Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

[Oglebart]

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

http://imgur.com/AG4hpVp.jpg

Hang on, surely the royalties from "Dance the Night Away" should be enough to solve xir's cashflow problems?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00 ... 14f970d-pi

[KiwiInOz]

[img.]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_Shep.jpg[/img]

John Noakes has died. He was a childhood hero of mine. For those unfamiliar with his name, he presented the children's programme Blue Peter in the Seventies. Much of that was teaching kids how to build Christmas decorations out of clothes hangers but Noakes did a lot of out-doors adventuring for the show including a five-mile free-fall (record breaking at the time) and a memorable bobsleigh run.

[youtube.][/youtube]

I never could work out exactly what 'Blue Peter' was in reference to. I'm guessing it was a Pictish thing related to painting yourself with woad and running sky-clad into battle...especially in the winter months.


But who knows if that explanation is Spot On.

I loved Spot On. I remember one of their video contests featured exploding sheep. It was a sign of things to come for an unknown Director.

[jimthepleb]

Hippos don't have paws, they have hooves. Fucken amateurs.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

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

[im//imgur.com/AG4hpVp.jmg]

Fuck me, Ape, that's an idea: PZ Meyers in a mankini? Somehow, please make this into something (with apologies for telling you what art you should make, treating like you are some kind of general Pit service for all, and generally minimizing your lived experiences as a cyclopian genius).

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

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

[im//imgur.com/AG4hpVp.jmg]

Fuck me, Ape, that's an idea: PZ Meyers in a mankini? Somehow, please make this into something (with apologies for telling you what art you should make, treating like you are some kind of general Pit service for all, and generally minimizing your lived experiences as a cyclopian genius).

(I think The Commander would wank himself to the point where just little puffs of white powder were coming out of the end.)

[Linus]

Apparently I'm the only one here bothered that a bunch of prominent figures in the "skeptic community" embarrassed themselves by writing / publishing / praising / promoting a dishonest article in Skeptic Magazine. The fact that other things purportedly demonstrate that Gender Studies is a bunch of nonsense is not a valid defense or excuse. Not calling out bullshit on one's own "side" serves to weaken it.

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.

I obviously don't agree with the part that says part of the fault [for the hoax paper getting published] "falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as 'gender studies.'" As for "gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning", I don't read gender studies journals, so I couldn't say. My guess would be yes (although I'd make this guess for most fields). All I know is that the Skeptic article didn't demonstrate this to be the case.

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?

See above.

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.

Eh I mean it was like two people on twitter, and even they weren't saying that the paper was actually good, just that it wasn't as utterly meaningless as the authors claimed to have made it. (I haven't read most of the paper, so I won't comment on that). But sure, some people's reactions to it proved that some people are idiots. The guy who claimed that it was transphobic (and also seemed to think that it had been written by Richard Dawkins) made a particular ass of himself. These were just twitter randos as far as I can tell, though. More than anything, I think this affair demonstrated a lack of skepticism on the part of certain "skeptics"(tm).

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.

So if I think the hoax failed to demonstrate that the field of Gender Studies is bullshit, then I must think Gender Studies is amazing. Yeah, that's logical. :roll:

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.

How does a field of study apologize for something? I'll assume you mean something like "people within the field". But seriously, why would Gender Studies academics apologize for some non Gender Studies journal publishing a hoax paper? Why would anyone apologize for a bad paper being published other than the journal who published it? When the hoax paper on fictional lichen was accepted by 157 journals, did a bunch of prominent Biologists who had nothing to do with it issue a public apology? Did a bunch of Computer Scientists who had nothing to do with the publishing of Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing list issue an apology? I guest they must have, since you claim that's how other fields would react. LOL. Also, I don't think you understand how retraction works. Only the journal that publishes something can retract it.

Gender Studies instead is pretending the journal was bullshit, even though it hadn't been critized before the paper.

The journal IS bullshit. You disagree? "If you haven't criticized something in the past you can't claim it's bullshit" is the dumbest argument. It's not even a Gender Studies journal. lool

and even saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident

Link to "Gender Studies saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident"?

That happen a lot in real science?

What? Hoax papers? Yes. "The field" not apologizing for hoax papers? Yes. Shitty journals not being criticized? Yes.

Come on, dude. JFC.

[jet_lagg]

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.

Blank slate psychology is complete bollocks, sure. I was just trying to retrace the steps someone might take to get to the erroneous conclusion.

That said, whether it's conditioned or ingrained doesn't speak to whether or not we should consider it unjust. I consider it unjust in the same way it's unjust that my diminutive 5'7" frame didn't allow me to get as many dates in high school as I would have otherwise. Amplify that a bit (not getting sex is lower on the pyramid of injustices than having decreased odds for housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc... ), and the SJWs have a decent case to make. They just get there in a way that involves cutting down every opportunity presented to them in an effort to maintain the purity of incredibly stupid dogma.

[Billie from Ockham]

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.

As the above makes clear, Jetlag, the problem with operational definitions is in the background almost all of the time, although usually couched in less-amusing terms.

[Billie from Ockham]

Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests.

Ah, but have you ever seen the data broken down by whether the subjects were raised in a two-parent household?

Nah.

They wouldn't dare check that.

[jet_lagg]

When the hoax paper on fictional lichen was accepted by 157 journals, did a bunch of prominent Biologists who had nothing to do with it issue a public apology?

I haven't read it. Would it have been a qualified paper if the lichen did exist (i.e. Asimov's Thiotimoline)? If so, I don't see a problem. Not everyone can be expected to know what is and isn't happening in the field. They can be expected to root out shoddy or completely nonsense reasoning though.

Did a bunch of Computer Scientists who had nothing to do with the publishing of Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing list issue an apology?

You keep bringing this up, and people keep telling you that it was a joke everyone was in on. Do you refute that?

I think the hoax paper alone would be useless beyond a "gotcha" meme. Combined with the sort of bullshit @RealPeerReview digs up on a regular basis it becomes another nail in the coffin though.

[Kirbmarc]

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.

Blank slate psychology is complete bollocks, sure. I was just trying to retrace the steps someone might take to get to the erroneous conclusion.

That said, whether it's conditioned or ingrained doesn't speak to whether or not we should consider it unjust. I consider it unjust in the same way it's unjust that my diminutive 5'7" frame didn't allow me to get as many dates in high school as I would have otherwise. Amplify that a bit (not getting sex is lower on the pyramid of injustices than having decreased odds for housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc... ), and the SJWs have a decent case to make. They just get there in a way that involves cutting down every opportunity presented to them in an effort to maintain the purity of incredibly stupid dogma.

It IS unjust and there ARE serious arguments to make about prison privatization, the War on Drugs, lack of good education, lack of good healthcare urban environment and differential rates of poverty (including poverty traps) and the effects of all of the above on black communities (and on poor white communities, and on poor latino communities, or native american communities, etc.).

You just need better tools than easy, simplistic rhetoric, and to frame the issue as a matter of class/socio-economics rather than ONLY a matter of race.

[Really?]

When the hoax paper on fictional lichen was accepted by 157 journals, did a bunch of prominent Biologists who had nothing to do with it issue a public apology?

I haven't read it. Would it have been a qualified paper if the lichen did exist (i.e. Asimov's Thiotimoline)? If so, I don't see a problem. Not everyone can be expected to know what is and isn't happening in the field. They can be expected to root out shoddy or completely nonsense reasoning though.

Did a bunch of Computer Scientists who had nothing to do with the publishing of Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing list issue an apology?

You keep bringing this up, and people keep telling you that it was a joke everyone was in on. Do you refute that?

I think the hoax paper alone would be useless beyond a "gotcha" meme. Combined with the sort of bullshit @RealPeerReview digs up on a regular basis it becomes another nail in the coffin though.

You know a thesis is good when there are more typos in the abstract than subjects in the sample size...

Peer review weeds out the masturbatory bullshit, as Dr. Carrier PHD would be happy to remind us.

And where would we be if feminist scholars didn't do such critical, groundbreaking research?

[free thoughtpolice]

Linus wrote:

Link to "Gender Studies saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident"?

Here's a quote from an advocate of gender studies saying that. I believe there may be others.
quote]A. Noyd
21 May 2017 at 6:05 pm
The sad thing is, a paper or book about the socially constructed aspects of penises could be really interesting. Quite obviously we make a whole lot more of penises than the bare, biological fact of them. Like their imagined role in “taking” someone’s virginity—how they cause psychic contagion and loss of purity to the partner but not the owner. Or how and why so many people are scared of trans women’s penises. Anyone who can’t see the value in analyzing beliefs like that is the real fool.[/quote]

[Really?]

Linus wrote:

Link to "Gender Studies saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident"?

Here's a quote from an advocate of gender studies saying that. I believe there may be others.
quote]A. Noyd
21 May 2017 at 6:05 pm
The sad thing is, a paper or book about the socially constructed aspects of penises could be really interesting. Quite obviously we make a whole lot more of penises than the bare, biological fact of them. Like their imagined role in “taking” someone’s virginity—how they cause psychic contagion and loss of purity to the partner but not the owner. Or how and why so many people are scared of trans women’s penises. Anyone who can’t see the value in analyzing beliefs like that is the real fool.

Damion alerted us to more bright people who hope the authors continue their important work.
http://archive.is/jZQIA

[dog puke]

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

Sodium pentobarbital overdose.

Yeah, but what flavours does it come in? :twatson:

[d4m10n]

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:

Can you name one?

How about one which doesn't publish laughable drek?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[free thoughtpolice]

Forget it guys. The hermeneutic aspects of hegemonic masculinity won't allow Linus to admit he's wrong.

[dog puke]

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:

Well... I hope so too. I am also pretty close geographically (with a border in between). Also, I am one of those horrible professors that you keep hearing about, and I work in an institute very similar to Evergreen College. Till now we have (mostly) been spared the trials and tribulations of many other institutes but there are signs everywhere (in the admin, fellow faculty and students) and I can soooooo easily imagine myself going through one of these struggle sessions, surrounded by rabid ideologues who want my head.

Most definitely I could be targeted for being a thought criminal by believing in things like free speech/expression. And yet, (as a neo-fascist) I don't believe a persons race, sex, etc, gives anyone more (or less) insight or legitimacy. Sorry... no progressive stack for me.

I am in agreement with you that this has to be publicized and the batshit needs to be spread far and wide, but I am not so optimistic that the general public has the time/interest to delve into these matters and get a real understanding of what's going on - most are happy to see a few minutes on the news or a few column inches in the "MSM", shake their heads, and then go on as before.

Only time will tell.

If you (y'all) get a chance to see the short video of the Green Day vs. Limp Bizkit graffiti guy and the SJW hit squad, it's worth a laugh (through tears).

[d4m10n]

I don't think anyone really believes the entire field of gender studies is implicated in a hoax perpetrated upon Cogent, but if we look at the so-called reputable journals, we will find similarly baseless nonsense along with plenty of editorialization and a bit of shitty poetry. Pick any one of them at random, if you're bored and content.

[deLurch]

I don't think anyone really believes the entire field of gender studies is implicated in a hoax perpetrated upon Cogent, but if we look at the so-called reputable journals, we will find similarly baseless nonsense along with plenty of editorialization and a bit of shitty poetry. Pick any one of them at random, if you're bored and content.

Why pick anyone at random? I like my pizzagate approach. Ask for their best evidence (in other words select their best rated magazine), and review that to see if it passes muster. If it does, then you know it isn't nearly all bunk.

[jet_lagg]

Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests.

Ah, but have you ever seen the data broken down by whether the subjects were raised in a two-parent household?

Nah.

They wouldn't dare check that.

Alright. I'm intrigued. Why would the two parent household matter?

My own opinion is that lighter skin is perceived favorably due to the normal sort of efficiency-over-precision heuristics people use combined with [insert handwaving about sexual selection I can't really justify but might exist and was still overcome in the evolutionary race by the advantage of melanin in high UV environments] leads to the discrimination we see. That doesn't leave any room for upbringing.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

JFC yerself Linus, show one instance on the pit wherein any member said that it was this hoax paper that proves that Gender Studies was a hoax. It was thought funny, and again, icing on the cake, but the field's own publications, esteemed ones, prove it alI on their own. I don't think anyone here even said it was even the smoking gun. It was funny and it brought some needed attention to a field that is wasteful and harmful, where it is really hard to tell what is made up and what is serious.

Coyne, Dawkins and others like the attention it drew. And it did draw attention. Like you, coming in with a Damion-like gotcha, looking like your panties are permanently twisted. Good look for you.

[Linus]

It's funny that Sargon of Akkad is considered a part of "the skeptic community" considering he's a 9/11 truther. I suspect Thunderf00t got fed up with Sargon and other similar tubers, because they are fervently anti-immigration, advocated voting for Trump and Le Pen, pro Brexit, etc while Thunderf00t is merely anti-feminism / anti-SJW.

Neither Sargon or TF are very honest or reasonable people TBH. They just have some skill in making entertaining videos highlighting low hanging fruit SJWs. But I'd say Sargon is the more insane of the two. He actually blamed Elliot Rogers' killing spree on feminism, saying something along the lines of "the feminist system left him with no other options" :D

[Really?]

Re: Conceptual penis:

Nice summary of the moronic Salon article about the fracas.
[youtube][/youtube]

The Salon article:
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/22/why-the ... /#comments

Moronic tweet used to end the article as though it's a gotcha.

So she isn't saying they're wrong, just that they're dicks.

[John D]

Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests.

Ah, but have you ever seen the data broken down by whether the subjects were raised in a two-parent household?

Nah.

They wouldn't dare check that.

Alright. I'm intrigued. Why would the two parent household matter?

My own opinion is that lighter skin is perceived favorably due to the normal sort of efficiency-over-precision heuristics people use combined with [insert handwaving about sexual selection I can't really justify but might exist and was still overcome in the evolutionary race by the advantage of melanin in high UV environments] leads to the discrimination we see. That doesn't leave any room for upbringing.

I have known a number of blacks who insult very dark skinned blacks. It's a thing. My black son-in-law has confirmed this for me. I have heard black people say stuff like: "Are you going out with Mitch... that coal-black nigger!?"

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Something close to half of black Americans display a bias towards white people in implicit association tests.

Ah, but have you ever seen the data broken down by whether the subjects were raised in a two-parent household?

Nah.

They wouldn't dare check that.

Alright. I'm intrigued. Why would the two parent household matter?

My own opinion is that lighter skin is perceived favorably due to the normal sort of efficiency-over-precision heuristics people use combined with [insert handwaving about sexual selection I can't really justify but might exist and was still overcome in the evolutionary race by the advantage of melanin in high UV environments] leads to the discrimination we see. That doesn't leave any room for upbringing.

Or, more simply black people know other black people tend to commit more crimes, and they (black people) are more likely to be victimized by said crimes and this leads to a negative perception to blacks overall, including themselves.

Two parent households really do make a difference, maybe because kids see a working, cooperative relationship and learn to trust, all while getting attention necessary for growth. All just speculation, of course.

[Kirbmarc]

To clarify: I don't think black people kill black people because they hate other black people, I frankly think this assumption is idiotic (association tests don't show "hatred" as much as common cultural-linguistic connotations).

I think it's far more likely that the negative effects of high rates of incarcerations due to tougher laws on drug crimes committed in cities have led to endemic social issues, along with differential rates of poverty, lack of welfare and healthcare (including mental healthcare, which leads to self-medication with drugs and alcohol), ghettoization and social isolation, and of teenage pregnancies/parental abandonment due to a series of cultural and socio-economic factors.

These social issues lead young, poor blacks with negative role models to associate in groups which are led to crime, and whose victims are most likely to be the people who live in their community, so people of their same race.

Since this happens in all poor communities plagued by social issues (including, for example, many poor and isolated towns the Appalachian region, but also people in poor, socially ill neighborhoods all of the world, from Mexico to Switzerland to India) it's not surprising that it happens in poor black communities plagued by social issues. There are simply a lot of poor single-mother black families who live in neighborhoods plagued by social isolation and crime in the US.

Poverty and lack of reliable social, family and institutional structures generate crime, which causes more poverty and more degradation of social structures, which in turn generate more crime, etc. etc.

Imagine you were born in a poor family in a poor neighborhood. Your school sucks and looks completely useless to you anyway. There are little to no community services, and they suck. You and your friends have no way to amuse themselves but wreck things (as kids tend to do when they're bored, and in your neighborhood there's nothing better to do), and when things are wrecked nobody repairs them. Occasionally you and your friends shoplift (as, again, many kids tend to do when there's nothing better to be done). There's plenty of garbage everywhere around since the garbage collection services suck. There are no job perspectives. Everything seems to suck.

You don't have a father and your mother struggles to make ends meet, and if she earns a little more by doing a job, she loses her welfare benefits, so she stays on the dole and does some work on the side. Maybe she's frequently sick and doesn't have the money to pay for prescription pills for her chronic pain, or maybe she's stressed out. Maybe sometimes she drinks a little too much to ease the pain, or pops other kinds of pills.

You see ads on TV promising people all sorts of things, but you know you cannot afford them, and neither can your mother. You're a kid, you want stuff, you don't have stuff, you can't get stuff. You don't want to live among the garbage and the wrecked things. Your idols are people who have stuff, especially those who got rick apparently quick and easily. One of your friends offers you to do a job. It's nothing too awful, maybe just delivering some weed to a drug dealer, who's a guy you know, maybe he hung around with your brother, maybe he's the son of neighbor, maybe he's just always around. The drug dealer pays in cash. You finally have money. It's easy money.

After a couple more jobs the dealer asks you if you'd like to make more money. Sure, why not, you say. This time you have to deal drugs. It's still only weed anyway. Nobody gets hurt, right? Except you get caught. Or maybe you get caught shoplifting. Or maybe one of your friends is bit of a hothead and gets into a fight over the weed, you step to defend him, and the police comes by. Or maybe you and your friends were bored and harassed and punched a weird guy in the face just not to get bored, and a police car was nearby.

Anyway you get caught and go to juvie, or do community service. It sucks, but it makes you know other boys your age. One of them maybe is more aggressive, or more clever, or more ambitious. You become friends and he has big ideas about joining a gang or simply getting more money, live the high life. You do that, and the high life requires threatening people or burglary or small scale robbery. Eventually you get caught again, and you have a juvenile criminal record. You get sentenced to a prison full of adult people since you're an adult now. You ally yourself with a prison gang to fit it, and you get to know other, more seasoned criminals. They teach you the tools of the trade.

Once you're out you're a career criminal, but you still belong to your neighborhood. You belong to your group of friends. You've been with them through thick and thin, and you're ready to fight for them. You and your friends still want to get rich. Dealing drugs, stealing cars, robbing stores, it's all good. You have to defend yourselves from other groups of people like you, who you hate because they're the Other Guys, the Posers, the Other Neighborhood. Anyway if it's your friends' lives or theirs, their ass is grass. So violence ensues.

Maybe you hurt someone. Maybe you go to jail again, and you have precedents so this time the sentence is much harsher. Once you're out it's the same old, same old. If you get caught again it's three strikes and you're out, so you do anything not to get caught.

...

I don't think this is such an improbable narrative, and it really doesn't depend on race. There might be many variations on a similar theme, and a few people might be able to leave your poor and degraded neighborhood, but a lot wont.

[Kirbmarc]

It's funny that Sargon of Akkad is considered a part of "the skeptic community" considering he's a 9/11 truther.

I didn't know that. Do you have any evidence?

I suspect Thunderf00t got fed up with Sargon and other similar tubers, because they are fervently anti-immigration, advocated voting for Trump and Le Pen, pro Brexit, etc while Thunderf00t is merely anti-feminism / anti-SJW.

Neither Sargon or TF are very honest or reasonable people TBH. They just have some skill in making entertaining videos highlighting low hanging fruit SJWs. But I'd say Sargon is the more insane of the two. He actually blamed Elliot Rogers' killing spree on feminism, saying something along the lines of "the feminist system left him with no other options" :D

Again, never heard of this. Evidence?

[pro-boxing-fan]

It's funny that Sargon of Akkad is considered a part of "the skeptic community" considering he's a 9/11 truther. I suspect Thunderf00t got fed up with Sargon and other similar tubers, because they are fervently anti-immigration, advocated voting for Trump and Le Pen, pro Brexit, etc while Thunderf00t is merely anti-feminism / anti-SJW.

Neither Sargon or TF are very honest or reasonable people TBH. They just have some skill in making entertaining videos highlighting low hanging fruit SJWs. But I'd say Sargon is the more insane of the two. He actually blamed Elliot Rogers' killing spree on feminism, saying something along the lines of "the feminist system left him with no other options" :D

It's funny that PZ and Becky are considered part of the "the skeptic community" too.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

It's funny that Sargon of Akkad is considered a part of "the skeptic community" considering he's a 9/11 truther.

I didn't know that. Do you have any evidence?

Never mind, I found this:

http://i.imgur.com/RWDZ5kw.png

I suspect Thunderf00t got fed up with Sargon and other similar tubers, because they are fervently anti-immigration, advocated voting for Trump and Le Pen, pro Brexit, etc while Thunderf00t is merely anti-feminism / anti-SJW.

It's very likely. I suspect that as well.

Neither Sargon or TF are very honest or reasonable people TBH. They just have some skill in making entertaining videos highlighting low hanging fruit SJWs. But I'd say Sargon is the more insane of the two. He actually blamed Elliot Rogers' killing spree on feminism, saying something along the lines of "the feminist system left him with no other options" :D

Found it:

[youtube][/youtube]

[CommanderTuvok]

Message to PZ Meyers, Beardchops.

"Go FUCK YOURSELF, you piece of shit."

There, I feel better.

[Spike13]

The " skeptic community" is not some monolithic hive mind entity that all who belong to it agree with. It's mostly a bunch of shit posters taking the piss and having fun. That's why our side is funnier, we have humor.

If one wishes to be a tight ass and fret that everything is a point for us or a point for them, you're welcome to it. It doesn't mean that I'm going to stay up nights worrying about it.

My advice? Loosen up and pull that stick out of your ass, have a bit of fun.

[free thoughtpolice]

Can I trick someone into defending smirky face Sargon of Assad? :drool:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Can I trick someone into defending smirky face Sargon of Assad? :drool:

His voice makes me moist.

[free thoughtpolice]

Jenny said he had dreamy eyes. :drool:

[deLurch]

Can I trick someone into defending smirky face Sargon of Assad? :drool:

Sargon knows the truth. Elliot Rodgers took down the 3rd building on 9/11. He had no choice because of the Matriarchy.

[Linus]

When the hoax paper on fictional lichen was accepted by 157 journals, did a bunch of prominent Biologists who had nothing to do with it issue a public apology?

I haven't read it. Would it have been a qualified paper if the lichen did exist (i.e. Asimov's Thiotimoline)?

No.

"Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Did a bunch of Computer Scientists who had nothing to do with the publishing of Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing list issue an apology?

You keep bringing this up, and people keep telling you that it was a joke everyone was in on. Do you refute that?

I'm genuinely confused as to what you mean by "it was a joke everyone was in on". The journal that published that certainly paper wasn't "in on it".

"In 2005, two scientists, David Mazières and Eddie Kohler, wrote a paper titled Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List and submitted it to WMSCI 2005 (the 9th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics), in protest of the conference's notoriety for its spamming and lax standards for paper acceptance.[6] The paper consisted essentially only of the sentence "Get me off your fucking mailing list" repeated many times.[7]

In 2014, after receiving a spam email from the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, Peter Vamplew forwarded Mazières' and Kohler's old paper as an acerbic response.[8] To Vamplew's surprise, the paper was reviewed, rated as "excellent" by the journal's peer-review process and accepted for publication.[8][5] The paper was not actually published as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 (equivalent to $152 in 2016) article processing charge.[8] This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.[1][2][5][8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... Technology

Linus wrote:

Link to "Gender Studies saying that Boghasian and co. was right by accident"?

Here's a quote from an advocate of gender studies saying that. I believe there may be others.

"A. Noyd
21 May 2017 at 6:05 pm
The sad thing is, a paper or book about the socially constructed aspects of penises could be really interesting. Quite obviously we make a whole lot more of penises than the bare, biological fact of them. Like their imagined role in “taking” someone’s virginity—how they cause psychic contagion and loss of purity to the partner but not the owner. Or how and why so many people are scared of trans women’s penises. Anyone who can’t see the value in analyzing beliefs like that is the real fool.

"An advocate of gender studies" saying something is equivalent to "Gender Studies" saying something? Because that's the claim I was responding to. "Gender Studies is saying X" is a pretty nonsensical statement, but interpreting it charitably, I assumed he meant something like "prominent academics with Gender Studies are saying X", not some random internet comment.

Can you name one?

How about one which doesn't publish laughable drek?

I've already said I don't read Gender Studies journals. I've also made it very clear that I'm not arguing for anything other than the fact that the conceptual penis hoax isn't evidence of anything about gender studies. It's like you aren't even reading my posts.

JFC yerself Linus, show one instance on the pit wherein any member said that it was this hoax paper that proves that Gender Studies was a hoax.

And yet several of you still feel the need to argue with me. :think: Seriously, though, I don't believe I accused any pit members of saying it was conclusive proof that Gender Studies is a hoax. What I said was it's not evidence of anything about Gender Studies as a field. D4m10n outright disagreed with this and others have objected to my reasoning as to why it's not evidence.

[Spike13]

Someone should send Sargon a link to the Popular Mechanics de-bunking.


"Bringing down three buildings with box cutters... picturing the terrorists hacking at the base of the buildings one by one with box cutters till they fall down.( requisite cartoon clouds of busy smoke as they go.)

[Linus]

It's funny that PZ and Becky are considered part of the "the skeptic community" too.

True. Skepticism is a worthwhile ideal, but self proclaimed skeptics are pretty fucking embarrassing. #notallselfproclaimedskeptics

[deLurch]

As a side note, I never really bothered to find out why the 3rd tower fell myself, or at least not in any degree of detail.

This is what the NY Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyreg ... tccnd.html

Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, federal investigators concluded on Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives caused the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[free thoughtpolice]

"An advocate of gender studies" saying something is equivalent to "Gender Studies" saying something? Because that's the claim I was responding to. "Gender Studies is saying X" is a pretty nonsensical statement, but interpreting it charitably, I assumed he meant something like "prominent academics with Gender Studies are saying X", not some random internet comment.

You asked the question in a non specific way " Gender studies..." and I replied with the opinion of someone that apparently had experience with that field believed.
Now you want an example of an academic, because you don't really follow the journals.
Fuck off.

[Spike13]

As a side note, I never really bothered to find out why the 3rd tower fell myself, or at least not in any degree of detail.

This is what the NY Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyreg ... tccnd.html

Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, federal investigators concluded on Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives caused the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The collapse of the towers damaged the buildings structure and run away fires from the emergency generator fuel storage weakened the frame work and caused the collapse. ( the building contained the NYC mayors emergency command post for such disasters)

[KiwiInOz]

I'm no fan of the religion that can't be named, but good on this mob for using its cultural and ethical framework to challenge hatred and violence.

[youtube][/youtube]

The music would have been better performed by this band, though.

https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/conten ... 782451.jpg

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifesty ... wfx4p.html

[d4m10n]

I don't think we can reasonably dismiss Cogent OA entirely from the field of gender studies.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSea ... Key=oass20

[Kirbmarc]

As a side note, I never really bothered to find out why the 3rd tower fell myself, or at least not in any degree of detail.

This is what the NY Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyreg ... tccnd.html

Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, federal investigators concluded on Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives caused the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sounds reasonable to me.

If you want to find more, here's a full NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the WTC collapses, including WTC-7 (the "third tower").

One of the issues that led to the collapse of WTC-7 was that the collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 cut off the water pipes, so the fires in WTC-7 were uncontrolled. Firefighters assumed that the building was going to collapse and since nobody was in the building they abandoned it too. No point in trying to put out the fires when nobody was inside and there was so much else to do.

[Shatterface]

I'll believe that gender studies isn't horseshit when a feminist successfully hoaxes a science journal that the Moon is a sun.

[jet_lagg]

When the hoax paper on fictional lichen was accepted by 157 journals, did a bunch of prominent Biologists who had nothing to do with it issue a public apology?

I haven't read it. Would it have been a qualified paper if the lichen did exist (i.e. Asimov's Thiotimoline)?

No.

<snipping good information>

First, my genuine thanks for the information. I didn't know anything about the other two hoax papers. Second, I still think this casts aspersions on the field as a whole. If the gatekeepers are doing such a shoddy job that they let through something with completely wonk chemistry (or just obviously a joke like the computer science "paper") then there are problems. It could have been worse though. Specifically with the lichen, it would have been a lot worse if nobody could point to obvious flaws that identify the paper as a hoax (nobody I know of was able to point out obvious flaws of the conceptual penis paper). It would be worse still if someone had actually defended the fictional lichen (people did in all earnestness defend the conceptual penis). And it would be extremely, superbad, no good, holy-shit-you-guys, worse if someone had gone as far as citing the hoax papers (this did not happen, but I think we all believe it would have if they'd waited a little longer before the reveal).

[katamari Damassi]

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?

Just to be clear, I'm not selecting targets for ISIS. I'm only choosing which victims I'll shed tears over.

[Lsuoma]

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

[im//imgur.com/AG4hpVp.jmg]

Fuck me, Ape, that's an idea: PZ Meyers in a mankini? Somehow, please make this into something (with apologies for telling you what art you should make, treating like you are some kind of general Pit service for all, and generally minimizing your lived experiences as a cyclopian genius).

(I think The Commander would wank himself to the point where just little puffs of white powder were coming out of the end.)

Here's you Best. Post. Evah! x 2. (I almost didn't award it, because the LHG asked what I was snorting about, and I had to tell her...)

[Really?]

I'll believe that gender studies isn't horseshit when a feminist successfully hoaxes a science journal that the Moon is a sun.

Science gets you to the moon.

Gender studies gets you a job making listicles and acquiring cats.

[Really?]

I don't think we can reasonably dismiss Cogent OA entirely from the field of gender studies.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSea ... Key=oass20

At least this one is honest.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 16.1167842

Educational spaces have long provided opportunities for politicisation and activism. However, research into the processes through which students become politicised can often focus on participation in recognised forms of political action, thereby ignoring the multiple factors active in developing a political consciousness. This paper draws on narrative interviews with feminist women to consider the importance of education to their experience of becoming feminist. It considers how, for a particular group of women who were all students or recent graduates of non-STEM disciplines, academic feminism formed an important part of their narrative of becoming feminist. Each of the women referred to having a long-standing feminist inclination, instinct or feeling and indicated that studying academic feminism offered them the tools for reflecting on and articulating this.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 23/4bc.jpg

"Academic feminism!" I was under the impression that feminism is just gender equality.

[free thoughtpolice]

The dude in the stem booth needed to identify as a woman with a penis so the female recruits wouldn't be scared off by the hegemonic masculinities. :ugeek:

[Guest_440911e7]

Educational spaces have long provided opportunities for politicisation and activism. However, research into the processes through which students become politicised can often focus on participation in recognised forms of political action, thereby ignoring the multiple factors active in developing a political consciousness. This paper draws on narrative interviews with feminist women to consider the importance of education to their experience of becoming feminist. It considers how, for a particular group of women who were all students or recent graduates of non-STEM disciplines, academic feminism formed an important part of their narrative of becoming feminist. Each of the women referred to having a long-standing feminist inclination, instinct or feeling and indicated that studying academic feminism offered them the tools for reflecting on and articulating this.

Are there any fields outside of gender studies that "academically" study the best way to bring in new adherents?

Okay, maybe religious studies? Is that fair to religious studies?

Really sounds like something I might find in International Xenuology, the Journal of Sea Org.

[MacGruberKnows]

I'll believe that gender studies isn't horseshit when a feminist successfully hoaxes a science journal that the Moon is a sun.

Science gets you to the moon.

Gender studies gets you a job making listicles and acquiring cats.

http://www.pinhumour.com/wp-content/upl ... 04gn8k.jpg

[HelpingHand]

I normally just shit post links to MSM stories that strike me as especially retarded, but when CNN pleasantly surprises me....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/28/us/fareed ... index.html

"American universities seem committed to every kind of diversity except intellectual diversity. Conservative voices and views are being silenced entirely," Zakaria said.

"The word liberal in this context has nothing to do with today's partisan language, but refers instead to the Latin root, pertaining to liberty. And at the heart of liberty in the Western world has been freedom of speech. From the beginning, people understood that this meant protecting and listening to speech with which you disagreed," Zakaria argued.

That means, he said, not drowning out "the ideas that we find offensive."

In addition, Zakaria noted what he called "an anti-intellectualism" on the left.

"It's an attitude of self-righteousness that says we are so pure, we're so morally superior, we cannot bear to hear an idea with which we disagree," he said.
"Liberals think they are tolerant but often they aren't," he added.

Side note: I may not have Puget Sound views and bald eagles, but I have a forest in the Oregon coastal range, a grilled steak and a glass of B&B. I also am a white, male, CIS shitlord and happy with that state.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

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.

I don't recall any reports of hate crimes on Evergreen College. I wonder if micro-aggressions are also hate crimes? :think:

[Really?]

Educational spaces have long provided opportunities for politicisation and activism. However, research into the processes through which students become politicised can often focus on participation in recognised forms of political action, thereby ignoring the multiple factors active in developing a political consciousness. This paper draws on narrative interviews with feminist women to consider the importance of education to their experience of becoming feminist. It considers how, for a particular group of women who were all students or recent graduates of non-STEM disciplines, academic feminism formed an important part of their narrative of becoming feminist. Each of the women referred to having a long-standing feminist inclination, instinct or feeling and indicated that studying academic feminism offered them the tools for reflecting on and articulating this.

Are there any fields outside of gender studies that "academically" study the best way to bring in new adherents?

Okay, maybe religious studies? Is that fair to religious studies?

Really sounds like something I might find in International Xenuology, the Journal of Sea Org.

I was thinking that it sounds very religious, too.

How best can we convince heathens to accept feminism into their hearts?

Real academic fields report conclusions based upon evidence.

Religions and Gender Studies operate upon personal revelation.

Real academic fields report conclusions that can be replicated.

Religions and Gender Studies are dependent upon personal experiences.

Real academic fields report things that are true, whether or not you believe in them. And if you disagree and have evidence, you are welcome to debate.

Religions and Gender Studies require you to have faith BEFORE you can believe. And there is no dissent.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Are there any fields outside of gender studies that "academically" study the best way to bring in new adherents?

Yes, of course "there" are. No "human" creation can "continue" forever "without" an ongoing "flow" of humans to "maintain" "it", and the study/practice of "science" (which "I" assume "you" are obliquely referring to) is "no" exception.

[piginthecity]

Striking someone on the head not directly threatening you with violence (no sjw tards, being a trump supporter does not constitute directly threatening you), with a weapon can only be viewed as a premeditated attempt to kill that cannot be mitigated by a self defence argument. Ergo attempted murder.

... well, it seems your moral compass with respect to political violence is functional in some contexts at least ....

[free thoughtpolice]

It's "life" Slim, but not as we grok it. :ugeek: