/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10508587
we should cleanse the retarded femoids who keep pushing this bullshit with their emotional, childish arguments

>>10508621
>"what, are you from the 1950s?"

>>10508621
>Femoids

Go back to braincels, kissless virgin. LMAO.

>>10508587
No one proposed “cleansing science of white males”. Please return to your containment board.

>>10508629
I don't have a containment board, hwite incels who think science belongs to them should go there instead.
With increasing diversity POC will be published more while white male authors will have less opportunities to be published, and that's a good thing.

>>10508587
If you figure out something truly groundbreaking, it'll get published anyway. The only "problem" with this is that white men will get unfairly pushed since the affirmative action will take the spots of higher performing individuals. In essence, this will force the already higher performing individuals to perform even better in order to get the recognition they crave.

It's basically sandbagging. That's how i look at it anyway. I have to perform better in order to get to the same level, making me stronger and undeniably better then whoever got into whatever by having a certain skin color or sexual orientation.

>>10508587

affirmative action in stem fields, absolutely disgusting.

>>10508631
Nope. No one proposed reducing the total amount of publications.

>>10508632
Nope. White men are given an unfair advantage.

>>10508632
This about sums it up.
>>10508639
Exactly, but I assume the amount of publication stays the same and by publishing mediocre papers written by "diverse" authors it reduces the opportunities for good papers by "non-diverse" authors.

>>10508647
No one proposed lowering peer-review standards for the sake of diversity, only making the demographics visible on an aggregate level and individual level if so wished.

>>10508648
fair enough, but then what does "increased diversity and gender balance in our review process" mean?
How do this concepts improve review process compared to a "blind" review?

>>10508587
okay science is not for me then
where to go now?

>>10508587
>About time we cleanse
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>10508659
we are coming to replace you, whiteboi :^)

>>10508621
Kys virgin we need more females in STEM, the age of white men is over deal with it.

The concept of scientific truth is on its death bed. "Educated" people's derive their truth today primarily from consensus of authority figures in and outside of science.

In the future, truth will be determined only according to want the perceived oppressed groups identify as truth through their own distinct cultural insights. Evidence will be weighted based on the author's "privilege", ensuring "diverse" groups get equity.

The future is going to be terrible. You better prepare for this because it is coming. Put yourself in a position where you could disrupt key infrastructure.

what a fucking mockery of a clown world we live in

>>10508648
it's an implicit part of the quoted text

>>10508645
weak b8

Doesn't matter the publishers who push for diversity will usually shit out garbage after garbage paper and lose reputation.

>>10508840
>and lose reputation
unlikely. at least in America, all the major scientific organizations are fully on-board with the diversity train and are perfectly happy to sacrifice results for better optics

>>10508749
And to think 10 years from now this post would hit your social credit score hard enough to curtail your freedom of speech and internet access

>>10508847
Then you don't post it in 10 years. Only spoiled privileged idiots have this idea of being able to speak their minds and opinions at any given moment, even under anonymity. Passive aggressive scorns and a big fat juicy "i told you so" as the world is ripped to shreds is the way to go. Paradigms change.

>>10508621
>>10508629
>>10508677

It's not women pushing this but niggers. You think all the diversity stuff benefits white women? Affirmative Action puts race first gender second, they get hurt harder as suddenly their higher scores mean they don't get good placement. Asians have the same problem.

Ask yourself why Jews never list themselves as white.

Also /sci/ is not /r9k/ and /r9k/ falseflagging doesn't belong here.

>>10508936
>Ask yourself why Jews never list themselves as white.
We do. Our scores are high enough that it doesn't matter. Plus our connections.

>>10508647
you act as though mediocre papers from male authors don't get published over good papers from females

>>10508936
>You think all the diversity stuff benefits white women?
It does, and objectively so. In fact they have benefited more than any other underrepresented group

>>10508936
>>10509115
>implying this all has anything to do rational self-interest for 98% of the population

>>10509139

>>10509109
what absolute twaddle

if a publication is genuinely worried that that happens, though, they can elide names from the review process and solve the "problem" enitrely. nah, instead they want to to know your race and everything else about your identity so they can make race-based decisions in the name of not making race-based decisions.

>>10509109
Hard sciences only care about the content sweaty.

>>10508632
This is not true at all though.

Imagine being retarded and bluepilled enough to care about the authors race or sex when deciding whether to publish a paper.

>>10509846
Post an example of a woman who couldn't get a scientific breakthrough published, that was later recognized to be interesting.

>>10508936
They do. If there was a separate field for Jews their outsized accolades (even when adjusted for IQ and other factors) would be an issue, especially in the current environment of "one group does well, punish them!"

>>10508632
It has nothing to do with white men you retard. The author will just have their work viewed more highly due to prior success. It has nothing to do with their race and if you really believe so then you honestly deserve to be discriminated against. Not because of your race, but for being a bitter and deluded cunt of a human being.

>>10509851
You do the same of a male.

>>10509856
You'll never find out exactly which white males have been displaced by diversity hiring. Their existence can only be inferred from the gaping holes of incompetence left in the positions they would otherwise have filled.

>>10509863
Bonglet here,
Is that what American unis have ended up like?

>>10509870
>britbong uni
Lad.

>>10508587
hahahah this isn't real right hahahah...............

>>10509885
Blue pints are only £1 mate!

>>10508858
t. subhuman third worlder

>>10509855
*hebraic screeching*

>>10509150
Your tear-filled eyes may have missed this but they're talking about the peer reviewers, not the authors.

>>10509899
Im not religous mate. Youre just blaming peoples shit research skills on their race/sex instead of blaming the real cause: them being a worse employee for a job.

Sorry that that retards like you have to attribute failure to succeed to race and sex so much that you create reverse discrimination to feel good about yourselves.

If you actually cared or understood science then you wouldnt care about the researchers ethnicity or sex, and would care if the research is actually good or not. Actual progress would favour a good paper by a white person than a shit paper by a black person. The reverse also works in that a good paper by a black person is preferred over a shit paper by a white person. Screeching about 'muh white male' shows how retarded you really are.

>>10509913
See pic in >>10508587
>We are striving for...

>>10509916
I dont care if theyre white or not. I care if the research is good.

>>10509918
Nobody gives a shit what you care about, faggot. Way to miss the entire point of the thread.

>>10509927
What? Am I supposed to respond 'xd nice meme showing those sjw niggers/white males who's boss' in response to a not even funny shitpost.

>>10509913
>Im not religous mate
I didn’t say you were, shlomo

>>10509964
Implying anyone but jews write in hebraic which you said my post was.