If only we had a period in history where scientists weren't afraid of this kind of thing and had attempted to use science to demonstrate the differences between the sexes and the races. Then we could see if what they come up with was in fact complete trash that got outmoded by "SJW" science.

What do you object to, that it was misogynistic or that he was an old man? 72 doesn't seem that young.

What also baffles me about the whole Tim Hunt incident is the following.

In justice systems all over the world, there once used to be a rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Nowadays it´s often the opposite where someone gets sacked due to outside pressure or a SJW witchhunt and slowly the facts emerge and paint a very different picture of the whole incident.

With the sad result, that the career of a Nobel prize laureate got ruined due apparently wrong accusations.

What golden age are you guys thinking of when you imagine a time and place in which people could say whatever the **** they wanted at work?

If research is protested due to flawed methodology, I have no problem with setting a very low threshold.

But let´s say it blunt: Most research is of very questionable nature. You could link me a random study from a field of your choice and I could easily point out several methodological problems.

If research is protested due to the nature of the results, I see potential problems as I outlined in my previous posts.

Your problem here being that if you produce any research that got protested for its results alone, it invalidates your conspiracy that this stuff gets buried before anyone sees it. And since whatever great science gets buried, you can continue your conspiracy in the abstract.

No, I'll just stop listening to you because you offer feels without proofs.

My argument is that the researcher
-often doesn´t even conduct a study in a question that is related to things that the SJWs hold dear
-even if he does it, he buries the results and chooses not to publish
-even if he does it, he gets blocked by peer review or the journal
-he may decide to alter the results to be more PC in order to get his work published after investing months of his life

My whole point is that the research due to the reasons above doesn´t even reach the stage where it could be protested for its results alone.

The paper often ends up in a bin instead of in a journal.

The results flow from the methodology. Lord's example was arguably someone posting bigoted results that didn't follow from his research, which wasn't in his field to begin with for which he was protested etc. If research is actually being protested because it doesn't fit the status quo that's bad but we haven't been shown any examples of it. Which makes this all seem like more bull**** from the anti-sjw crowd.

This is indeed a concrete unfalsifiable conspiracy you have going.

I saw a police officer declare that 'civil disobedience can continue until 4:00' like they were in total control of deciding when protest and civil disobedience begins and ends. Talk about missing the purpose.

It always is with these OSJers.

What won't we ever know: (a) Who these SJWers are. If we knew, it wouldn't be a conspiracy, now would it. (b) Why? Do they just hate 'Murica?, and (c) How do they do whatever it is that they do, and keep it all covered up at the same time?

Arizona Republicans want to make their state a safe space for conservative snowflakes by outlawing peaceful protest.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/...n-on-protests/

I answered c) in my previous posts. Because every researcher is strongly disincentivized to speak out about the increasing groupthink, which results in even once prestigious universities becoming echo chambers.

If you face ostracism, destruction of your career, not being able to support your loved ones and so on you clearly see how powerful the disincentives are.

But you can't show that happening can you?

You have no evidence of this.

I believe prof gad saad talked about that. said something like it's restricting. brought other people onto his channel to discuss.

I don't expect anyone to watch his videos, but for reference: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH...HA7RegA/videos

Of course not. This is all warmed over cold war era Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

Another problem that 'Research Truthers' have is universities don't have any monopoly on research. There's plenty of private think tanks who are perfectly capable of do this "cutting edge" research. Hell, if they all just kicked down 5¢ every time they whine on the interwebs, the OSJers could crowd source this "cutting edge" research by Tuesday afternoon.

Sorry OSJers, nobody said peddling conspiracy theory is easy

It's just stunning that these guys storm in with their stalwart dedication to truth and integrity and then act surprised that falsifiability got mentioned. Stunning.

That doesn´t mean that it isn´t happening. Due to the reasons I outlined in my previous posts it will be really hard to obtain evidence to support my claims. But there have been researchers of reputable universities claiming the exact same stuff.

Juan Valdez posted some interviews where they shared the same concerns that I share in this thread.

When did I act surprised that falsifiability got mentioned? Again, you are making things up. I know that my hypothetical example is not falsifiable, but this was not the reason for bringing it up.
It is necessary to argument in a hypothetical way, because real evidence is hard to obtain and I also didn´t have the time and the resources to build a strong case.

So come back when your ideas are falsifiable and not abstract conspiracy theories.

So you have no evidence of a thing, but this thing is so pernicious academics are avoiding whole swaths of research just because of it? That smells a lot like bull**** or something not worth worrying about.

Its disgusting safe spaces and PC culture is even being discussed with **** like this going on and the other attacks on the first amendment.

It baffles me as well. Who is the source for lord, tsoa, and wil to get so amped up about PC? Is it scott Adams? Utube? I see the same arguments verbatim on FB..."hes not racist. this is exactly why trump won"..face palm.

Not many of the arguments are new. People have been complaining about leftist (commie back in the day) professors and colleges corrupting the youth for a long time. MLK was a race-baiter who needed to stfu because he was hurting race relations. Any criticisms by whites against whites was said to be white guilt. Nothing new under the sun.