Underbelly of academia

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik


This is defiantly true, academia isn't really interested in the truth these days and are very self serving.


The original video seems to of been taken down... was it rehosted anywhere? I didn't get the chance to see it. :cry:

Bumping this thread to share similar material of academia being a massive joke.



Anti-idpol left wing academics, among other things, re-wrote a section of Mein Kampf in progressive jargon and got published in a journal. the parodies write themselves.


Grievance Studies.... oh my gosh.... this is too funny. It's satire made real. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
You want to see the real underbelly of academia, look for the charities/non-profits prof's are on the boards of or partner with.

They can do things schools cannot, and are under far less scrutiny.

For example?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I read a two hundred page doctoral dissertation from some sociology professor about “white supremacist channels on YouTube” last night.

I am absolutely of the opinion we need to get rid of about 99% of the “social sciences”.

The nonsense and madness we see on the streets and media today comes out of the bowels of academia. Where it is basically official doctrine.

Modern academia is pretty much unapologetically in the business of promoting leftist politics. And they will admit as much in their own literature.

It needs to be dismantled.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I read a two hundred page doctoral dissertation from some sociology professor about “white supremacist channels on YouTube” last night.

I am absolutely of the opinion we need to get rid of about 99% of the “social sciences”.

The nonsense and madness we see on the streets and media today comes out of the bowels of academia. Where it is basically official doctrine.

Modern academia is pretty much unapologetically in the business of promoting leftist politics. And they will admit as much in their own literature.

It needs to be dismantled.
No, the problem isn't the science itself. Sociology has important things to say. The problem is when there is a lack of science in these sciences. These 'scientists' aren't doing science. Instead they are starting with a conclusion, then proceeding backwards.
 

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
Grievance Studies.... oh my gosh.... this is too funny. It's satire made real. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

I have immense respect for the academics who put this satire together. Some have said they did this just for publicity (as opposed to real academics, who have no interest in being publically recognized for their efforts and reaping the benefits of that recognition :rolleyes:) but really they've done something that is very difficult, very time consuming, and very unrewarding. I mean, not everyone gets to be Jordan Peterson. In fact, only Jordan Peterson gets to be Jordan Peterson. There is no monetizing this. No Patreon, no youtube revenue, no celebrity appearances. They'll get a few mainstream news articles and nothing else. I hope I'm wrong, and indeed I might be, but my point is that rationally speaking, going into this they could have had no expectation that it would benefit their careers. So the whole idea that this is a "publicity stunt" strikes me as nonsensical.

Others have taken the position that nothing they've published is really that extreme. Indeed, it fits perfectly within the critical theory canon and should be widely accepted. In a sense these naysayers have a point. Here is some of what was published:

Many papers advocated highly dubious ethics including training men like dogs (“Dog Park”), punishing white male college students for historical slavery by asking them to sit in silence in the floor in chains during class and to be expected to learn from the discomfort (“Progressive Stack”), celebrating morbid obesity as a healthy life-choice (“Fat Bodybuilding”), treating privately conducted masturbation as a form of sexual violence against women (“Masturbation”), and programming superintelligent AI with irrational and ideological nonsense before letting it rule the world (“Feminist AI”)...becoming seemingly mystified about why heterosexual men are attracted to women (“Hooters”), insisting there is something to be learned about feminism by having four guys watch thousands of hours of hardcore pornography over the course of a year while repeatedly taking the Gender and Science Implicit Associations Test (“Porn”), expressing confusion over why people are more concerned about the genitalia others have when considering having sex with them (“CisNorm”), and recommending men anally self-penetrate in order to become less transphobic, more feminist, and more concerned about the horrors of rape culture (“Dildos”).

Does any of this sound, as a Sietch user well versed in clown world nonsense, out of the ordinary? Does it sound particularly extreme, given the context? It really doesn't to me. I'm sure I've read Salon and Vice articles advocating a number of these things in the past few years, and that's no joke. Indeed, the authors of this study recognize this:

Put another way, we now have good reasons to believe that if we just appropriate the existing literature in the right ways—and there always seems to be a citation or vein of literature that makes it possible—we can say almost any politically fashionable thing we want. The underlying questions in every single case were the same: What do we need to write, and what do we need to cite (all of our citations are real, by the way) to get this academic madness published as high “scholarship”?

What they point to here is extremely important, and explains the stunning success of their study (publishing this many papers in this many reputable journals in this short of a time is really impressive, regardless of content). They met the only two criteria that really matter when it comes to getting published: style and ideology. The style—their choice of words, of phrases, of constructing their arguments—fits perfectly with critical theorist norms. In addition, the ideological perspective of their work matched that of the publishing outlets. This is ultimately what allowed their papers to be read with an uncritical eye, and pass whatever passes for peer review at these journals. Review the following list of recent papers in Gender, Place, and Culture, one of the journals that accepted an article:
  • "Privilege, Power, and Dungeons & Dragons: How Systems Shape Racial and Gender Identities in Tabletop Role-Playing Games"
  • "The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins"
  • "Drone Disorientations: How 'Unmanned' Weapons Queer the Experience of Killing in War"
  • "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon"
Do any of these pieces seem out of place? Absent prior knowledge, would you be able to tell which one is a hoax? Of course not.

This is all to say that though the style and ideology fit—and this is what many of their critics noted, in saying that really this was not a huge deal and everything said matched with prior theory—the content left much to be desired:

Our papers also present very shoddy methodologies including incredibly implausible statistics (“Dog Park”), making claims not warranted by the data (“CisNorm,” “Hooters,” “Dildos”), and ideologically-motivated qualitative analyses (“CisNorm,” “Porn”). (NB: See Papers section below.) Questionable qualitative methodologies such as poetic inquiry and autoethnography (sometimes rightly and pejoratively called “mesearch”) were incorporated (especially in “Moon Meetings”)...There was also considerable silliness including claiming to have tactfully inspected the genitals of slightly fewer than 10,000 dogs whilst interrogating owners as to their sexuality (“Dog Park”).

To summarize, we spent 10 months writing the papers, averaging one new paper roughly every thirteen days. (Seven papers published over seven years is frequently claimed to be the number sufficient to earn tenure at most major universities although, in reality, requirements vary by institution.) As for our performance, 80% of our papers overall went to full peer review, which keeps with the standard 10-20% of papers that are “desk rejected” without review at major journals across the field.

In short, the data they produced to back up their research and the claims they made based on that data was entirely contrived or as they phrased it "shoddy, absurd, unethical and politically-biased". The scaffolding—the style, the ideology, the citations—was there, but the building was a mirage. And despite that they managed to get a bunch of these damn papers published. Again, some critics have said the same thing could happen in any field. I guess. But I really don't think fudging lab numbers to get an NIH grant is the same epistemologically speaking as making baseless, unsubstantiated, and dishonest claims about human sexuality and conclusions from these claims and having them published. And hey, maybe I'm wrong. After all, one thing you learn about science in the humanities is that science is complete and utter horseshit internally (that is, we constantly discuss its problems and biases and its lack of objectivity) but the indisputable truth externally (that is, when speaking to proles who have doubts about global warming or something). But then again it doesn't come as a surprise to me (and probably doesn't come as a surprise to you) that arguing and acting in bad faith is a fundamental aspect of modern academia.

The more that I think about it, though, I suppose the "flaws" in the content of their articles aren't actually flawed from a critical theorist's perspective. That is, they affirm certain "truths" about the "nature" of "humanity" (all concepts they disavow as reifications even as they discuss the indisputable importance of power relations, but only as they relate to White Men and Western Civilization and Christianity). So sure, the data about dog-fucking may be cooked, but really, the conclusions are accurate. The ends prove the means. It's a total inversion of how academic inquiry is (in theory) supposed to work, but isn't that the entire point? That whole sequence of evidence -> conclusion is a bigoted Western concept anyways. We've seen it recently with Kavanaugh. Guilty until proven innocent. It's the same damn thing.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that even in attempting to demonstrate that this study proves nothing, its critics demonstrate its relevance. Their arguments against it boil down to, essentially, these dishonest trashy piece of crap papers that a bunch of academic nobodies shit out in a few days for a fucking laugh are fundamentally true. The authors may not have intended it, but they accidentally published acceptable papers! And isn't that the truth? These papers were acceptable, and they are acceptable. What the authors describe as their "shoddy" process is the normal process for writing papers grounded in critical theory, which almost all (and I can tell you as the ashamed holder of an MA in History that is not an exaggeration) humanities papers are these days. Even as the academic establishment, supported by its braindead lackies in the media and on social media in places like Reddit, carry water for the scam that is the peer review process, they damn themselves.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
For example?
Well, there was a...'research and experimental farm' that I know of that sheltered likely illegal immigrants and has 'network' of other similar farms that the work with across the nation.

It has board members who are prof's at the nearby university, in their Master's of Environmental Management program. The program does activities there for the program as well, though mostly unofficially and off the clock. But anyone in the program can apply to use space there for projects, and many do.

Not going to be any more specific for privacy reasons.

But I have no doubt other liberal arts schools have people doing similar things, given all the shenanigans liberal academia has gotten up to.
 

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
cWlYRfc.png
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
In the world of ETHNOMATHEMATICS, 2+2=oppression and ‘achievement’ is a white supremacist construct

Led deep into the Twilight Zone by this theoretical spelunking, Seattle’s ethnic studies educators have declared their predecessors had this ‘achievement gap’ thing all wrong. It’s not that minority kids are failing – though thanks to initiatives like Common Core and the maniacal focus on standardized testing at the exclusion of all else, they certainly are, in greater numbers than ever. No, it’s that teachers are wrongfully imposing colonial constructs like ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’ on them.

The only way to truly decolonialize the classroom is for the teacher to dispense with white supremacist notions of achievement and opportunity, according to Tracy Castro-Gill, a Seattle ethnic studies instructor who prides herself on exclusively bullying white people (seriously). Because closing opportunity gaps is often measured in improved test scores, Castro-Gill reasons, the very concept of such gaps – like standardized tests themselves – must be racist.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Given the lack of maintenance infrastructure gets, you can start building up the fear now, before the full blown Idiocracy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top