ok what im rly asking is does "tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynist" mean something serious or is it just a rhetorical stereotype of "sexist bad people"
does his point regarding the orthodoxy change meaningfully if the quote is replaced by "sexist bad people"?
No, he says it's not an orthodoxy of scientific legitimacy. As in, the experiment was no scientifically legitimate as he talks about later, and people like Dawkins are using their scientific credibility to push something that has nothing to do with their scientific credibility. It's not actually science that is against postmodernism, but a different orthodoxy. How can you not understand such a basic thing?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, because it changes the fact that there are groups with massive amounts of power and wealth pushing against what they've termed "grievance studies." And it's not just about feminism, fuck, please try to read
i dont know what dawkins said. but people can support whatever they want to support. i agree the hoax fails to meet certain criteria for scientific rigor, but that doesnt mean it has no insight or is unworthy of support.
It's quite simple. Replace the othering with "Jewish" to reveal its true intentions - discredit by associating with something that has an emotional response, an evolution of the worst argument in the world
okay. that was what i was asking. id like to hear more about this. why do they hate "grievance studies" so much? what is the mechanism by which they are pushing against it?
its reasonable to me that billionaires might not care because its not commodifiable. but does that mean they are actively fighting it?
Pinker and Dawkins are invalid because their work advances Jewish ideals & motives.
- to be clear not a real post but a rhetorical one
just get the fuck out of here with this utter dogshit "i'm not being a bully because i'm not using curse words. instead i'm being disgustingly pretentious and uncompassionate"
"not naming names"
"not "gaslighting""
what the fuck
it's better if you just make tasteless jokes than try to act like you're not doing something incredibly shitty while still using the disguise of being the jolly internet forum joker. haha, that asoul, always trolling.
This is literally summarized in the article
to be clear he did not say Pinker and Dawkins are invalid he merely discredited their orthodoxy and also kind of signaled that they are the enemy.
Right the point is to discredit without engaging by associating with something that evokes an emotional reaction
@hbotz don't listen to him. He discredits their argument later one: all the orthodoxy shit is saying is that they aren't appealing to science or the fields they're educated in: they're appealing to an ideology that is unrelated
Asoul is once again either unable to read or is being incredibly disingenuous
imagine saying this shit as an honest human, that self reflects.
Thanks all for the feedback
hey maybe you'll think next time before jumping on an anti ewiz bandwagon started by your bff jdance in a thread about police brutality
you know, the kind of moment where you disguise your bad intentions with pointing out how much of an asshole someone else can be? unprovoked?
i distinctly remember a moment not long ago when someone stated they were being followed around the site, argued with and it was "gross and weird"
Fun post
well, i can see hes very critical of pinker and friends. im just trying to figure out the structure of his argument.
as it stands that in itself is not a refutation of the hoax incident. but i am interested in the third point because it implies a clear characterization of the Enemy. i would like to hear more about the Enemy if it can actually be properly described because then we could fight them.
he also explains some reasons how "grievance studies" as a field is disadvantaged and stuff, which i think is probable. but the main point of the hoax was to show that in these journals a severe flaw exists that lets blatantly phony articles get through. so while he has partially explained why this is the case, its not exactly a defense of the field, although maybe it points to "fund it more so it doesnt happen" as an interpretation
like please, need to improve my ltp ratio
Holy fucking shit. Reread the article 3 or 4 times. Try to figure out what the hoax was supposed to expose. Make a new post in an hour or two and I'll try to read it, but Jesus Christ you've missed the entire point of the article