Gender studies hoax exposes leftist ideologies

[Vlad]

The male penis causes climate change.

A never should have been published "paper" comprised of unintelligible strings of words actually gets published.

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

Quote:Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

Quote:If you’re having trouble understanding what any of that means, there are two important points to consider. First, we don’t understand it either. Nobody does. This problem should have rendered it unpublishable in all peer-reviewed, academic journals.

If not exposed as a hoax, this would make perfect sense to liberals The penis causes climate change, and climate change causes terrorism.
How the hoax was conducted:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 09:49 AM)Vlad Wrote: The male penis causes climate change.

A never should have been published "paper" comprised of unintelligible strings of words actually gets published.

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

If not exposed as a hoax, this would make perfect sense to liberals The penis causes climate change, and climate change causes terrorism.
How the hoax was conducted:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

Don't lie...you were gonna post this to show far the "lefties" have gone and then found out it was a hoax. 

[*michaelsean*]

I mean that was a scientific study unto itself. At first you think they are just trying to make jackasses out of someone, but really they are showing issues with pay-to-publish and some of the more non-sensical postmodern philosophies. I especially like that they attack the ridiculous abuse of jargon.

[Belsnickel]

I look at a lot of social science journals, never seen this one. Not the article, I'm talking the journal itself. Open access journals are neat in theory, but they tend to face less rigorous standards than some of the more quintessential journals in the different fields. So this article being published does not surprise me too much. It also doesn't surprise me that this will be used to attack social sciences, liberalism, academia, etc., without taking this sort of thing into account.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2017, 10:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I look at a lot of social science journals, never seen this one. Not the article, I'm talking the journal itself. Open access journals are neat in theory, but they tend to face less rigorous standards than some of the more quintessential journals in the different fields. So this article being published does not surprise me too much. It also doesn't surprise me that this will be used to attack social sciences, liberalism, academia, etc., without taking this sort of thing into account.

They went to pretty good lengths to point out the pay to publish aspect, and the specific area of postmodern gender studies.

[BmorePat87]

Ignorance of science transcends left or right. Just look at David Wolfe and all of the "progressive" anti-vaxxers.

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 10:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They went to pretty good lengths to point out the pay to publish aspect, and the specific area of postmodern gender studies.

I know, and that is the focus of those that did this. However, there is a large swath of people that will ignore the fact that these sorts of journals do not represent the the research journals that are truly respected in the different fields. They will use this to attack all social sciences or all of academia while ignoring that this is like using ITT Tech, DeVry, or Capella to attack Stanford, or UMass, or UGA.

[Bengalzona]

(05-26-2017, 10:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ignorance of science transcends left or right. Just look at David Wolfe and all of the "progressive" anti-vaxxers.

The anti-vaxxers out West here are a strange mix of evangelical conservatives and hippy-type progressives. 

Strange bedfellows, to say the least.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2017, 10:44 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The anti-vaxxers out West here are a strange mix of evangelical conservatives and hippy-type progressives. 

Strange bedfellows, to say the least.

There seemed to be a lot of non-hippie non-evangelical anti-vaccine people as well.  I don't know that there was any grouping they could be put in outside of anti-vaccine.  

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2017, 10:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ignorance of science transcends left or right. Just look at David Wolfe and all of the "progressive" anti-vaxxers.

I just want to make sure i understand how that was done.  Peer review can only determine that the conclusion you arrived at is solid based upon the data that is presented to them.  it would be a step below replication.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Ah, pay-to-publish.

So the "authors" of a nonsense paper paid their hard earned cash to a group of capitalists who will publish your nonsense as long as you pay in order to prove pay-to-publish sites are a scam and in doing so they got scammed? And the scammers are laughing all the way to the bank. The paper is a hoax and the business which published the hoax is a scam.

And because some unethical businessmen will do anything for a buck, including publishing a nonsense paper, you think that exposes leftist ideologies?

I'm laughing my ass off because it proves pay-to-publish sites are scams operated by shady businessmen who will do anything to make a buck.

[Bengalzona]

(05-26-2017, 10:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: There seemed to be a lot of non-hippie non-evangelical anti-vaccine people as well.  I don't know that there was any grouping they could be put in outside of anti-vaccine.  

True. It is a pretty diverse group. My impression is that most are female, but I have no stats.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2017, 10:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ah, pay-to-publish.

So the "authors" of a nonsense paper paid their hard earned cash to a group of capitalists who will publish your nonsense as long as you pay in order to prove pay-to-publish sites are a scam and in doing so they got scammed?  And the scammers are laughing all the way to the bank. The paper is a hoax and the business which published the hoax is a scam.

And because some unethical businessmen will do anything for a buck, including publishing a nonsense paper, you think that exposes leftist ideologies?

I'm laughing my ass off because it proves pay-to-publish sites are scams operated by shady businessmen who will do anything to make a buck.

Did you read the whole thing?  They pretty much agreed with you.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2017, 10:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I just want to make sure i understand how that was done.  Peer review can only determine that the conclusion you arrived at is solid based upon the data that is presented to them.  it would be a step below replication.

If you give me $100, I'll peer review that for you. Although your statement isn't suitable for the bengalsboard.com PNR forum, I know another site, immaripyouoff.org that it would be perfect to publish.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2017, 11:00 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you give me $100, I'll peer review that for you. Although your statement isn't suitable for the bengalsboard.com PNR forum, I know another site, immaripyouoff.org that it would be perfect to publish.

$75.  for $100 I'll want two.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2017, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Did you read the whole thing?  They pretty much agreed with you.

I'm not the person who claimed a rip off exposed left ideologies. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing because I quickly realized the pay-to-publish company was a scam. But, some people will swallow anything hooker, line, and sinker. To be clear, I don't think you're one of those people.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2017, 11:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: $75.  for $100 I'll want two.

If you don't believe the benefit your career will receive by being published in a prestigious, peer reviewed journal is worth it then maybe this isn't the right fit for both of us. The $100 fee I quoted you is already 30% less than our usually fee. I'm only lowering the price because I think your work is so valuable to society. But, if my boss finds out I'm offering unapproved discounts he'll fire me. You seem like a nice person. You wouldnt want me to lose my job, would you?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-26-2017, 11:00 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you give me $100, I'll peer review that for you. Although your statement isn't suitable for the bengalsboard.com PNR forum, I know another site, immaripyouoff.org that it would be perfect to publish.

.org? It must be legit then. Here's my money, sir!

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-26-2017, 10:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ignorance of science transcends left or right. Just look at David Wolfe and all of the "progressive" anti-vaxxers.

I have a better example: all of the anti-gmo drones running around.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2017, 07:49 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I have a better example: all of the anti-gmo drones running around.

Ugh. I really don't know which is worse. I know so many people that are on that particular kick. That and the whole gluten-free trend. I know well educated, otherwise logical people that have fallen for both of these things. I have a hard time not discussing the bad science behind these things.