Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#15601

Linus quoting Skeptic:

Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.

You disagree with this?

#15602

Billie from Ockham wrote:I'd like to echo one paragraph in a great post.

Kirbmarc wrote:At the same time the anti-po-mo left saw Clinton's defeat as a chance to reform the left to ditch the po-mo left and go back to policies based on practical concerns rather than on po-mo identitarian ideologies. This didn't happen, though: instead of admitting their mistakes the Democratic bigwigs doubled down, supported the narrative of Hillary Clinton being just an innocent victim of the Evil Bigoted Brute, and marginalized the anti-po-mo left even more.
Many of my left-leaning friends and colleagues at work keep saying that we only have to wait four years before everything will swing back and be fixed. Some even are happy about the possible repeal of the ACA, on the grounds that "next time" we'll get single-payer. The only thing that they really worry about is another SCOTUS appointment. Otherwise seem to believe that they'll be back in power by 2021 and all will be fine. They are underestimating how little support the Democratic Party enjoys from normal people.

The Democratic Party could well get another wake-up call in two years when they fail to take back the Senate and make minimal gains in the House. Odds are, however, that they will simply quadruple down, which is why I believe that they are wrong about this only lasting four years. And a switch to Pence in the next year or so won't magically fix what's wrong with the current opposition.

I think that the Democrats shouldn't gloat at the idea of President Pence. Trump has a core of loyal supporters but even if he were to be impeach or force to resign (which I don't think it's as likely to happen as Democrats think it is, even though it's not impossible) those people wouldn't just leave politics in disgust. They're just as able to double down as the Democrats. If Trump left they might feel betrayed by the Republicans, but they'll likely feel even more pissed off at the Democrats.

If Pence were able to channel the conservative rage towards a support of a new Religious Right which is less donor-friendly but more populist, at least at surface level, to blame all the troubles with Trump on the Democrats and to be a passable enough president he could easily galvanize some sort of Republican Renaissance, that would link the hatred for the "libruls" to a support for the Republicans. He's been sympathetic to the Tea Party in the past. Hell he could even try to appeal to conservative members of ethnic minorities, running a campaign based at least in part on the fears of the incoming hordes of Special Pronouns and Trans in the Ladies' Bathrooms that might help him to win over some conservative Catholic latinos or very religious blacks. It's not certain, but it might happen.

So the Democrats can't just wait for Trump or Pence to fuck things up, they should try to correct their own mistakes.

#15603

Karmakin wrote: It WANTS to be a math or a physics, but it can never be that. Human society is just too damn complicated for any concept of a universal model.

Humans desire food, sex, and safety. That's so universal that any deviations should fall within the range of a rounding error. Making broad claims beyond that is incredibly suspect. Then you have evolutionary psychology adopting that framework in their attempts to understand human behavior and lo and behold! The gender theorists become hostile again. A pattern emerges.

If your area of study is orders of magnitude more complex than a well established science, and your findings directly contradict the implications of said established science, the only sane option is to bow in deference to the far less complicated, far more grounded findings. At a bare minimum you'd need to acknowledge that the contradiction needs to be explained, and the absence of an explanation is an incredible ignorance.

#15604

Kirbmarc wrote:I think that the rift between Thunderfoot and Sargon/Kraut/Dave/Vee&co was pretty much inevitable, they have very few things in common other than the dismissal of the po-mo epistemology.

Thunderfoot is much closer to Dawkins or Harris than to Thomas Sowell (who by and large is Sargon's reference when it comes to politics) or Mencius Moldbug/the Alt-Right (which have become more popular in "skeptic" circles). Thunderfoot deeply disliked Brexit, Sargon is very much in favor of it. Thunderfoot is very critical of Trump, Sargon sees him as the lesser evil when compared to the po-mo left and Clinton. Thunderfoot sees attacks on climate change science, on vaccinations, on the freedom of movement and common market as serious concerns, Sargon cares more about defending British sovereignty, limiting immigration and limiting the impact of the po-mo left, by backing the right if necessary.

Great couple of posts, I agree that the "muh community" in all its political flavours has been at root basically united only by anti PoMo criticism (even if individuals haven't quite cast it in such self-aware terms).

I'd say that some of the more Left-leaning members of it have never much felt part of a "community" in the first place, they just made similar SJW-critical vids (similar because obviously the logic they're responding to is identically wonky throughout). It was always the libertarian/right wing of it that interacted more with each other, while the Left-leaners tended to be more islands in themselves (the Drunken Peasants crew was one of the few on the Left-leaning side that often had political crossover hangouts - and ofc Dave Rubin on a more mainstream level).

But if anything, I think the Clinton smear of this broad church as "alt right" (which is "alt lite" from the point of view of the true alt-righters) during the election probably did some damage. It was always more natural for the opposition to PoMo to come from the libertarian/Right side of the fence, because after all PoMo/SJW-ism is a development of the Left, so it requires quite a high level of critical fastidiousness from someone on the Left to go against the "no enemies to the Left" instinct, so that's rarer; whereas for Right-wingers criticism of PoMo/SJW-ism is natural, so it's bound to be more common. Hence the generally slightly lower quality but higher mass of criticism from the Right, and the slightly higher quality but lower mass of participants from the Left.

But for some on the Left, like Tf00t, I think the "alt right" smear has been a bridge too far, so they're trying to lift their skirts daintily way from association with the Right (this was particularly noticeable with tf00t for the first time with the Lauren Southern video - I think it was obvious at that point that his instincts were screaming at him to pull away).

There's another factor intersecting with this though, which is this: the younger generations coming up who have been born into a PoMo/SJW saturated atmosphere are going to find the whole Dark Enlightenment/NRx/Alt Right intellectual area far more interesting and exhilarating than the tedious PoMo/SJW orthodoxy they've been born into. If you look at the comments sections on Youtube to vids across the spectrum (from vids by Left-leaners to vids by Right-leaners) they seem to me to be representative of a distinct growing community that's not got the Left/Right baggage of the older contributors and is actually mixed in ways we haven't seen.

(i.e. there is no orthodoxy in the "commentator community", but rather a mosaic of people going through all sorts of levels of discovery, taking bits and pieces from all sides of the spectrum, and instead of being united around an anti-PoMo stance, they're united around the taboo-breaking vibe exemplified by the Dark Enlightenment/NRx/pol/ vibe).

#15605

The problem with the works which use postmodern assumptions is that in their current form their assumptions are simply not testable, so they're assumed as dogmas.

Let's take Standpoint Theory as an example. The core assumption of Standpoint Theory is Strong Objectivity, which is the idea that individuals who belong to an oppressed group have a better understanding of oppression than those who belong to the oppressor group. Another core assumption of Standpoint Theory is the theory of social construction of reality, according to which there is no objective social reality, but only social constructions and narratives.

Standpoint theory supporters assume that all points of view are subjective and that there is no such thing as "neutral" objectivity without bias, but also that (according to Strong Objectivity) that oppressed groups have to learn more about oppression since a) they experience it and b)they have to know both "their" reality and the "dominant" reality in order to "pass" according to the dominant values, so their opinions about society are more valid.

In order to be possible to test Standpoint Theory you should assume that there IS an objective truth to which you can compare both the "oppressed" and "privileged" point of view. For example you could have a list of facts about oppression and you could evaluate how well do "oppressed" and "privileged" people seem to understand those facts in a controlled setting, and then either provide evidence for or against standpoint theory.

But if there is no objective reality to which you can make a comparison then the idea that an "oppressed" point of view is better is based entirely on the assumptions that a) Feeling is Knowing, that if you experience something you automatically understand it to a profound level, you "grok" it and that b) oppressed people need to mimic the behavior of the oppressors as well as retain their own narrative in order to fit in a society shaped by the oppressors, so they know both how they think and how the oppressors think, and know more about society in general.

The first assumption is the equivalent of a Chinese Box experiment in real life. Who understands the sunset better, a scientist who knows why it happens but has never seen it or someone who is starting at it but doesn't know how it happens? It all depends what you mean by "understanding", so it's not possible to test.

The second assumption is also dubious. According to the same premise you could as well argue that the lack of social success of certain groups is due to their inability to understand how society works, and so (in a bizarre reversal of Strong Objectivity) that the "oppressors" are more successful because they have a stronger understanding of the points of view that lead to social success, while the oppressed simply are unable to understand them and so can't fit in. In absence of a set of neutral, objective parameters to test knowledge, who can really tell?

#15606

[youtube][/youtube]

#15607

Basically all postmodern SJ theories boil down to "We're all irremediably biased and we can't compare each other's experiences but these biases are better than those biases, because the Patriarchy exists, and we know it exists because biases exist".

Guest_440911e7 · #15608

Guest_440911e7 · #15609

nzherald co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11865378

But I do feel I'm getting more confident. Just the other day, I was in a cab by myself, and the driver began the conversation with "how are you, sir?"

"Please don't call me sir," I said.

"Ok, sir," he replied.

"I'd really prefer you didn't call me sir," I said again. "Just call me Ben, please."

That was the last time I was called "sir" that day.

I'll admit that I don't always correct people when they refer to me with masculine pronouns. Having to explain why having facial hair does not magically mean someone goes by "he" or "him" sometimes just gets too exhausting. Think of it like this: do you ever get tired of people asking you the same question over and over and over again, several times a day? Exactly.

It also gets bloody tiring to have to answer the question "are you gay?" that a lot of folks inevitably ask as a follow-up. News flash: gender identity and sexual orientation are two completely different things.

#15610

Sexual dimorphism is "magic" apparently. And yes, regular people get annoyed by trivial bullshit all the time. We don't write articles about it though.

#15611

Guest_440911e7 wrote:
nzherald co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11865378

But I do feel I'm getting more confident. Just the other day, I was in a cab by myself, and the driver began the conversation with "how are you, sir?"

"Please don't call me sir," I said.

"Ok, sir," he replied.

"I'd really prefer you didn't call me sir," I said again. "Just call me Ben, please."

That was the last time I was called "sir" that day.

I'll admit that I don't always correct people when they refer to me with masculine pronouns. Having to explain why having facial hair does not magically mean someone goes by "he" or "him" sometimes just gets too exhausting. Think of it like this: do you ever get tired of people asking you the same question over and over and over again, several times a day? Exactly.

It also gets bloody tiring to have to answer the question "are you gay?" that a lot of folks inevitably ask as a follow-up. News flash: gender identity and sexual orientation are two completely different things.

I have to say that I've read the article and it's not that bad. :o

The "gender spectrum" part is complete bollocks, but the author acknowledges that New Zealand is much better than North Korea in every aspect, since he (accidental misgendering! :lol: ) doesn't have to hide his identity in New Zealand. This is a step in the right direction when compared to the cultural relativists, maybe he'll also agree that muslim-majority countries have major problems for LGBT people and women when compared to the "west".

Also he (xe? Ben?) acknowledges that most people are kind enough to treat him as he says he wants to be treated even without authoritarian laws, since the annoyance of being "misgendered" is compared to the minor annoyance of people mistaking an Australian for a New Zealander, so not such a big deal that the Right Pronouns have to be enforced by law (we don't have laws forcing people to correctly refer to others as being from the country they're actually from). The author seems to ask to be called as the "right" gender politely and to be mindful of others, without being an obnoxious cunt about the issue.

A pointless article, probably, but compared to the usual demands of the "gender spectrum" club, it's downright reasonable. Hey, maybe I just have very low standards.

#15612

Karmakin wrote:My personal opinion is that Gender Studies should be the engineering in and of itself, to be honest. If it was doing it correctly, what it would be doing is providing a framework to analyze and understand real-world scenarios. It would be something part of a social work degree (or similar). What it is, right now is making the assumption that they can make these overly simplistic models (like patriarchy theory) that works to describe all of human civilization. It WANTS to be a math or a physics, but it can never be that. Human society is just too damn complicated for any concept of a universal model.

{bold added}

IMO, the problem is not complexity, as many concepts in math and physics are as complex as those in sociology. The problem, and the reason why I agree that no social science will ever be the same as math or physics, is the need for operational definitions.

#15613

If it's all so seriously important to him and he isn't gonna take it anymore... okay, them... why are they flying this over their Twitter account?

http://imgur.com/VYHFAKi.jpg

Dipshit.

#15614

jet_lagg wrote:Humans desire food, sex, and safety.

"Desire" isn't quite the correct term, as these are (close to) the three primary drives: food, warmth, and sex. When teaching Intro Psych, I call them them The Three Fs: food, furs, and sex.*

nb. because the need for water is often considered a separate drive from the need for food, as it is controlled by a different brain mechanism, you may wish to update this to The Four Fs: food, fluid, furs, and sex.

#15615

I've discovered something that made me scratch my head. West Virginia is one of the most Republican-leaning state in US elections, but West Virginians have elected four Democratic governors in a row since 2001. Are West Virginian Democratic governors a different kind of Democrats than "mainstream" Democrats? Would a more white working-class friendly Democratic Party get more support in West Virginia?

Guest_440911e7 · #15616

It's not that bad, but the policing of honorifics with the cab drivers, a very short term relationship, says more about xim than the cabbies, who are just trying to do their job.

It's like when I insist clerks say Happy Hanukkah to me, not Merry Christmas.

On the Muscato scale I give bearded man telling cab drivers not to call him sir a 6 or 7.

#15617

katamari Damassi wrote: I'm not the Dalai Lama. My compassion is finite. I wish we lived in a world where adherents of a particularly toxic religion didn't kill random groups of people, but we do. If that terrorism takes people engaging in apologetics for those terrorists out of gene pool, then it's probably for the better. And yes, the irony is tasty too.

You know, amongst the (vastly) more influential of islamic - and by extension, islamic terrorism - enablers are the Ahmadi muslims. You know, the ones which are always featured as the go-to 'good muslims' by the MSM whenever yet another islamic atrocity occurs - the 'love for all, hatred for none' brigade. Generally, they're pretty big on dawah, along with making heavy noises of the 'terror has no religion' type. Not a million miles from what the Manchester bombing victim was tweeting, albeit on a vastly greater stage with much more in the way of eloquence. When it comes to islamic enabling and apologia, they've pretty much got it nailed.

Ahmadi muslims are also extensively persecuted by more mainsteams muslims, and violence and death within Ahmadi muslim communities at the hands of their Sunni brethren is notable by its frequency.

But it's probably for the better, eh?

Guest_440911e7 · #15618

It also gets bloody tiring to have to answer the question "are you gay?" that a lot of folks inevitably ask as a follow-up. News flash: gender identity and sexual orientation are two completely different things.

"Don't call me sir, I am non-binary."

(thinking Oh. Hmm, I wonder that means....) Are you gay?

"THAT IS SO BLOODY TIRING!!!"

--------------

We've discovered this new color between blue and green. Some of us can see it, but most others cannot, until they are trained. I demand people see it, but I will take offense if they ask me questions about it.

#15619

Kirbmarc wrote:I've discovered something that made me scratch my head. West Virginia is one of the most Republican-leaning state in US elections, but West Virginians have elected four Democratic governors in a row since 2001. Are West Virginian Democratic governors a different kind of Democrats than "mainstream" Democrats? Would a more white working-class friendly Democratic Party get more support in West Virginia?

Not sure about WV, but it is often gun-friendly Democrats that do well in otherwise Republican districts. We does loves our guns.

#15620

d4m10n wrote:Of course the penis hoax it is a piece of evidence. It isn't terribly dispositive, given the journal, but at least two academic peers let it go by.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

No, it isn't evidence. It's evidence that "Cogent Social Sciences" is a shitty journal, but not of anything else. "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List", which just contained the text "get me off your fucking mailing list" over and over again was "peer reviewed" and then published in a Computer Science journal, with an impact factor of 2.7. This is just one example of many. Cogent Social Sciences doesn't even have an impact factor, and it isn't even a Gender Studies journal.

This is embarrassing for Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Michael Shermer and, to a lesser extent, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dave Rubin, and whoever else lapped it up unskeptically.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Linus quoting Skeptic:
Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.
You disagree with this?

Yes, I disagree that the hoax paper demonstrates this. I thought I'd made that clear.

#15621

Responses to: "Don't call me sir, I am non-binary."

"Don't tell me how to use the word sir, sir."

or

"Why not? I use analog coding and sir works for me."

#15622

Linus wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Of course the penis hoax it is a piece of evidence. It isn't terribly dispositive, given the journal, but at least two academic peers let it go by.
No, it isn't evidence. It's evidence that "Cogent Social Sciences" is a shitty journal, but not of anything else.

Suppose Bogo & Lindsay wanted to impress you as to the state of gender studies. Which journal would they need to get their nonsense published in?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

#15623

Linus wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Of course the penis hoax it is a piece of evidence. It isn't terribly dispositive, given the journal, but at least two academic peers let it go by.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
No, it isn't evidence. It's evidence that "Cogent Social Sciences" is a shitty journal, but not of anything else. "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List", which just contained the text "get me off your fucking mailing list" over and over again was "peer reviewed" and then published in a Computer Science journal, with an impact factor of 2.7. This is just one example of many. Cogent Social Sciences doesn't even have an impact factor, and it isn't even a Gender Studies journal.

This is embarrassing for Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Michael Shermer and, to a lesser extent, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dave Rubin, and whoever else lapped it up unskeptically.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Linus quoting Skeptic:
Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.
You disagree with this?
Yes, I disagree that the hoax paper demonstrates this. I thought I'd made that clear.

The "Get me off your mailing list" was a joke, and apparently well appreciated within the community. The other papers that were cited were plausible in theory at least and done up by actual scientists. But, if the amazing field of Gender Studies is so very amazing, perhaps you can tell me what sort of good it does in the world? Maybe even why "Feminist Glaciology" was worth the better part of a million dollars when funding for clean drinking water was being cut?

#15624

Given the high proportion of transwomen who are 'lesbian' asking whether they are gay or not does not sound unreasonable.

#15625

Linus: Do you disagree with that statement?

Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.

#15626

Kirbmarc wrote: I think that the Democrats shouldn't gloat at the idea of President Pence. Trump has a core of loyal supporters but even if he were to be impeach or force to resign (which I don't think it's as likely to happen as Democrats think it is, even though it's not impossible) those people wouldn't just leave politics in disgust. They're just as able to double down as the Democrats. If Trump left they might feel betrayed by the Republicans, but they'll likely feel even more pissed off at the Democrats.

If Pence were able to channel the conservative rage towards a support of a new Religious Right which is less donor-friendly but more populist, at least at surface level, to blame all the troubles with Trump on the Democrats and to be a passable enough president he could easily galvanize some sort of Republican Renaissance, that would link the hatred for the "libruls" to a support for the Republicans. He's been sympathetic to the Tea Party in the past. Hell he could even try to appeal to conservative members of ethnic minorities, running a campaign based at least in part on the fears of the incoming hordes of Special Pronouns and Trans in the Ladies' Bathrooms that might help him to win over some conservative Catholic latinos or very religious blacks. It's not certain, but it might happen.

So the Democrats can't just wait for Trump or Pence to fuck things up, they should try to correct their own mistakes.

Aaah, but don't forget this time they have a secret weapon!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6mVMQdbh-GY/hqdefault.jpg

#15627

Tigzy wrote:
You know, amongst the (vastly) more influential of islamic - and by extension, islamic terrorism - enablers are the Ahmadi muslims. You know, the ones which are always featured as the go-to 'good muslims' by the MSM whenever yet another islamic atrocity occurs - the 'love for all, hatred for none' brigade. Generally, they're pretty big on dawah, along with making heavy noises of the 'terror has no religion' type. Not a million miles from what the Manchester bombing victim was tweeting, albeit on a vastly greater stage with much more in the way of eloquence. When it comes to islamic enabling and apologia, they've pretty much got it nailed.

Ahmadi muslims are also extensively persecuted by more mainsteams muslims, and violence and death within Ahmadi muslim communities at the hands of their Sunni brethren is notable by its frequency.

But it's probably for the better, eh?

Ahmadi aren't even considered muslims by most other muslims. I get your point, and you're right, but I won't call them "muslim enablers". Just preachers of a different version of islam, one which while not perfect (it's still islam) is much better than Salafism or the Deobandis, incidentally. And yeah, they're much more likely to be the victims of muslim violence than the perpetrators.

But yeah, your point as a whole is valid, and I'm a bit worried that some people here are saying that since someone is deeply wrong about the issues with islam then if they die at the hands of muslim terrorists it's all ironic and not such a big deal. It's the same kind of reasoning that dulls the SJW empathy for the issues of the Evil White Cis Hetero Males, especially those who aren't "woke".

Islam has issues, and those who deny that it has issues are deeply wrong, deluded, maybe even in bad faith at times, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't care if they're victim of islamic terrorism, or even say that it's for the better. If not for a moral reason, at least for a strategic reason: we need people to acknowledge the issues we're talking about, so they have to take us seriously, and appeasing our feelings of schadenfreude isn't worthy looking like insensitive twats.

#15628

jet_lagg wrote:Sexual dimorphism is "magic" apparently. And yes, regular people get annoyed by trivial bullshit all the time. We don't write articles about it though.

What do you think the response would be if nobody took any fucking notice, I think the realisation that these snowflakes are not that special at all. Only one thing worse than being oppressed, being ignored.

#15629

Oglebart wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: I think that the Democrats shouldn't gloat at the idea of President Pence. Trump has a core of loyal supporters but even if he were to be impeach or force to resign (which I don't think it's as likely to happen as Democrats think it is, even though it's not impossible) those people wouldn't just leave politics in disgust. They're just as able to double down as the Democrats. If Trump left they might feel betrayed by the Republicans, but they'll likely feel even more pissed off at the Democrats.

If Pence were able to channel the conservative rage towards a support of a new Religious Right which is less donor-friendly but more populist, at least at surface level, to blame all the troubles with Trump on the Democrats and to be a passable enough president he could easily galvanize some sort of Republican Renaissance, that would link the hatred for the "libruls" to a support for the Republicans. He's been sympathetic to the Tea Party in the past. Hell he could even try to appeal to conservative members of ethnic minorities, running a campaign based at least in part on the fears of the incoming hordes of Special Pronouns and Trans in the Ladies' Bathrooms that might help him to win over some conservative Catholic latinos or very religious blacks. It's not certain, but it might happen.

So the Democrats can't just wait for Trump or Pence to fuck things up, they should try to correct their own mistakes.
Aaah, but don't forget this time they have a secret weapon!

[.img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6mVMQdbh-GY/hqdefault.jpg[/img]

You're talking about the Republicans, aren't you? :lol:

#15630

Hmm, I forgot to finish the second sentence. That's what happens when you get up mid post to retrieve the tennis ball from under TV unit for your puppy for the 124th time tonight. Oh well, hardly profound...

#15631

d4m10n wrote:
Linus wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Of course the penis hoax it is a piece of evidence. It isn't terribly dispositive, given the journal, but at least two academic peers let it go by.
No, it isn't evidence. It's evidence that "Cogent Social Sciences" is a shitty journal, but not of anything else.
Suppose Bogo & Lindsay wanted to impress you as to the state of gender studies. Which journal would they need to get their nonsense published in?

Something that was a Gender Studies journal and had an impact factor would be a good start, at a bare minimum lol. I mean I pretty much made that obvious in the rest of the post that you're responding to.

If it were published in a reputable GS journal with a high impact I think it would mean something. Although, even then we'd have to be careful not to conclude too much from it. As Alan Sokal said of his own hoax:

Sokal wrote:From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual standards in these fields are generally lax. (This might be the case, but it would have to be established on other grounds.) It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty, by publishing an article on quantum physics that they admit they could not understand, without bothering to get an opinion from anyone knowledgeable in quantum physics, solely because it came from a ``conveniently credentialed ally'' (as Social Text co-editor Bruce Robbins later candidly admitted[12]), flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions, and attacked their ``enemies''.

#15632

Billie from Ockham wrote:Responses to: "Don't call me sir, I am non-binary."

"Don't tell me how to use the word sir, sir."

or

"Why not? I use analog coding and sir works for me."

I would reply: "I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner!"

#15633

Kirbmarc wrote: Ahmadi aren't even considered muslims by most other muslims. I get your point, and you're right, but I won't call them "muslim enablers". Just preachers of a different version of islam, one which while not perfect (it's still islam) is much better than Salafism or the Deobandis, incidentally. And yeah, they're much more likely to be the victims of muslim violence than the perpetrators.

But they do enable islam in general. They will, obviously, have a prediliction for their own particular strand, but they offer a hell of a lot of proselytisation that applies to islam as a whole - they were amongst the first to translate the quran into various languages other than Arabic, for example, and nowadays they're very vocal when it comes to the 'terrorism has no religion' schtick. Note how the likes of Mo Ansar are always quick to point out press 'good muslim' stories involving Ahmadis - all the while making sure, of course, to keep the 'Ahmadi' part quiet, so that it might reflect better on their decidedly more intolerant strain of sunni islam.

#15634

You people are wasting time and energy discussing the white-hetero-patriarchal-hegemonic-toxic-male-nazi arguments between Sargon and Thundef00t when the real victims are suffering oppression and are not safe and don’t want to do homework because it interferes with the struggle session.

Read/watch this shit… if you are not Oedipus Rex-ing your eyes after all this, then you need to drink more bleach.

Just a small sampling...

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/student ... f-absence/

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/05/27/ ... itch-hunt/

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... weinstein/

http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/ ... evergreen/

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32822/

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32824/

h/t to Herbert Marcuse and Mao Zedong. :twatson:

#15635

Linus, it didn't take that fucking hoax paper to conclude that Gender Studies is a bunch of of nonsense. RealPeerReview on Twitter does it all the time. The field is an incestuous wank-fest that produces nothing of value, produces non-falsifiable conclusions that are taken as dogma and does so under an easily pierced veil of academic respectability. As Kirbmarc so eloquently pointed out, the very underpinnings of the field are nonsense. To me it is worse than chiropractic subluxations, as it takes money from useful fields of study and IMHO makes gender relations a good deal worse by disseminating false information.

#15636

Once you have digested your bleach and removed your hetero-patriarchal ocular abilities, then you can move on to this lovely list:

FUCKING TRIGGER WARNING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3CRVLVGa5E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHqktvByuo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo-BGLoCDZU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXl9ExcbTlE

Huge Playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fydlje ... 7Z&index=1

On an unrelated topic... does anyone know of fast and painless ways to kill oneself? Asking for a friend.

#15637

Tigzy wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: Ahmadi aren't even considered muslims by most other muslims. I get your point, and you're right, but I won't call them "muslim enablers". Just preachers of a different version of islam, one which while not perfect (it's still islam) is much better than Salafism or the Deobandis, incidentally. And yeah, they're much more likely to be the victims of muslim violence than the perpetrators.
But they do enable islam in general. They will, obviously, have a prediliction for their own particular strand, but they offer a hell of a lot of proselytisation that applies to islam as a whole - they were amongst the first to translate the quran into various languages other than Arabic, for example, and nowadays they're very vocal when it comes to the 'terrorism has no religion' schtick. Note how the likes of Mo Ansar are always quick to point out press 'good muslim' stories involving Ahmadis - all the while making sure, of course, to keep the 'Ahmadi' part quiet, so that it might reflect better on their decidedly more intolerant strain of sunni islam.

Yeah, there's the motte-and-bailey thing about the Ahmadi, they're muslims when other muslims need to look good, but suddenly they're not muslims when it's time to get government money and they're free targets for the more intolerant sunnis. In these sense, yes, they're enablers, maybe unwittingly. And Mo Ansar is a major cunt.

Ahmadis should be the ones to say "islam HAS issues but we can fix them". The "terrorism has no religion and the True Islam is awesome" shtick is stupid, identity politics on the Ahmadis' part, and very counterproductive since the islamic terrorists want them dead just like they want the kaffir dead.

If the UK government wanted to troll the Salafis they should give all the money that the muslim demand only to Ahmadi organizations.

#15638

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:But, if the amazing field of Gender Studies is so very amazing, perhaps you can tell me what sort of good it does in the world? Maybe even why "Feminist Glaciology" was worth the better part of a million dollars when funding for clean drinking water was being cut?

What does this have to do with the hoax not demonstrating anything about gender studies and where did I say anything about gender studies being amazing?

#15639

Gender studies is so, so useful.

A visiting scholar at the University of Arizona claimed he identifies as a hippopotamus in a recently published article in an academic journal.
Writing in the Journal of Theoretical Humanities, University of Arizona visiting scholar Florentin Félix Morin argued that his hippo alter-ego has allowed him to navigate the world free from the constraints that “govern human bodies.”

This article explores the formation of a tranimal, hippopotamus alter-ego. Confronting transgender with transpecies, the author claims that his hippopotamus “identity” allowed him to (verbally) escape, all at once, several sets of categorization that govern human bodies (“gender,” “sexuality,” age). He starts with an account of how his metaphorical hippo-self is collectively produced and performed, distinguishing the subjective, the intersubjective and the social. The article then investigates the politics of equating transgender and transpecies, critically examining the question of the inclusion of “xenogenders” in the trans political movement.
In the article, Morin claims that while he understands that he is not actually a hippopotamus, his theoretical exercise of being transspecies, or “tranimal,” provided him comfort as he came to terms with his real-life transgenderism.

“I do strongly love when my friends call me ‘hippo,’ refer to my ‘paws’ and pretend that they see no difference between me and one of my stuffed hippopotamuses, except that I’m a little bigger than most of them,” Morin writes. “In a surprising, sometimes overwhelming way I find comfort in this collectively performed animal identity.”

“I find comfort in this collectively performed animal identity,” Morin continues. “Let me put it this way: something about being a hippo makes me feel cute, confident, sexy, and safe. I discovered that another self was available for me: being a hippo means that I don’t have to be a boy or a girl, a child or an adult, normal or strange.”

On the University of Arizona’s website, Morin is touted as an exciting addition to the institution’s LGBT Studies program.
Florentin Félix Morin is a French student who just started his PhD this year at Université Paris 8. He works at the intersection of Trans Studies and Animal Studies, focusing on tranimal body modifications, practices and subjectivities. He is beyond excited to be in Tucson for the Spring semester, benefit from all the department’s and the Institute’s activities, conduct fieldwork in the US, and meet everyone! (He uses the name ‘Felix’ in English.)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/2 ... c-journal/

We're at "Tranimal" now, motherfuckers.

https://www.sfsymphony.org/getmedia/ee2 ... 5&ext=.jpg

#15640

Linus wrote:That the "Conceptual Penis" hoax isn't evidence of anything about Gender Studies, as I clearly stated. I don't know how anyone could have read that as "gender studies isn't loaded with hogwash".

I agree that the publishing of the Conceptual Penis hoax article doesn't prove much per se(except that the journal that published the articles is utter crap, but that's not much) and that it's been celebrated a bit too much by the critics of post-modernism, which has enabled the supporters of post-modernism to circle the wagons. However the fact that some of the supporters of post-modernism have actually found meaning within the Conceptual Penis hoax (which, since you've read the Pluckrose Areo Magazine article, you're aware of) proves something about the general mindset of fans of post-modernism, who are willing to find meaning even when there is none.

The collection of bad gender studies articles collected by New Peer Review is more damning than the Conceptual Penis article by itself, and it's certainly easy to find New Peer Review tweets about articles which don't look much more serious, like feminist glaciology or articles on racism towards squirrels or about horse-girl assemblages. There's a problem with the rigor of po-mo influenced subjects, and many in the humanities are ready to agree. Perhaps the hype about the Conceptual Penis hoax is a bit too much, but it has highlighted problems which people are willing to acknowledge.

#15641

dog puke wrote:Once you have digested your bleach and removed your hetero-patriarchal ocular abilities, then you can move on to this lovely list:

FUCKING TRIGGER WARNING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3CRVLVGa5E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHqktvByuo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo-BGLoCDZU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXl9ExcbTlE

Huge Playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fydlje ... 7Z&index=1

On an unrelated topic... does anyone know of fast and painless ways to kill oneself? Asking for a friend.

Ah, not so grim, really. I've been following this as I live about an hour away and a friend's kid goes there. Many of the students are insane, but there has been a lot of pushback as well, from students and staff within Evergreen but also in the community.

The fact that their positions are so batshit insane and clearly ridiculous is good. The fact that they are getting so much attention is great, because they are starting to generate more societal disdain. The only real way to kill this thing is to have it exposed to sunlight and public disapproval. Once there is significant backlash, the mainstream democrats will see which way the wind is blowing, and modify or abandon identity politics.

A few are going to double-down, but if enough normies see how crazy and destructive identity politics is, they hopefully will do what politicians always do and follow the crowd to get votes.

Like PZ and the rest of the regressives in the A/S world the college idiots will find themselves a diminishing silo of increasingly irrelevant opinions.

I hope. :pray:

#15642

Linus wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:But, if the amazing field of Gender Studies is so very amazing, perhaps you can tell me what sort of good it does in the world? Maybe even why "Feminist Glaciology" was worth the better part of a million dollars when funding for clean drinking water was being cut?
What does this have to do with the hoax not demonstrating anything about gender studies and where did I say anything about gender studies being amazing?

You didn't answer as to whether you agree with this statement;

Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.

I would like to know whether you think that is true, hoax paper aside.
Also, can you name a Gender Studies journal that you consider reliable (as Damion asked) so one could possibly go and see what sort of papers they publish?

#15643

Kirbmarc wrote:I've discovered something that made me scratch my head. West Virginia is one of the most Republican-leaning state in US elections, but West Virginians have elected four Democratic governors in a row since 2001. Are West Virginian Democratic governors a different kind of Democrats than "mainstream" Democrats? Would a more white working-class friendly Democratic Party get more support in West Virginia?

I have a very dear friend originally from WV. Short answer: Yes.

The economy in WV is heavily dependent on coal. You can't go around calling coal "evil", vow to end all coal mining, but not guarantee alternative ways to make a living.

WV is 96% white. WV is fairly poor on average. You can't spend eight years telling poor white people they are privileged and obsolete and need to come to grips with their implicit racism and atone for it, then expect them to vote for you.

WV is very religious and fond of guns. You can't mock them for clinging to their guns and their bibles, tell them anatomical boys get to undress with their daughters in the school locker room, joke about them being inbred, and refer to them dismissively as a "fly-over state", then wonder why they poke you in the eye on election day.

Promise jobs, equal opportunity (not equal outcome) for everybody, and a social network (universal health care included) that benefits everyone not just certain identity groups, and quit the SJW Kulturkampf, and WV is yours.

#15644

Linus wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:But, if the amazing field of Gender Studies is so very amazing, perhaps you can tell me what sort of good it does in the world? Maybe even why "Feminist Glaciology" was worth the better part of a million dollars when funding for clean drinking water was being cut?
What does this have to do with the hoax not demonstrating anything about gender studies and where did I say anything about gender studies being amazing?

I dunno, because you came on here whining about us falling for the hoax that a hoax paper showed how the field of Gender Studies was bullshit. When in fact the paper was icing on an already elaborate cake, delicious icing. Other fields when confronted with something like this would apologize, retract and work on making themselves better. Gender Studies instead is pretending the journal was bullshit, even though it hadn't been critized before the paper and even saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident. That happen a lot in real science?

#15645

Billie from Ockham wrote:Responses to: "Don't call me sir, I am non-binary."

"Well, why don't you paint a little dot on your forehead so everyone can know, you pretentious cunt."

#15646

Billie from Ockham wrote:
Karmakin wrote:My personal opinion is that Gender Studies should be the engineering in and of itself, to be honest. If it was doing it correctly, what it would be doing is providing a framework to analyze and understand real-world scenarios. It would be something part of a social work degree (or similar). What it is, right now is making the assumption that they can make these overly simplistic models (like patriarchy theory) that works to describe all of human civilization. It WANTS to be a math or a physics, but it can never be that. Human society is just too damn complicated for any concept of a universal model.
{bold added}

IMO, the problem is not complexity, as many concepts in math and physics are as complex as those in sociology. The problem, and the reason why I agree that no social science will ever be the same as math or physics, is the need for operational definitions.

Do you have any recommended texts that explore the differences? I mentioned a while back I had an argument with a friend over the difference between theology and science. His position was that religious scholars are just as intelligent, just as hard working, and just as thirsty for knowledge. Mine was that you could have all three of those qualities and still never get anywhere if your methods are fucked. I tried to go over concepts like falsifiability, disproving the null hypothesis, etc... but didn't really make headway, and finally just agreed to swap reading materials with him. I'm looking for for anything that's a good introduction.

#15647

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:I've discovered something that made me scratch my head. West Virginia is one of the most Republican-leaning state in US elections, but West Virginians have elected four Democratic governors in a row since 2001. Are West Virginian Democratic governors a different kind of Democrats than "mainstream" Democrats? Would a more white working-class friendly Democratic Party get more support in West Virginia?
I have a very dear friend originally from WV. Short answer: Yes.

The economy in WV is heavily dependent on coal. You can't go around calling coal "evil", vow to end all coal mining, but not guarantee alternative ways to make a living.

WV is 96% white. WV is fairly poor on average. You can't spend eight years telling poor white people they are privileged and obsolete and need to come to grips with their implicit racism and atone for it, then expect them to vote for you.

WV is very religious and fond of guns. You can't mock them for clinging to their guns and their bibles, tell them anatomical boys get to undress with their daughters in the school locker room, joke about them being inbred, and refer to them dismissively as a "fly-over state", then wonder why they poke you in the eye on election day.

Promise jobs, equal opportunity (not equal outcome) for everybody, and a social network (universal health care included) that benefits everyone not just certain identity groups, and quit the SJW Kulturkampf, and WV is yours.

But Hillary had a plan for coal country on the web site she talked about in between reminding people she's a woman and Donald said mean things about women! She was going to teach 55-year-old unemployed coal miners how to code so they can have a career in the fast-paced tech industry.

#15648

Oglebart wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:Sexual dimorphism is "magic" apparently. And yes, regular people get annoyed by trivial bullshit all the time. We don't write articles about it though.
What do you think the response would be if nobody took any fucking notice, I think the realisation that these snowflakes are not that special at all. Only one thing worse than being oppressed, being ignored.

They'd say that you're privileged to have the luxury of ignoring the problem, and the fact that you don't devote time to solving it despite not having it is proof positive that you lack empathy (welcome to the shitlord club). If you were to point out that everyone faces trivial bullshit problems all the time and it's absurd to basically label someone a sociopath for not caring about another person's particular trivial bullshit problems then things will rapidly escalate to a game of oppression Olympics. Their problems are greater than yours both in kind and in quantity.

Guest_440911e7 · #15649

At 83 seconds in to this vid youtu be/yo-BGLoCDZU?t=83

Evergreen President to the crowd surrounding him announces he has claustrophobia (ie is disabled, aneurotypical), in response the students mock him and tell him

"we endure hate crimes on campus"

another says

"we have to work in threatening environments everyday. Welcome. Welcome. Get to work".

So they deny his lived experience
Erase his disability
Mock him for his disability
"What about men" him, by making it all about their experiences.
Tell him to ignore it and get to work. Same as the Patriarchy might tell women to ignore their sexual harassment or worse and walk it off.

#15650

dog puke wrote: On an unrelated topic... does anyone know of fast and painless ways to kill oneself? Asking for a friend.

Sodium pentobarbital overdose.

#15651

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: I dunno, because you came on here whining about us falling for the hoax that a hoax paper showed how the field of Gender Studies was bullshit. When in fact the paper was icing on an already elaborate cake, delicious icing. Other fields when confronted with something like this would apologize, retract and work on making themselves better. Gender Studies instead is pretending the journal was bullshit, even though it hadn't been critized before the paper and even saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident. That happen a lot in real science?

No, but it does happen in the arts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern_Malley

Gender studies doesn't belong with the hard sciences. It doesn't even belong with the flaccid sciences.

#15652

Really? wrote: But Hillary had a plan for coal country on the web site she talked about in between reminding people she's a woman and Donald said mean things about women! She was going to teach 55-year-old unemployed coal miners how to code so they can have a career in the fast-paced tech industry.

'I can't for the life of me fathom why the hoi polloi don't vote for us', muses the Dem Party senior strategist, before returning to reading the latest edition of The New Yorker.

#15653

jet_lagg wrote:
Billie from Ockham wrote:IMO, the problem is not complexity, as many concepts in math and physics are as complex as those in sociology. The problem, and the reason why I agree that no social science will ever be the same as math or physics, is the need for operational definitions.
Do you have any recommended texts that explore the differences?

My flippant answer is "any college-level methods book." I don't really have a serious answer. Some fields can directly measure what they are interested in. Some fields can't and must use operational definitions to translate the constructs of interest into objective measures. This is the difference between so-called "hard" and "soft" sciences. And the usefulness of any soft science is always limited by the quality of its operational definitions.

#15654

I'm trying to avoid textbooks because it will either sound dismissive (read entry level academic books, pleb) or he'll just refuse to read it because it looks too boring. I'm still holding out hope there's some sort of popular writing on the topic.

#15655

Though maybe if I give him a methods book and promise I'll drag my way through the entirety of the Quran if he'll do the same for mine...

#15656

Blacks murder each other because they've been taught to hate the color of their own skin.

From the mook who had a conniption when TAA said blacks are professional victims:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbre ... se-can-us/

#15657

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Blacks murder each other because they've been taught to hate the color of their own skin.

From the mook who had a conniption when TAA said blacks are professional victims:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbre ... se-can-us/

Why do people write these very simplistic articles, talking about "love" or "hatred" as if they were something quantifiable and meaningful on a statistical/socio-anthropological level? It's like trying to explain fluid dynamics by talking about vaginal fluids...oh wait, that happened, too.

#15658

Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests. The same goes for experiments they've done with video game avatars, only changing the skin tone slider. Likewise it's true of photographs that have the pigmentation altered. If you're all in for the blank slate view of human psychology it makes sense to believe black people have been conditioned against themselves and this explains the discrepancy in violent crime.

#15659

Before he wanted to be a woman, he wanted to be Borat.

http://imgur.com/AG4hpVp.jpg

#15660

jet_lagg wrote:Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests. The same goes for experiments they've done with video game avatars, only changing the skin tone slider. Likewise it's true of photographs that have the pigmentation altered. If you're all in for the blank slate view of human psychology it makes sense to believe black people have been conditioned against themselves and this explains the discrepancy in violent crime.

I guess that's why it's useful to show that a blank slate view of human psychology is bunk, then.