Yeah, that too. Aren't their goalposts basically strapped to a pair of motor scooters?
TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes
- Thread starter Úlfheðinn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
Bill here forgot to mention the Jewel of the operation: "'Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks". Yes, it postulated the existance of dog rape culture and repression of Queer dogs. It got accepted eventually after the addition of more Black Feminism, as one reviewer requested.
Here are pages from the review:
At first the paper was denied:
You see, there wasn't enough Animal and Black (dogs?) feminist Geography:
The author complied, but the reviewers wanted more rigorous methodology (a point which could have been more vigoriously pushed, in my opinion) but generally were supportive of the paper:
Reviewer 1 was concerned about inspecting a dog's genitalia without the dog's consent. This constitued an inequality in relation to the Humans. This might represent an attitude of speciesism which the Author have to adress:
Reviewer 2 might have been unto something but quickly lost it:
Reviewer 3 on the other hand, was concerned about the validity of dog rape accusations made on behalf of the victim dog by Humans:
You see, 3 believes that dog rape is a race issue:
After the author rectified the paper, it was finally accepted:
You see, there wasn't enough Animal and Black (dogs?) feminist Geography:
The author complied, but the reviewers wanted more rigorous methodology (a point which could have been more vigoriously pushed, in my opinion) but generally were supportive of the paper:
Reviewer 1 was concerned about inspecting a dog's genitalia without the dog's consent. This constitued an inequality in relation to the Humans. This might represent an attitude of speciesism which the Author have to adress:
Reviewer 2 might have been unto something but quickly lost it:
Reviewer 3 on the other hand, was concerned about the validity of dog rape accusations made on behalf of the victim dog by Humans:
You see, 3 believes that dog rape is a race issue:
After the author rectified the paper, it was finally accepted:
It shouldn't come as a surprise. The academic journal industry is all kinds of twisted - authors of the papers don't see a penny of the profit these journals make (they actually have to pay to get their papers into the journals) and the reviewers are all unpaid volunteers (which in reality means that the journal sends the paper to, say, 10 researchers in the same sub-sub-field, who then either ignore the request or fob the review off to one of their students). Consequently, since the authors don't get any financial benefit from submitting a paper to one of these journals, more often than not they're more than happy to supply their research papers to anyone who asks them free of charge. Of course, few people ask. It's a system only the journals can really be happy with.
Almalexia said:
It's part of a global trend though, these capital friendly, immigrant/gay/woman/whatever bashing tells-it-like-it-is types soaring into power by channeling people's discontent, promising to improve people's lives. The real winners are as usual the super rich, and they are the people whose interests Bolsonaro and similar creatures actually represent.
Then what was it? Republican voters were unhappy with establishment politicians because they viewed them as unable to address their concerns and they kept losing, in a large part because they were nicely playing by the rules. Then Trump appeared, with a powerful rhetoric and no regard to decorum or democratic norms promising to own the libs and offering simple and wrong answers to complex problems (the wall, the trade war). The base bought it and rallied to his support. Hillary's incompetence and American media did the rest of the job.Almalexia said:
If that is wrong, then what's the correct answer?
I may have exaggerated quite a bit. But do you really think the support for him won't decrease if he simply ignores all those promises?Bunny Cookie Canada said:
Arriguy
Sergeant Knight at Arms
The idea that Republicans were playing by the rules isn't exactly right. McConnell circled the wagons and refused to work at all with Obama, and the ensuing deadlock just worked in their favor to claim the "Democrats are ruining our country we need more conservatives hurr durr durr" narratives that blew up in Republican's face with the Tea-Party movement, that has slowly morphed into the Trump Train and has in large part overtaken the Classic Republican brand - but somehow McConnell has remained because, tbh, he's a very Machiavellian and pragmatic politician.
Alternative perspective on the hoax studies thing: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html
TL;DR of his position: despite the ridiculousness of some of what went through and the obviously existing problems in how the journal system works, it's really not nearly as big a deal as the people who did it are trying to make it out to be, and that their point was severely weakened by their own agenda and biases ("reeee gender studies!!11!").
which... was honestly predictable, if that article is accurate. and sad.
wouldn't it be nice if somebody made an actually sincere rigorous effort to point this stuff out instead of inherently flawed agenda pushing? there are real problems in how these systems work and making some half-assed politically driven satire and then pretending it's legitimate doesn't help your position at all
TL;DR of his position: despite the ridiculousness of some of what went through and the obviously existing problems in how the journal system works, it's really not nearly as big a deal as the people who did it are trying to make it out to be, and that their point was severely weakened by their own agenda and biases ("reeee gender studies!!11!").
which... was honestly predictable, if that article is accurate. and sad.
wouldn't it be nice if somebody made an actually sincere rigorous effort to point this stuff out instead of inherently flawed agenda pushing? there are real problems in how these systems work and making some half-assed politically driven satire and then pretending it's legitimate doesn't help your position at all
Bolsanaro is incredibly bad. For example, he wants to dissolve Congress and shoot leftists.
I think that was exactly it, although many of his voters were probably unable to phrase it that way independently. He was an anti-globalization candidate. For America globalization means outflow of jobs and inflow of people., so the wall and tariffs were a logical choice of flagship issues.Almalexia said:
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said:
You are arguing through appeal to motive, a type of ad hominem. Intent does not weaken actual valid observations. Even if the Hoaxers were literal nazis, it does not make the fact that legitimate peer-reviewed journals accepted such deeply flawed papers any less real or relevant.
Call it satire, but isn't that exactly what satire supposed to do? To reveal the absurdities of established institutions? And when an institution literally cannot distinguish between satire and legitimate tracts, then there's a deep problem. The hoax unfortunately did what it was meant to do...
How can you even say such a thing in Brasil and still be supported. Literally most people there are brown to some extent.Wulfburk said:
The problem with that whole video is the two assumptions:
1. Articles that don't criticise straight white men won't get accepted (they didn't test this, despite it being the crux of the video)
2. This incestuous ultra-fringe wing of the humanities has any influence on politics or the bulk of society whatsoever.
I don't doubt that a lot of gender studies is plagued with poor research and outright 19th century style conjecture, but the video makes some pretty massive jumps in its logic and tone which almost come across as dogwhistles.
1. Articles that don't criticise straight white men won't get accepted (they didn't test this, despite it being the crux of the video)
2. This incestuous ultra-fringe wing of the humanities has any influence on politics or the bulk of society whatsoever.
I don't doubt that a lot of gender studies is plagued with poor research and outright 19th century style conjecture, but the video makes some pretty massive jumps in its logic and tone which almost come across as dogwhistles.
Kentucky James said:
I didn't watch the video, and frankly, again, I don't think the authors' opinions are important, really. Still, I believe the success of the hoax should be taken seriously. Its disconcerning there are areas with such poor standards in the academy.
BenKenobi said:
I don't think that was definitely proved as well. There's no control group to compare with.
Yeah yeah i also think the politics of the video is unwarranted, and it explicitly says ‘a culture where only certain conclusions[attributing guilt] are allowed’. But it’s pretty fun to watch and I also have issue with the lack of rigour in these disciplines in distinguishing bull**** from non-bull****.
In my uni they also teach some of this stuff, and i think there is a lot of valuable and original insights, but very often it takes an immense effort(by my profs) to reconstruct these ideas to make them fit to more rigorous standards(such as simplicity) I am used to. It often feels like unrestrained obscurantism.
In my uni they also teach some of this stuff, and i think there is a lot of valuable and original insights, but very often it takes an immense effort(by my profs) to reconstruct these ideas to make them fit to more rigorous standards(such as simplicity) I am used to. It often feels like unrestrained obscurantism.
I am not arguing through anything, given that it was merely a summary of the article I posted, and not necessarily my own view nor my chain of argument, as I clearly stated.ido66667 said:
However, I would argue that even in the article itself it is not an appeal to motive, but presents a case of the hoaxers' motive actually damaging the quality of their observations, stated goals, and conclusion - by the limited scope of their attempted fraudulent submissions and the singular nature of the areas they targeted, while conflating structural issues in the journal system with supposed issues inherent to the areas targeted, while lacking any scientific rigour in their implementation.
Perhaps had you read the article you would have noticed this, and had you actually read my post noticed that it was not my argument. Your reply is not relevant, for it fails to actually address or seemingly even to fully understand what is being replied to.
There is good satire, and there is bad satire. Your mileage may vary.
And to assume the issue lies with a supposed "institution" (that is further represented in a monolithic nature with no real proof to the truth of that, mind) while not even checking to see if the same issue applies in other "institutions" or to what degree or whether it is the supposed "institution" that is at fault, or the system being used, does not speak to the merits of their criticisim.
That last bit you at least have already understood yourself;
ido66667 said:
The whole exercise is largely useless as anything beyond a media stunt.
Both the video and their general approach to the whole thing.Kentucky James said:
Xardob said:
Honestly this is exactly right. The point is the specifics weren't important: in no way was his success or support contingent on the success of his claims. His support is merely based on that he said it, or that he in general represented an alternative non-mainstream candidate. Real intent doesn't matter in this situation to his supporters: they either liked him just because he said what they were thinking, and if he followed through all the better, or they liked him despite of it, because they believed only in his non-establishment/non-Hillary platform and that he'd be moderated after he came into office. Capturing the support of both sides there was necessary to get him into office, and now we're here, and we find the rhetoric was not just rhetoric.
Xardob said:
Absolutely, because really his general message was so broad and vague he could twist it wherever he likes while the specifics, if brought up, could just be said to have been shot down by the Democrats or the deep-state or whatever else. As I'd say regarding Kurczak's point;
kurczak said:
You're right on the first part, but you miss that the general message is what people were interested in, and these are no way contingent on the specifics. Its the ideology he represents that's important, and the how and why are secondary. I'd say for most except for the hardcore supporters they thought the promises of the wall were a joke, and if that failed it would the impact to his support would be practically insignificant.
