44 karma · joined November 4, 2022
You're hilariously correct: this is what happens when you use facts, logic, and reason. You don't have to take humanities courses to understand how shallow and steeped in wokeism they've become. Much like you don't need to taste dog shit on the street to identify that it is indeed dog shit. Nice self-own.
Instead of heeding his advice he was called a heretic and nearly excommunicated.
My OP in this thread:
>Sweet's faux-pas AHA was criticized as tone-deaf - and it was
No it absolutely wasn't. It was a refreshing call to reason in the deluge of delusional nonsense that followed the BLM "summer of love" moral panic. Tone policing is regularly weaponized by those looking to preserve a narrative. "We can't have facts/logic/reason get in the way! What you're saying is tone deaf to our righteous crusade!"
That is fake news from a convicted fraudster. It was claimed but never supported by evidence [0].
"Fertility clinician Cecil Jacobson claimed to have transplanted a fertilized egg from a female baboon to the omentum in the abdominal cavity of a male baboon in the mid-1960s, which then carried the fetus for four months; however, Jacobson did not publish his claims in a scientific journal, and was subsequently convicted on several unrelated counts of fraud for ethical misconduct."
But in this case you are wrong, and this isn't reddit.
>I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works.
"A true discipline has poor science". This is a variation of No True Scotsman. QED.
>I gave you sources to back that up
You gave no sources that backed anything up. You came in with a huge non sequitur that doesn't even follow the original posts. The GP asked for what other fields are considered "grievance studies" and I copied and pasted a quote from the article that covers the inventors of the term: The trio referred to several academic fields—postcolonial theory, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminism, and fat studies—as "grievance studies" because, according to Pluckrose, such areas begin "from the assumption of a grievance" and then bend "the available theories to confirm it".
>Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science
It's not a science at all, but it regularly falls in the sphere of social science as related/integrated.
> I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline that doesn't really conduct classical scientific studies?
You must be terrible at Google because apparently you didn't even come across the original article I posted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
"highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."
>You just said you don't classify the field as a science so clearly it wouldn't.
A subject does not have to be classified as a "science" to have studies with replication issues. This being a prime example. You just proved my point. QED.
>I was supporting my first point which you seem to have misunderstood.
You haven't made any points, or you tried and failed.
>I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed.
Anecdotal non sequitur as I stated. Nothing to do with the GP or my reply.
>You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.
I didn't start the discussion, the OP did. You're fractally wrong. And it's not my feelings, it's objective fact.
>If I were you I'd say strawman :-)
No you wouldn't because you're wrong, I'm not.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
>Look at these articles and tell me how many named studies are in gender studies, for instance.
It has an entire "social science" section. Google "replication crisis gender studies" for articles covering this.
>I don't really think you'll find bigger critics of the academy in other fields either.
Anecdotal non sequitur.
>These disciplines also don't classify themselves as "sciences" either as you would have it.
I didn't classify them as science, I copied a quote from the linked Wikipedia page above. They're poorly attempting to hop on the social/political science bandwagon but there's a problem. Grievance studies are not science to begin with. They're not an academic discipline at all. It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline.
I welcome this change. The less grievance studies majors there are, the better off society will be.
It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry.
This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0].
Both sides can play this nonsense game. Not every perceived slight is bigotry or -ism. Stating the fact that men cannot get pregnant isn't transphobic. Stating the fact that Black people per capita are more likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of violence isn't racist. The immediate push back to even broaching these subjects, facts, and findings is what got us here. We're not even capable of discussing anything because any deviation from the party line is immediately perceived as the worst of the "opposition". If you state you're pro-free speech, you're a fascist neo-Nazi. If you're pro-trans children you're a pedo child groomer. Nuance and the capability to talk across the aisle has sadly disappeared, and everyone just gaslights and projects about the other side being sexist, racist, anti-White, Europhobic, Islamophopic, antisemitic, etc.
Someone want to tell this lad about Western societies?
It sounds like the story just wasn’t for you but it strikes me as totally realistic to have a book with primarily or only White characters. These people congregate in groups because they understand each other better.
If only there was a way to have more than one location to store frozen foods in a home.
>And none of the expiration dates apply to refrigerated food
They don't. "Use or freeze by".
>That's how long you can leave it outside the fridge.
Which you wouldn't do if you're not using it.
hey qq which side is actively sexually grooming children?
how many times in the last two years has an "anti-woke" activist done a mass car killing targeting a specific group, and rioted in cities causing billions in damage?
Like there is simply no excuse for what you are endorsing here. You can blame le nazism all you want but people are literally being killed over this culture war bullshit you're pushing and you know that by now.
When I went to school in one of those states, and taught in one of those states, it was pretty obvious that the honors/AP classes most definitely were more rigorous, and that is supported by the evidence of performance of these students in tests and college success.
>but just a way to effectively continue segregation long after it had been made illegal.
Ah yes, the classrooms with an overrepresention of Jews and Asians is a White supremacist ploy.
>There was a slight complicating factor of class but even still it was very clear what was happening. The white children of farmers (who in rural areas are the upper class)
The vast, vast majority of of White farmers in these states are at or below the poverty line. They are by no means "upper class".
>the black and hispanic kids, along with most of the children of farm laborers were in the non-honors classes.
This holds true anywhere in the US, even in the darkest blue areas of NYC and SF.
>Having grown up in an environment like this I'm not so foolish as to take the leaders of those states or the general culture war right at face value.
Definitely agree here about those in the "woke" areas.
>They want segregation again and this is the closest they can get.
This is what wokeism is calling for, safe spaces and segregation for BIPOCs.
>You don't have to buy into it either.
The redder states definitely are not.
Anecdotally it's already started. I have some coworkers that are fleeing California for states like Florida, North Carolina, and Texas primarily for better school districts.
NYT is center-left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times
Jacobian is further left than that: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/jacobin-media-bias