Reset
Page 1 of 1 Pages
Posts Per Page
mitchcute commented 1 month ago
#7539

 

A gigantic joke. The operation of academic journals is as follows: researchers send their work, the result of research; if the editor finds it interesting, he sends it to a series of critics who carry out a thorough reading; These review the arguments and sources of the research and propose changes and improvements to the authors.

It is a process that lasts for months, the purpose of which is to maintain a standard of excellence in publishing.

Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose passed all of these tests with outright atrocities. In 'Human Reactions to the Culture of Rape and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon', allegedly investigated hundreds of dogs that shelter in Portland parks, questioned their owners about their sexuality and, after a flurry of academic jargon and false statistics, concluded that if feminism wants to destroy the culture of rape, the best thing is educate men like pets .

The magazine's management not only published the findings, but said they should extend a scholarship to the authors and award them some kind of prize.

They were reproached, yes, that perhaps they had violated the pets a little when examining their genitals .

Another article that passed all the filters was"Entering the Back Door: Challenging Homohystery, Transhystery, and Transphobia of Heterosexual Man with Sex Toys ," where they recommended that straight white men dildo themselves to become "less transphobic, more feminist, and more aware of the horrors of the culture of rape ”.

In 'Who are they to judge? Overcoming anthropometry through fat bodybuilding ', they argued that obesity is also a form of bodybuilding that should be respected as much as sport.

It was published in the most prestigious academic publication on the planet specialized in what they now call “non-regulatory bodies”.

On the Joe Rogan radio show, which was enthusiastic about the experiment, the authors laugh, explaining that their critique points against the basic and foundational notions of the postmodern left and contemporary humanities studies, according to which all of Western society orbits intersectional power dynamics.

The researchers decided to apply the perspective of oppression to different crackpots. Its articles justified that the bank man, holder of all privileges, was treated with the utmost cruelty, so that he ends up "voluntarily" abandoning his position of power. Two articles delved into this line delusionally. In one, the authors cited phrases from Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' replacing the word "Jew" with the word "white man" with results like this: " if we do not eradicate the white man we will celebrate the funeral of humanity . " In another They proposed a school activity to make white children aware of their privilege, which consisted of chaining them to the ground so that girls and boys of other races publicly humiliated them.

But, as in Milan Kundera's 'No One is Going to Laugh' story, the joke was not going to shake up the corrupt power structures of academic humanities departments.

The academics were going to launch themselves against them with absolute aggressiveness to destroy them.

And this is the second part of this story.

Revenge of the stupid

The three authors have since been subjected to frontal attacks, often anonymous, and feel helpless because other colleagues do not dare to defend them publicly for fear of being considered fascists.

James A. Lindsay explains it to me in these words: "My friend (an academic) explained this to me saying:" they know that you have them, but everyone who agrees with you is too scared to say it. "

Peter Boghossian, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Portland, has suffered the most direct and destructive attacks. A group of colleagues from his university anonymously published a pamphlet, which they distributed throughout the campus, where they assured that he is a friend of the Trump government and part of the 'Alt-Right'. Boghossian says he never votes for a Republican and is also a member of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, an organization that defends critical thinking and scientific dissemination from the point of view of atheism.

He says he is sorry: "I thought this would be largely a wake-up call (on department corruption) for those within these disciplines, but no." Everything is divided between attacks and silence. "It is as if (those affected) were trying to pretend that the scandal never happened."

I ask him if he detects in his colleagues fear of defending them publicly, if they feel isolated in a bell of silence, if they think they have become radioactive. He replies that “yes, I think so, it is so to a certain extent. There is so much polarization right now that there is a tremendous fear of being seen as part of or in alliance with the Other Side. People are losing friends over the political divide, and that will likely lead to silencing people who would otherwise speak. This effect seems to be more powerful in academia, which is deeply saddening and deeply troubling. "

All three professors are very blunt about the danger posed by this corruption of the humanities departments. They explain that the theories that arise in these departments are responsible for the fact that the Anglo-Saxon humanities campuses have become terrifying places for any dissident or independent voice.

They warn that the worst thing is that, from the University, this is spread to the press, and from the press to politics. The effect for society is devastating when anyone who attempts to criticize these identically and politically correct positions from within the left is purged. "You are accused of being a member of the 'alt-right' and the debate has ended there."

 


Information!  Use the form below to reply to this forum thread or, to reply to an individual post, use the "Quote" button on the relevant post.