff all that well. This paper had a github repo which actually is already miles ahead of most but the repo was a mess and the code had errors, doesn't run. So that really makes you wonder...
anything with code: Code usually not available or if you ask only in compiled form or they use proprietary software which you need a very costly license for.
Also a common thing. Showing their supposedly great findings often lacking comparisons to established methods. But the main point of the paper is to advertise their product (mostly proprietary software) that was used generate the results. Easily detected in 5 min doing some background research about the authors and the marketed product.
Conclusion:
The big stuff you can usually belief as that gets debunked sooner or later if wrong. Most other stuff? Tread with caution.
tempolaca 5y ago
With time, Science corrects itself, exactly like it happened in this case. There are some wrong papers in physics and math too. It takes time, but they get debunked too.
This is science working.
Also, science doesn't give any certain of anything, just give you the most likely explanation, at this time.
chadwickofwv 5y ago
It took 3 people breaking rules and completely risking their academic careers in order to expose this bullshit, and I guarantee that it will make little if any difference in the field. So no, science did not correct itself in this case. It was only temporarily embarrassed. They will continue on as if nothing ever happened within a month. We are talking about an entrenched ideology not real science.
Rian_Stone 5y ago
same way you apply that standard here. We are only missing fancy math, papers, lab coats, and conventions
CopperFox3c 5y ago
I can get you a lab coat, Rian, you gotta wear it when you do that Red Man Group podcast though
[deleted]
New_Guard 5y ago
Another PhD scientist here. Don't put much stock into any individual new paper that's published. Even if the fundamental ideas in it prove correct, the media almost always blow its significance way out of scale, and extrapolate its conclusions way too far. Most reporters don't really have the training to report on it adequately, and the ones that do work at science focused media outlets with comparatively low readership.
However, what you read in a science textbook or similar style source (that compiles information from tons of references and isn't synthesizing the very cutting edge of the research), you can generally take to the bank.
CountryYuppie 5y ago
What about the politics that are allowed to have a say in what does and doesn't get put in textbooks? SJWs 8 years ago got upset at people trying to add creationism to biology and removing important black figures from history books. I can only assume they now have the same power to skew textbooks the other way. (Edit: serious question)
New_Guard 5y ago
Those sorts of things are why I wrote "generally". But my impression is, this kind of thing is (or at least has been) relatively rare, and is usually shut down by public uproar.
That being said, it's important to build your knowledge and apply as much critical thinking as you can to new materials based on your previous understanding. If something doesn't jive, dig in. Unfortunately, detecting politically motivated truthiness is often hard work.
CountryYuppie 5y ago
Thanks for your reply, much appreciated.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
New_Guard 5y ago
For anyone other than practicing scientists or very informed laymen, it's safer just not to get down into the weeds of reading individual papers. The practice of science is messy, filled with egos and politics, and driven by non-ideal incentive structures. It is self correcting and works to elucidate truth in the long run though, which is why the larger scale summaries (as in textbooks) are generally correct. One individual paper that everyone should read, or at least read the summary of, however, is this one on why most published findings are false.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
CopperFox3c 5y ago
Don't take anything at face value. Science is just evidence that helps us understand the world around us ... it is not "the truth". Do your own research, read multiple sources. Where possible, experiment in the real world and see what works and what doesn't.
That is the basis of rational thought. Also TRP 101.
nmagod 5y ago
This is part of why antivaccine parents are incredibly frustrating to listen to. They often cite decades-old papers that indicate amounts that are equivalent to one drop in an olympic size pool.
chadwickofwv 5y ago
I take it that you are not aware that one drop of thimerosal on your hand will kill you, even if you are wearing standard latex/vinyl gloves. It is unbelievably toxic. It will also take weeks to kill you with absolutely nothing you can do about it but suffer until you die. Oh, and the suffering is absolutely terrible as you slowly die.
[deleted] 5y ago
Yeah, same with any organomercury based substance. But no one who isnt trained for it will be in direct contact with thimerosal in a high enough quanitity to cause death. A vaccine would have much much less than a drop of thimerosal in it, not enough to kill anyone unless they had a severe adverse reaction to it.
Science is full of these dangers you're not even thinking/aware about. Benzene for example, causes cancer with enough exposure, but its also one of the most important building blocks in organic chemistry. Just cause something is dangerous in the kitchen, doesnt mean its not fit for consumption.
beginner_ 5y ago
But it certainly doesn't make you autistic...
FraankJJLO 5y ago
there is no decade old papers, they repeatedly site the words of Dr. Wakefield, a sham doctor that had his PhD revoked and was completely banished from academia for the insanely retarted paper he wrote about vaccines. This guy had no credentials beforehand. He is considered a martyr by antivaxxers and it is this guy's studies that you are repeatedly cited. No other papers exist, just this one.
hatguyfromXKCD 5y ago
TIL...
chadwickofwv 5y ago
That is not even remotely true.
majaka1234 5y ago
And using the power of the internet, you too can present claims for your argument!
Incel9876 5y ago
Math > Physics/Chemistry > Computer Sci/etc > Biology (the softest real science category) > Pseudo-Sciences: Economics/Pysch/Social "Sciences"/anything with "Studies" in the name, etc.
dogkindrepresent 5y ago
Computer Science and Biology are really variable but in terms of entry you've correctly positioned them. Or at least well enough. CS can actually be dumbed down worse than biology. CS is really adaptive. Biology as well as you can easily do work on a number of different levels.
CS also has bullshit that has taken the industry by storm. One of the biggest problems consists of idiots. The more accessible the course the lower the bar. Imagine your list as layers in a pyramid instead and move the bar down.
As you do more increasingly see a more overwhelming number of idiots inhabiting them.
CS is no exception. These days getting a programming job everyone is obsessed with the soft CS crap such as TDD, XP, Agile, BDD, tools, buzzwords, fads, cargo cult, etc. Algorithms, actual programming, data structures? Screw all that!
In these subjects the idiots and ideologues completely dominate through sheer numbers.
There's been a socialist drive to have everyone do higher education. I'm normally for this but it has unintended side effects. Nearly every idiot is a Dunning Kruger. Send them out to university and now they all think they're geniuses.
University loves it because cash.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Economics is a serious subject with rigorous standards and very smart people. Pretty absurd to include it with the other social sciences.
Geronus 5y ago
...Except that is still a social science, because its primary aim is to model the behavior of social animals, i.e. humans. All they are is specialized sociologists without the overwhelming liberal bias.
SensualSeduction01 5y ago
why the fuck did you put biology that far back?
chadwickofwv 5y ago
Likely because it includes medical science, which is horribly corrupt.
SensualSeduction01 5y ago
Why would you say medical science is corrupt?
j_arbuckle2012 5y ago
Go to any hospital with a congenital condition as a man and report back.
The AHA has almost completely defunded research into the male causes of heart disease. Urologists are hard to come by. Speak to an endocrinologist about getting your T levels back to normal for your age (600 - 1000 ng/dL) and see what happens.
Men don't have the privelege of relying on the medical system. They are universally tossed aside. Money in research goes to studying women and babies.
SensualSeduction01 5y ago
What made u arrive at that conclusion?
beginner_ 5y ago
As that is my primary education, I fully agree. A lot of stuff / working methods are simply empirical. They work and have been optimized but it's not really proven or clear how and why it works.
Also there are simply too many factors involved to control for all of them and essentially it's extremely complex org chem. I would in fact move chemistry down. Chemistry is clearly much less hard than Physics and comp sci.
Math > Physics > Computer Sci > Chemistry > Biology
st3roids 5y ago
You know social sciences aren't sciences at all in the sense of having hard facts.
Only 1 every three social studies can be replicate at best. Also the cant predict anything they simply analyse circumstances and try to make conclusions why this happening.
so take all those for granted and we come to conclusions tat aren't there. Add biases in an already weak field without hard facts and no wonder we reach this low point nowdays.
jokuhuna2 5y ago
The only thing they have that can actually "proof" something is statistics. But many who study social science do not want to touch math with a ten foot pole. Human experiments and statistics from them. That is actually really difficult to do in a good scientific way.
destraht 5y ago
It isn't science because they don't have experiments and sometimes when they get around to actually doing that part right then they can't be reproduced. Its steaming bullshit. Science is good so they call it science. If we thought that religion was good then they would call it that instead. Its just bankrupt and fiat belligerence. We are physically stronger, more intelligent, better trained and with a higher grasp of fundamental axioms than they ever will be. They have very little discipline and if they were ever put in the position of Tycho Brahe they would have just rounded out the Mars numbers to fit the narrative. They won't produce a damn thing, reach enlightenment or affect the long term trajectory of our culture and species in any meaningful way. They are just a speed bump that humanity has to deal with and its simply an annoyance that its been placed right smack in the middle of our lives.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
ex_addict_bro 5y ago
They replaced it with famine. Thanks to it today grandchhcildren of the refugees can suck on this sweet freedom dick in other countries.
RuleZeroDAD 5y ago
There are no Communists or Fascists in academia, just very, very, very like-minded people.
We all have our "struggle."
clavabot 5y ago
How on gods green earth did you get your mind to think the way it does
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Just say you sympathize with Hitler bro. Getting rejected from college is totally a good reason to commit genocide. Question: Did the non-Jewish Slavs that he also considered inferior wrong him in some way too? Maybe a Slav laughed at him when he farted on the train one time?
Edit: Guess I'm just not sure what your actual position is here. You've hinted at it, but maybe you should clearly state it. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, especially on such a sensitive subject. This is all very confusing for us un-tagged simpletons and we are here to learn from you guys after all.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
In postmodernism, talking about an idea is conflated with support for an idea.
That makes you stupid. Just saying.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Lol. He didn't just talk about it.
TheBadGoy 5y ago
Always look at both sides of the story and make up your mind. Let's say Zionist Trump tells me Assad is an evil dictator, should I immediately believe him or should I look Assad's interviews or read any of his books? (if he has any). GayLubeOil probably knows about Weimar Germany and sees many similarities, without any knowledge on the subject, you will never understand him.
[deleted]
red_powder 5y ago
For those interested (in the lulz), I found all the papers and journal reviews:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy\_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM\_en18
​
For commentary/context, refer to Richard Baldwin's writeup:
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/
littleblacktruck 5y ago
How post does this help young men in the sexual marketplace? Certainly not concern trolling. Just helping my young brothers sift through useful information.
ThePantsThief 5y ago
This subreddit isn't devoted to teaching you how to get laid, contrary to popular belief.
thelandofdreams 5y ago
Just let us talk about what the fuck we want.
JonathanMekerset 5y ago
Yeah I agree. This isn’t MRA
mattyiceheretoentice 5y ago
Gee you sure are a good guy
[deleted]
grewapair 5y ago
Google the WSJ title to get full access. It's hilarious.
downvotesanimals 5y ago
Check out "new real peer review" on twitter. Days of entertainment.
[deleted]
whenfoom 5y ago
I like the idea of being able to say, "I study alt-left ideologies under the heading 'grievance studies'."
Noogisms 5y ago
Lots of laughter. Hilarious.
Whisper 5y ago
+1
Field_Of_View 5y ago
There's actually a button for that.
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
Agreed. +1 from me as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
ex_addict_bro 5y ago
I’m still waiting for some RPW to give me that schweet schweet positive feminity...
Hey, maybe we should start using that term to shame women into submission? Let’s meme the hell out of it.
For example, “this sandwich brought to you by positive feminity”
Are you a positive feminist? Make me a sandwich and suck me gently dear.
We don’t want those negative feminity out there hell no
punchyson 5y ago
The fatal flaw on both of the extreme sides of the political spectrum is that they are echo chambers. There are specific views you must adopt to even be accepted. There is no room for freedom of thought, those people get labels.
The feminists will not be satisfied until they are completely in control of everything.
FascistStoicism 5y ago
The political spectrum is a spook
sadomasochrist 5y ago
Spent two years trying to fight that battle with TRP. Only to realize it wasn't that extremist views were a requirement to admission but instead that the reality was extreme.
deek0146 5y ago
On every end of every political spectrum; there are more than two extreme positions since politics is multidimensional.
Lib3rtarianSocialist 5y ago
Agreed.
punchyson 5y ago
Frankly nobody cares what the Green Party, Libertarians or Neo-Anarchists think because they have no power. A Libertarian usually can't get elected without running as a D or an R. In the United States anyway, it's "bigly" contest between two parties that can actually win something.
deek0146 5y ago
Wasn't talking about parties, but personal beliefs.
poohead3 5y ago
Both D and R are two heads of the same semitic serpent. A dog and pony show, if you will.
brontide 5y ago
The reveal was too soon, now they will be shunned and retracted after only proving that the peer review systems was broken. They really should have let the papers sit for a few years so they could be cited or have the papers presented at a conference or other symposium to show that the discipline actually internalized these bat-shit views. I can only imagine that the de-platforming and de-personing will continue at full speed with most "respectable" universities will avoid them after such a study.
I think you can probably know quite easily which areas will fall for this and which ones will not. Ask the people if the area of study is there to correct the ills of society or to reveal the truth.
scorpeeon 5y ago
Seeing the video was part 2, I watched part 1, and it's also worth watching: part 1
It's pretty similar to the sidebar material about gender studies, it has people getting outraged simply by hearing obvious facts about differences between men and women, it's hilarious.
MarquisDePaid 5y ago
The "New Left" actively believes in dismantling all sorts of identities and encouraging materialist depravity by sexual degeneracy
Neomarxism replaced old Bolshevism, and brought "social revolution" to SLOWLY replace the "outdated" class struggle concept.
Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.
Herbert Marcuse wiki does a decent overview:
Marcuse led the proto-CIA
Other more recent "New Left" CIA and Bankster associated leaders include Gloria Steinem, who was recently at the 2017 "Womens March" against Trump:
And then William Reich was another big guy in the "sexology theory", and he often is cited by neomarxist groups like Antifa in their attempts to "exterminate future fascism":
Yes, this BS is real. These are real people intentionally inciting this shit. The end goal of this social "reconstruction" is "cosmopolitanism" worldwide:
Yes, "white supremacists" somehow support brown nationalists because they want "brown Arabs" to retain the "spiritual purity associated with family, tradition, and nation", whereas the noble cosmopolitans support neverending revolution and the "moderate rebels".
Another term for "cosmopolitanism" is "post-modern anomia".
HerrHoffmann 5y ago
YIKES, mentioning alot of people from a certain tribe in this comment. I don't need this in my system right now!!!
[deleted]
FrankVillain 5y ago
Bloody Germans, always taking things too far.
Field_Of_View 5y ago
The "Germans" of then are the "White Americans" of now.
poohead3 5y ago
German by nationality, not by ethnicity. Big difference.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Incel9876 5y ago
Russia has never been a modern multi-ethnic, multi-cult state, while other ethnicities were incorporated into the Russian civilization, it never happened on such a level as to threaten the Russian ethnicity, language, religion, culture. Putin brings up how in the USA white Christians have become a minority in their own country, then meets the response of "of course," with "You say, 'of course,' but this has changed only recently, White Christians have become a minority, less than 50 percent now." (look at the face of the guy who said "of course," lol):
Putin: US Not A White Christian Country Anymore - We Europeans Need To Preserve Our Culture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YfPbvL9Gk
Putin: "...but as to culture, even language, language group and history, this is all undoubtedly a European space, as it is inhabited by people of this culture." Then goes on to how this must be preserved, obviously by preventing the kind of suicidal immigration levels seen in the USA, Western Europe, etc.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
lolwut? Russia was always multiethnic from before it was even Russia. The city states that eventually formed Russia fought and interacted with nomads (eg pechenegs), finns, tatars and other nationalities. then the mongols came and diluted them further. then they conquered an empire comprised of many nationalities and languages and imposed their language and culture on them.
Russia is not European. it is not Asiatic. it is an amalgamation between the two. it is neither, it is both.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Captain_Save_A_Hoe_ 5y ago
President Putin is Veps, a finno ugric.
DarkSyde3000 5y ago
I I know you can't see it but I'm willing to bet you're getting a lot more members BECAUSE of this quarantine right now. That's how I found ya and I talked to numerous other people in other subs that became members for the same reason. We didn't know this place existed prior, reddit's bullshit is helping you more than hurting in my opinion. Backfired in their face lol. Most of us aren't fond of censorship, and as it stands I like the content here too.
plascra 5y ago
Streisand effect at work here.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Best part is you might even start getting laid more now.
DarkSyde3000 5y ago
Doubtful. What's discussed here I already knew over 20 years ago. But it's good to see a lot of people in the millennial generation become de-programmed as it were. A lot of guys here grew up in a completely different world where speech and ideas were policed and you were punished in some way for wrong think. It was glacial but I think it really hit it's stride the last 5 years or so.
Theguygotgame777 5y ago
So where can I find that copy of "Mein Kamp: mit alle Männer"?