They are GG'ing inheritance tax, another step away from meritocracy.

Yeah I'd love to see a link to your books, I'm incredibly curious at this point.

What. How would you "peer review" like, opinion journalism? I literally think you don't know what "peer review" means, or maybe this is some sort of TOEFL thing and it means something different in your country.

Also, WHAT publication history? He didn't write Clinton Cash.

I'm unable to find anything he's written in book form, so by his "publication history" I think you mean
http://www.breitbart.com/author/stephen-k-bannon/

LOL like I said the small pond has tricked you into thinking you're something you're not.

I honestly don't get why there are continued calls for my banning. Strange environment.

I just want you to cite your peer-reviewed books.

I guess technically academic books will be subjected to a review by peers prior to an editor signing off but you're making that mistake where you're potentially getting embroiled in some tangent when the main claims of that post are clearly bollocks.

Personally I doubt a guy who spams his youtubes at every opportunity isn't spamming his 5 books.

It depends wildly on the journal. But it looks like you're operating with a different definition of peer review if you're applying it to books.

We all know how the "meritocracy" Republicans felt about us playing online poker

Cite your books that have been through peer review. Offline to a mod if you prefer to not link your real name to your 2+2 account.

People want to ban you because you make idiotic claim after idiotic claim, never providing an ounce of evidence.

I have actually published in peer reviewed journals, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I am happy to also cite them offline.

This is the root of the scheme, not Brietbart or Bannon himself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern...lity_Institute

https://www.g-a-i.org/

And the peer reviewed comment was just nonsense on the part of that poster, and he doubled down on that nonsensical claim for some reason. Obviously when we say peer review we mean something much different than someone you define as a peer reviewing something you have authored.

But the GAI pushing research that frames public opinion about entrenched political interests, and Bannon's involvement in that, is very much real.

Different disciplines operate differently.

Some put a premium on journal articles, others on monographs.

In this country outputs are rated by a system called REF. Up to four stars. In my discipline for four stars you generally need a book.

In something like psychology or politics, they are more likely to give a high rating to journal articles.

Peer review happens in both cases and in both cases the readers are fellow academics.

I don't know what Bannon could or could not get published, but this kind of hero worship is definitely at the root of support for fascism. You see it from people who claim not to think Hitler was good, but are just very interested in him and they paint him as a superman.

Still, not knowing that much about Bannon, I'll put it out there that he's mildly smart at best and is just a devious bastard who craves power. He's a child abusing, wife abusing hack who luckboxed his way into a piece of Seinfeld. If he wouldn't have failed as a movie producer so badly (The Indian Runner had a $7m budget and grossed $191k) he wouldn't have turned to making propaganda for the ignorant.

Sure, I guess. I don't see an 501(c)(3) as some nefarious evil genius organization. Political "charitable" think tank white paper/propagandist bs'ers/right wing book makers/grifters are a dime a dozen, at the least. That's like step 1 of being in the right wing political game.

I honestly thought he mentioned journals in the podcast, if he didn't apologies I got that wrong.

But the main claim I made, other than that detail, was correct.

People are seriously suggesting I get banned because I thought I heard a guy say "journal"?

I don't really see why it matters. The key principle is the same.

How highly rated are yootoobes?

Is there a press briefing today at 12:30? Can't find any link to it.

Every shady salespersonish person I've ever known in business has either had or talked about setting up a non-profit to take advantage of one thing or another.

I suspect you could put together an impact case study based on youtubes as evidence of public engagement. And I'm sure that has already been done.

I have a podcast series that has a good following and which has been cited in journals etc.

Obviously I keep my own YT channel completely secret.

What is really at stake in this post though?

It's basically just about controlling a narrative.

Bannon can't be ingenious or special or clever for you, he has to be dime a dozen, stupid, lucky, incompetent.

Can I ask why that is?

This. Like, cheers, Steve-o. Generous of you.

Well, OK, but this is something we saw a lot during the campaign.

Trump activated a lot of very reactionary but previously apolitical internet weirdos who see literally every step of basic campaigning as A MASTERSTROKE OF MANIPULATION because they are incredibly sheltered and their usual media consumption diet of hentai and vidya memes maybe didn't clue them into the existence of opposition research.

Steve Bannon did not invent the idea of pitching the media on negative stories about a ****ing Presidential candidate. It's not some genius 12th dimensial chess move that only the cagy Breitbart team could've come up with, it's basic PR.

Think tanks literally solely exist for this purpose, and they exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

Why would he waste time publishing things in low prestige journals that nobody is going to read? There isn't any reason to think he's THAT dumb.

it does not claim that.

I listened to that episode when it came out.

and just listened to it again. bannon tries to get deceitful crap that hes funded to be reported by the msm but he hasnt really succeeded.

the closest hes came is helping to fund the clinton cash thing.

I mean, to me, that seems pretty damn far from peer reviewed research obv.

2:00 PM according to this feed (not vouching for it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIVdoGeVP4

It does mean that, but in a specific way. An academic book or paper is normally submitted by the editors to an 'anonymous reviewer' (anonymous as far as the author is concerned) for comment before publication. The reviewer is supposed to be an expert in the same field, so it's probably someone the author knows or knows of, but they aren't told who.