/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15301809
>i thought this was a meme
Getting kind of boring telling you fags I told you so this much. I hope you werent one of the retards laughing like a donkey when I told you this was your future

>>15301809
You didn't stop the trannies when they knocked at the door. You didn't uphold the standard of sciences. what you inherited, what has been hard fought and won, what has been built by great people before you. they have been infected with a terminal disease, with a cancer called "woke" and "DEI". science will die. and it is because you did nothing. you gave up your legacy for job sercurity. you all should be ashamed.

>>15301885
my job is not to do political advocacy anon. the only people who say that “scientists have to be political” are the wok eaters themselves. i think it is entirely “conservative” for a scientist like me to take the mentality that politics should be kept out of my day-to-day and instead focus on science

i think really the problem is the funding agencies who not only inject politics into science via their control over research grants but also (via stipulations of grant renewals) encourage the hiring of some sort of new wave of scientists who think being political in every way possible is actually GOOD and invariably are obsessed with postmodernist critical theory tropes (i.e. left wing wokeism)

to the contrary i think science should be DEpoliticized

>>15301905
>wok eaters
*wokesters

>>15301905
irresponsible and dishonest. first you behaved like a coward for years on end and now you're denying what you did. if you're unable to speak the truth on this topic, no doubt you're also a cancerous replication crisis contributor. less than worthless, as toxic as the trannies and feminists themselves, one of their allies.

>>15301809
Affirmative action hiring for females in physics faculties.

>>15301809
Physics is not le "hard science". It is in fact very fragile, and most of it is guesswork at best.
Chemistry is the hardest science.

>>15301809
Bro hard science means human language. Yeah that is becoming obsolete. Look at how well AI manipulates reality. Future science will be done by machines in a language that humans can't understand. We'll just build the thing AI tells us to build and won't have to know why it works.

I suppose we will get to study AI scientist's results and learn from them, like the grandmasters after AlphaGo

>>15302053
>muh comic book plot is gonna come true in irl

>>15301809
Everything is failing because they sabotage smart people and promote retards.

>>15301809
>turned the social sciences into a joke
Dismissing all of social science as "a joke" is a bit too far. Lots and lots of rich and fascinating things come from social science. I'll be the first to agree plenty of social science is a joke and plenty of people in it are clowns. But dismissing all of the good people and science in social science, and I get that you're being hyperbolic even then, no need to throw it under the bus.

And as your own thread makes the point, lots of hard science is going the same way. Physics in particular has also taken to arbitrarily inventing stuff regarding string theory and such in a very similar way to theology.

Told you about letting the Asians in bro

>dude sits by and does nothing, says nothing while a bunch of fags take over
>WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME?
because you're a spineless coward who only cares about picking up a paycheck. maybe spend less time here and more time memorizing coworker pronouns, otherwise the paychecks is gonna end. one it gets canned for fucking up a pronoun, the word gets out that its a transphobe or sexist and nobody else will hire it

>>15301809
>somehow as i’ve gotten into more advanced stages of my career in physics, i have become more and more convinced that the field is dying due to the same factors that turned the social sciences into a joke.
>another threaed where an illiterate poltard loser larps as a scientist or expert

We get these threads all the time on this board. They're a dime a dozen. Every single day, for the last 3 years, this board get flooded with poltard schizos and conspiracy theorists making retarded threads about the same fucking topic day in and day out. Every single fucking day, we have the same threads on the same topics. Anti-vaxx threads. Anti-tech threads. Lab leak conspiracy theory thread. Anti-mask threads. Climate change denial. Anti-AI thread. Consciousness threads. Race threads. IQ threads. Threads about LGBT individuals. Don't you people ever get tired of schizoposting about the same fucking shit?
Nobody actually thinks you're a scientist. Nobody actually thinks you're an expert. You're a scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorist larping as a scientist, just like most of the other schizos and anti-vaxxer online like to do.

>>15302339
>i hate /sci/
why are you here?

>>15302339
No, it is failing, like almost everyone does, because they pushed retards like you into all positions where intelligence matters. The bigger retard you are, the more demanding position you get. The result is utter chaos.

>>15302018
the hardest science is metallurgy

>>15302339
No, it is failing, like almost everything else, because they pushed retards like you into all positions where intelligence matters. The bigger retard you are, the more demanding position you get. The result is utter chaos.

>>15301809
Nepotism is real and alive in particle physics. People like Jesse Thaler hold all the bandwidth as a theorist. Consequently nobody learns the skills they need unless directly trained by Jesse.

>>15302335
>Lots and lots of rich and fascinating things come from social science.
And yet you didn't cute a single one in your post. So either you're lying or you're too stupid to know how to make a good argument. Nonetheless the result is the same: you've demonstrated via case example how incompetent social soienrists are.

>>15302341
they never answer this question because they're here as political activists with no intention of contributing anything decent to the board

>>15302339
B8 but responding anyway. You're obviously not a trained scientists or in academia. I can tell based on how you're baiting. You don't mention the EDI departments flooding academia or the mandatory sensitivity trainings faculty members need to take and so on. Instead your b8 screams that you're on food stamps and spend all day every day on your computer completely detached from the external world. So go ahead and giggle at how you got your (you) from me. Just letting you know I see through it.

>>15302362
Ask me how I know from this you are a very, very, very dumb person who knows shit about science or anything ever.

>>15302373
Wrong.

>>15302377

>>15302341
>>15302366
>>15302368
NTA. Obviously it's because you're dishonest actors who don't want honest answers. He's quite right in that most of you are anti-science propagandists. Why you think anyone falls for your BS but you? No clue. But most of us have better shit to do than feed the trolls. Rest assured, though, we're fuckin laughing. Not with you, of course. At you. A lot.
>>15302373
Generally people who only parrot /pol/ memes aren't the brightest bulbs in the turnip patch yeah. But they'll all rush to scream at you for representing consensus views as if respecting the work of an entire field is something stupid to do. They're all individuals.

>>15302381
You don't wear glasses when peaking through a microscope.

>>15302383
Btw you can be a legitimate scientist who publishes in peer reviewed journals and still get flagged by your cockamamie arguments as an anti-science propagandist.
t. Proud scientist who promulgated anti -science rhetoric.

Is it really hard to believe that there are people who became disillusioned with the system due to actively participating in it? You do realize fields are so specialized now that it's easy to guess who's reviewing your submission right?

>>15302388
I know enough scientists and I do enough related work myself to know what the problems are in a rather wide array of fields. Both online, and offline. None of these purported problems /pol/tards make up, exist to any significant degree anywhere I've ever experienced, whether first or second hand. There are problems. Just not the /pol/tard problems. Some problems are even somewhat similar to the rare "stopped clock being right twice a day" issue /pol/tards raise, they just get both the cause and solutions wrong as usual.
>Is it really hard to believe that there are people who became disillusioned with the system due to actively participating in it?
Yes, some do. Not for any reason you morons ever make up though.
>You do realize fields are so specialized now that it's easy to guess who's reviewing your submission right?
And this is how I know you're full of shit. Well, one reason anyway.

>>15302392
So just to be clear, you're saying academics don't need to be careful about their EDI departments and that faculty members don't need to undergo any sensitivity trainings regarding woke issues?

>>15302388
>t. Proud scientist who promulgated anti -science rhetoric.
you aren't, the anti-science crowd are the ones who push and defend the politically motivated lies in the name of science. you're part of tiny minority who has the training and eyes to recognize the lies for what they are.

developmental psychology says that conscience (note the root word) develops between ages 5-7, roughly, in some, but not all people. those who never develop conscience aren't capable of restricting themselves from lying in order to push ulterior motives, they can only restrict themselves if they fear the consequences of getting caught.

>>15302392
Kys.
https://diversity.uiowa.edu/programs/training-programs
https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/admin-offices/office-of-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/
https://be.uw.edu/about/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/edi-resources/

>>15302395
>Obviously it's because you're dishonest actors who don't want honest answers.
Hm, looky there, I'm all psychic. Did I say nobody has any problems with EDI? Did I say no university, and no company, has clear propaganda bullshit "sensitivity trainings"? No. You didn't pay attention to what I said, because you're a dishonest actor who doesn't want honest answers. What I will say is you lot blow your mythmaking about the prevalence of both out of proportion to such a degree it lost touch with any/all reality. Which is another reason most people who actually are scientists know you're full of shit.

Again: There are larger scale issues. You lot talk about zero of them. So everyone who is a scientist, or knows scientists on a personal level and about their field, knows you are full of shit. I wonder for example why you dipshits never mention IRB's. Bet you don't know what IRB means.

>>15302402
Last response. This is the post you tagged me in
>>15302383
And this was my post
>>15302368
All I did was say EDI departments and required sensitivity trainings exist in academia. Which made you sperg out into some diatribe about /pol/. Now you say
>Did I say nobody has any problems with EDI? Did I say no university, and no company, has clear propaganda bullshit "sensitivity trainings"? No
So you want to call out my post as political when all I did was mention EDI and sensitivity trainings. Now you say you don't discount the existence of such things, which invalidates your original call-out.

Look your dishonest arguing style may work elsewhere but it doesn't work against autists who actually remember context. Again, kys.

>>15302406
>Now you say you don't discount the existence of such things, which invalidates your original call-out.
Oh does it now? Let's read what you actually wrote.
>>>15302368
>You don't mention the EDI departments flooding academia
>FLOODING
Looks like I was doubly psychic. >>15302383
>Obviously it's because you're dishonest actors who don't want honest answers.
I discount your degree of insanity and obsession with a small scale problem limited to extremely ideological universities. You can't seem to help yourself when it comes to lying about what people write. In fact look what I did write >>15302402
>>15302402
>You didn't pay attention to what I said, because you're a dishonest actor who doesn't want honest answers. What I will say is you lot blow your mythmaking about the prevalence of both out of proportion to such a degree it lost touch with any/all reality. Which is another reason most people who actually are scientists know you're full of shit.

Thanks for proving my points. All of them.

>>15302402
>I wonder for example why you dipshits never mention IRB's. Bet you don't know what IRB means.
anon, are you retarded? i'm a physicist, and i don't ever see that acronym because we don't need to pass ethical reviews to conduct our research. let me clarify. people like me don't know what IRBs are because we're actual scientists who don't need ethical approval :-) i have to say it's pretty funny that you conduct human research subjected to IRBs, and yet are so myopic you fail to realize not every scientist conducts human research.

>>15302411
>and yet are so myopic you fail to realize not every scientist conducts human research.
>>You didn't mention a UNIVERSAL problem in ALL scientists therefore you're STUPID HA GOTCHA
>>15302383
>Obviously it's because you're dishonest actors who don't want honest answers.

>>15302409
nta, but what fraction of universities do you think have DEI departments? if it's most, then he's correct to say flooding.

>>15302412
why would you expect all scientists to know about some niche ethical practices on human research? and why would you conclude someone isn't a scientist for not knowing that if you weren't (implicitly) arguing it's a universal claim?

>>15302414
What, just raw numbers? Raw numbers appears, and it was rather annoying to find, just 1 in 5 or 21.5% with rather high heterogeneity based on institution size. https://www.aaup.org/report/2022-aaup-survey-tenure-practices
>DEI criteria were found in tenure standards at 21.5 percent of institutions. While there were differences among institutions based on Carnegie Classification, with 29.2 percent of doctoral institutions reporting the practice, compared to 18.5 percent and 17.9 percent at master’s and bachelor’s institutions, respectively, the largest difference was by size, with 45.6 percent of large institutions reporting having DEI criteria in tenure standards, compared to 15.5 percent and 14.5 percent at medium-sized and small institutions, respectively.
Which is not surprising. Hence your "usual suspect" universities in the media and passed around Fox News and friends tending to be very large and grossly overfunded.

Either way, the extent to which the mere EXISTENCE of a DEI department is a problem isn't immediately obvious from just raw numbers. The usual suspects everyone avoids, like Mizzou, are altogether a different beast from the lonely fuck triple-chairing titles so they can slap DEI in their advertising promo or avert lawsuits with. Something, again, actual academics in these institutions would know and you fucks never do.

>>15302434
>why would you expect all scientists to know about some niche ethical practices on human research?
Niche? Yeah you don't know anything. There are similar review boards, if not for ethics, then for funding and so on. IRB is a popular discussion of discontent you'd have to live under a rock to not know about. People talk between departments and fields, unless they're autistic neets or on specialized campuses or universities large enough to experience cloistering.
>and why would you conclude someone isn't a scientist for not knowing that if you weren't (implicitly) arguing it's a universal claim?
Still misrepresenting everything anyone writes I see. My point was to give an example of a field where something would be considered, in that field, a genuine issue. Review boards are a huge issue, and one in which relevant scientists would bitch about nonstop all day given the opportunity. It's an example of things you lot never mention, yet a real pervasive problem in a field.

But here's the real punchline: People talk between departments you know. There's also a lot of crosswork between biology, medicine, mathematics, and including physics at times. I've never been to an institution where people are especially cloistered, excepting specialized universities or campuses. While it is possible some of you exclusively reside in such, it is yet another point of unrealism that makes it quite clear most of you lot are full of shit.

>>15302347
No. it's geology.

>>15301809
It's dying because the universe is virtual and informational and observer dependent and the medium this takes place in is minds (idealism). When you try to fit the observed data into the philosophical paradigm of a materialist observer independent objective reality, you end up having to sound stupid with things like many worlds, alive and dead cats, stretchy space time etc.

>>15302441
>fraction
>raw numbers
my god, you really are retarded. if you conduct human research, you need to know about normalizing raw numbers into rates. fractions divide raw counts by total counts, and as such are not raw numbers. here's how you know: if someone says 40% of psychologists are fags, you have no knowledge of how many psychologists exist.

anon, i again must call out your retardation. it appears you do not understand how to read that source. those statistics aren't saying how many universities have DEI departments. they're saying how many universities require faculty members to fulfill DEI criteria to achieve tenure. and based on those stats, that's already damning as is.

>>15302455
yes, niche. science is a broad label applying to a multitude of fields. i don't care if "similar" boards exist for other fields, because they don't go by IRBs.
>People talk between departments and fields
maybe in shit-tier universities. thanks for admitting you're a nobody. could explain the chip on your shoulder. nonetheless, i like talking with legitimate scientists :-)

anon you write as a genuine schizo. you seem to think every single post that ever responded to you in this thread is from the same person, or from the same collection of people. it's hard to have an actual dialogue with you because you can't seem to tell different people apart.
> I've never been to an institution where people are especially cloistered
let's stop pretending your sample size is large enough to say anything meaningful about this.

>>15302472
The straw grasping is self evident to even a casual glance. The aforementioned link also contains the sample numbers. You're wearing full clown makeup. As I said: Laughing at you. Loooots of laughing at you.
>those statistics aren't saying how many universities have DEI departments.
>Whines about DEI policies
>Suddenly doesn't care about DEI policies but only DEI departments
Laughing at you continues. You suuuure showed me bud. Sure ya did.

>>15302487
you seem to value the field of psychology as a legitimate science. here's some psychological science for you:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stronger-the-broken-places/201907/sarcasm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/and-running/202012/behind-the-scenes-sarcasm
>Sarcasm is a thinly veiled attempt to disguise feelings of anger, fear, or hurt. It can be a means of diminishing feelings of vulnerability that may be experienced in the willingness to acknowledge the underlying feelings.
>The truth is, chronically-sarcastic people frequently rely on this obfuscation to express emotions and communicate. These folks also often harbor passive-aggressive characteristics and simply don’t have the ability to be real about emotions, or fear confrontation were they to speak their mind.
:-)

>>15301885
The rot set in decades before the whole "tranny" issue, you dumbass. You're fucking OBSESSED.

>>15301996
This. People don't like to hear this, but it was already over the moment women came into academia. They're a bunch of easily manipulated, overly emotional idiots. They will always prioritize irrelevant shit to the truth. The woke mafia is just, ironically, toxic femininity.

Karen and Stacy having a fight, writ large. As in, society-wide large.

>>15302335
>Lots and lots of rich and fascinating things come from social science
It's 99% junk. Don't kid yourself.

>>15302523
>The rot set in decades before the whole "tranny" issue, you dumbass. You're fucking OBSESSED.

>>15302339
You are part of the problem. Please jump off the nearest tall building.

>>15302536
You're a jew, aren't you? That's the M.O. currently. Make everything about trannies, so Congress can keep sending money to Israel.

Die in a fire.

>>15302495
I don't put much stock in psychology. Then again, I know little about it professionally. However, I do know projection and mind-reading are fairly typical signs of narcissism. Probably one of the reasons I don't like psychology much is the tendency for it to be abused as well. Case in point, sarcasm is also a very clear sign of dismissal, but you can find anyone writing any opinion you like in psychology to validate your worldview.

>>15302495
>>15302576
Also someone seems mighty butthurt about the fact he didn't even read the intro and realize the study linked contained the raw numbers I mentioned (:

>>15302580
the study does, but your writing doesn't indicate you recognize the difference between raw numbers and a ratio.
>Raw numbers appears, and it was rather annoying to find, just 1 in 5 or 21.5%
those aren't raw numbers. it's okay to make mistakes. just own up to them.

>>15302590
>You didn't say things like I think you should that means ur stoopid
Don't worry kid most people grow up eventually. Most people.

>>15302468
metal is harder than stone, nerd

>>15302633
>metal is harder than stone, nerd

>>15302606
the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming number of research universities (as well as national labs) in the USA have DEI offices. and those offices definitely influence hard science departments. your irrelevant statistic that incorrectly has something like 20% is absolutely not even close to the actual percentage that anon asked for. it’s actually required by federal law for universities that receive federal funding to comply with title 9, which means basically all but a handful of all universities have compliance offices

>>15302841
his statistic, while irrelevant, does paint a damning picture. those stats are the percentage of universities that require some form of EDI approval for tenure. in most institutes, tenure is approved at the college-level with no input from EDI. imagine needing to write some additional bullshit about how woke you are to get tenure. god damn that sounds awful.

>physics
>hard science
keep juggling those differentials like the clowns you are

>>15302908
I love how you circlejerk about claiming it isn't relevant only to explain exactly why it was relevant.
>>15302841
I could not actually locate a relevant statistic with respect to prevalence of such offices or departments. That is why I went with something more representative with a substantial impact, i.e. impact on tenure requirements.
>your irrelevant statistic that incorrectly has something like 20% is absolutely not even close to the actual percentage that anon asked for.
Feel free to do a better job and find a nationally representative estimate of such offices. I did not see one.

lmao when some middle aged "nice guy" cuck get kicked out on his ass by the gang of monkeys, bitches and faggots he spent his career being tolerant to. road to hell paved with good intentions

>>15302958
>Feel free to do a better job and find a nationally representative estimate of such offices. I did not see one.
i already quoted you a fact about the laws: Title IX is a standing law that requires every university receiving federal funding to have a designated “Title IX coordinator”. https://www.nfhs.org/articles/the-title-ix-coordinator-roles-and-responsibilities/ of all accredited universities in the United States almost all receive federal funding except for a few notable exceptions like Hillsdale plus a handful. so just by that accounting alone it’s over 99%

this doesn’t even need a peer reviewed journal study; you can simply look up the list of universities that receive federal funding and every single one of them has at least one employee designated officially to work on Title IX.

this is just the tip of the iceberg too on the DEI structure in US universities but this at least answers the question about the percentage: surely over 99%

>>15301809
You will never be a real scientist you poltard larper. Kys.

>>15302545
and the Ukraine being run by the .... you guessed it ... Jew!

>>15302545
Pretty much every war since the Crusades was orchestrated by the Jews and most likely most of the wars before that

>>15301905
>i think it is entirely “conservative” for a scientist like me to take the mentality that politics should be kept out of my day-to-day and instead focus on science

What you fail to see is that your position is absurd and contradictory to reality.

You're a human being in a complex social structure that relies on favors from the government to fund itself. Politics is inseparable from your life. You delude yourself to try to defer your responsibility.

You post here desperately hoping someone else does something, while putting forward logic that renders those most able and connected to it completely without agency.

It's pathetic.

>>15302545
The Medici were the (((bankers))) who couped the Vatican and were arrested for treason for bringing in Jews to replace the native gentry/nobles. But white replacement is just a conspiracy theory goy!

>>15302402
>Did I say nobody has any problems with EDI? Did I say no university, and no company, has clear propaganda bullshit "sensitivity trainings"? No.

No, you simply deflected the complaints you yourself are now legitimizing to a common bogieman like some idealogical shill.

This place isn't for you, and never will be.

Your soul suffers everyday you force yourself to engage with us.

>>15303095
(((They))) would never do that!

>>15302406
>Look your dishonest arguing style may work elsewhere but it doesn't work against autists who actually remember context.

Yea, these dishonest sophists rely on people with poor memories, and these tactics work much better in spoken arguments where we don't have a record of what's being said.

These shills are too stupid to even understand the nature of written communication. Best to just ignore them and let them suffer from lack of attention.

>>15302487
>The straw grasping is self evident to even a casual glance.

Blatant projection from a shill who knows he's lost the argument and is at this point only helping his opposition.

You lost so hard you immediately became a slave to your opposition. Your entire life is mere slavery to whatever beats you.

>>15302495
I'm impressed anon. You are wrecking that poor sap.

>>15302576
>However, I do know projection and mind-reading are fairly typical signs of narcissism.
>>15302409
>Looks like I was doubly psychic

Anon, you are so fucking devastated that you are exposing your pathetic psychological state to the whole board.

>>15301809
>younger folks with deficient technical knowledge and deficient skills who manage to do well and get jobs based on “engagement” and “outreach” who happen to be minorities and women
t. seething white male

Who makes these threads? Is it russian bots?

>>15303091
>>15303106
>>15303109
>>15303114
>>15303122
You have contributed absolutely nothing to the thread beyond a malicious attempt to inflict psychological damage on your perceived enemy.
I'm sure this style of discourse is prevalent in your sissy hypno servers or whatever but here you just sound like a faggot who is talking to himself.

>>15303074
Honestly didn't expect you'd go mask-off that easily by equivocating Title IX with your DEI boogeyman. Imagine being this fucking assmad the law requires you not discriminate based on sex.
>>15303122
Imagine being so desperate you need to equate predicting someone's dishonesty with mind-reading hidden motives. Holy shit. The sheer fucking cope.

>>15303137
You have done nothing in the thread but try to derail it.

I offered a legitimate counter argument to someone in academia trying to justify him abdicating his responsibility while correctly pointing out a dishonest shill is getting so destroyed he's blatantly revealing his tendencies.

Your go to insult reveals that you are in fact a discord tranny trying to run a shill operation on 4chan. Your posts are clear that you're in a state of deep projection, so now we all know what you are.

>>15303137
I just find it hilarious I cornered them so badly all they can do is REEEEE

>>15303145
>Holy shit. The sheer fucking cope.

Yes, your cope for your obvious projection of all your faults is sheer cope.

>Mind-reading and projection are signs of narcissism.
>'but anon, you're the one that claimed to be psychic, and so that seems like severe projection'.

HURRR DURR I CANNOT EVER BE WRONG COPEO COPEC OPFCOPCEOP


Face it. You're losing so hard you cannot even process your own writing anymore.

>>15303149
You lost the argument so hard you're projecting in every single post.

You're even in such a mess you cannot decide if I'm the poster you were arguing with (I'm not) or someone else.

In essence, that other anon has so destroyed you that you've lost the ability to even hold a coherent reality.

>>15303109
rofl @ the schizo stealing and recycling my arguments again. I am not entirely convince this isnt a chatbot designed by Talpiot, the Israeli tech psyops division that just takes posts from anyone it argues against then later uses those exact same arguments projecting them like a an actual schizo does

>>15303156
This is how you can always spot this retard, he always narrates his psychosis

>>15303166
>>15303169
You are right, you are what an actual schizo looks like.

You've convinced yourself you can tell anonymous posters apart.

But then, maybe you're just another slider.

We should return to the topic at hand of the death of science at the hands of manipulate psychopaths.

>>15303175
>REEEEEEEEEEE
There are at least 4 threads on this board this very second where I expose this faggot, be sure to look them over to learn his tactics. Essentially, if he is accusing you of doing it, it means you already exposed him of doing it, or he is doing it and you havent exposed him for doing it yet. kys schizo kike

>>15303175
>You've convinced yourself you can tell anonymous posters apart.
I can tell when people are narrating a fictional reality that isnt happening and making shit up they go accusing people of doing what they themselves are actually doing, yes

>>15303175
I can also tell when people are stealing my exact words and arguments from a day ago and accusing other people of it

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Schizophasia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
>Narcissistic word salad is a type of purposefully confusing speech, using circular reasoning, logical fallacies and other rhetorical devices to disorient and manipulate a person or group. Some antisocial and narcissistic people use it in gaslighting their targets.[6]
>>15303114
>You lost so hard you immediately became a slave to your opposition. Your entire life is mere slavery to whatever beats you.
>>15303151
>HURRR DURR I CANNOT EVER BE WRONG COPEO COPEC OPFCOPCEOP
>Yes, your cope for your obvious projection of all your faults is sheer cope.
>>15303156
>You lost the argument so hard you're projecting in every single post.
>>15303122
>Anon, you are so fucking devastated that you are exposing your pathetic psychological state to the whole board.
>>15302495
>>Sarcasm is a thinly veiled attempt to disguise feelings of anger, fear, or hurt. It can be a means of diminishing feelings of vulnerability that may be experienced in the willingness to acknowledge the underlying feelings.
>>15303156
>In essence, that other anon has so destroyed you that you've lost the ability to even hold a coherent reality.
>You're even in such a mess you cannot decide if I'm the poster you were arguing with (I'm not) or someone else.

Wow. That's a lot of projection guys. I sure am the one who is coping here I guess. You sure showed me.

>>15303175
>We should return to the topic at hand of the death of science at the hands of manipulate psychopaths.
I might have tagged the wrong post on accident and meant to post it at whoever you think is "sliding the thread," I am not going to read this shitshow of a thread to find out however. Whichever one of you faggots saying EDI is being played up and isnt a marxist coup to disenfranchise white people is the shill or schizo, Fuck this gay thread

Also read this thread where the last bunkertroon got so trounced they got butthurt and reported the thread
>>/sci/thread/15299198#p15300755

they are lying scumbags, it is all they do

>>15303175
I find it awful the schizos are using the word "sophist" all of a sudden after being exposed as sophists. This word was never used on this board before I exposed the sophist cunts here now it is in almost every thread you schizos are posting in. And guess what? I can prove it for fact in the archives. You count on peope not being up to speed on the prior times you were exposed as a sophist cunt, see how you were defeated and the arguments used to do it, then next time simply accuse you are arguing with of doing it fucking cunt

>>15303224
*awful funny

>>15303224
^ this is why I document EVERYTHING

>>15302523
NTA but the moment people began accepting that women are men and men are women based not on physical evidence but some wishy washy fantasy inside their heads, then truth lost all standards
Funny how the same people deny the existence of God vehemently but are absolutely sure of the existence and truth of their metaphysical concept of gender

>>15303230
Nah. That isn't the problem. You guys never get it and it only helps them get away with the real problem. It isn't a problem for people to personally identify as a rhino, otherkin dragon, woman, or leprechaun. The problem is forcing others to believe things about yourself on no other basis than your believing it.

Come on think it through for once. Some dipshit thinks he's the toughest guy and gets his ass beat everyone laughs. Lots of people believe things about themselves that aren't true, whether being ego driven or sexual fantasy, or just plain insanity i.e. your otherkin. The real root of the problem is leveraging society to do something rather uniquely fucked up: Forcing other people to play your game of make-believe for no other reason than "simon says".

Had you idiots actually identified and argued that from the start we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, you reached for your bible thumping. Look how that turned out.

>>15303200
>Wow. That's a lot of projection guys. I sure am the one who is coping here I guess. You sure showed me.
See >>15302495

>>15303236
>it's okay for people to identify as things they aren't
>the real problem is convincing people to believe your identity is valid when it isn't
sometimes i wonder how braindead people like you say these things without their heads exploding.

>>15303236
Let me guess, you're a biologist?

>>15303241
See >>15303200
>Wow. That's a lot of projection guys. I sure am the one who is coping here I guess. You sure showed me.
Keep arguing I'm projecting while mind-reading secret emotional states. Really helps you sell how honest and genuine you are.

>>15303247
Mirroring is a sign of schizophrenia.

>>15303244
>sometimes i wonder how braindead people like you say these things without their heads exploding.
People aren't saying braindead things. You just don't listen to what they actually say.
>the real problem is convincing people to believe your identity is valid when it isn't
This is not what I wrote.
>Some dipshit thinks he's the toughest guy and gets his ass beat everyone laughs. Lots of people believe things about themselves that aren't true, whether being ego driven or sexual fantasy, or just plain insanity i.e. your otherkin. The real root of the problem is leveraging society to do something rather uniquely fucked up: Forcing other people to play your game of make-believe for no other reason than "simon says".

People playing along with whatever game someone has, sexual or otherwise, is rather common. The issue here is consent. Now read what you wrote again and tell me on the potato where my reasoning touched you.
>the real problem is convincing people to believe your identity is valid when it isn't

>>15303230

>>15303166
>>15303181
>>15303257
I put all three of these into one for you bros. Expose these fucking shitbags every time they try this shit

>>15303255
>People aren't saying braindead things.
You spend most of your posts writing vacuous words like a pseud. Almost none of your posts have any content value, and your attitude is just deny deny deny.

Thank you tranny slider shills for the (you) farm.

I must hold to my principles and express my gratitude for the loosh farm.

It is clear that this topic is very sensitive to the people monitoring this discussion forum. You are keen to protect the status of your 'scientism' that managed to con a bunch of peasants so many times now.

Thank you all for giving me a clearer vision of the state of the board.

>>15303200
>I sure am the one who is coping here I guess. You sure showed me.

I accept your gracious concession.

>>15303236
>Forcing other people to play your game of make-believe
As another Anon joining the discussion: what puzzles me is that even among the anti-woke public ''intellectuals'' it remains a mystery what the origin is of the incentives that make people accept this behaviour.
Many hypotheses appear false to me. For example: I've been taught post-modern philosophy like the writings of Marx and Foucault, but never with a woke interpretation nor with the interpretation put forward by Jordan Peterson. So as a Liberal Arts graduate I find it hard to believe that ''academia'' is the main cause. There were toxic feminist lecturers, but most students didn't take them seriously as far as I could tell.
Another hypothesis that seems obviously false to me is that business leaders, celebs and politicians fear reputation damage, because they appear immune to almost any other kind of reputation damage.
What do you think?

>>15303166
>I am not entirely convince this isnt a chatbot designed by Talpiot, the Israeli tech psyops division that just takes posts from anyone it argues against then later uses those exact same arguments projecting them like a an actual schizo does
btw I expressed this sentiment on /biz/ before as well with this exact same schizo or bot years ago
Here is the thread and post
>>/biz/thread/S50232666#p50251120

Notice how one of their goals is stated as "disrupting the site and making it unusable" if they can't infiltrate it. The best way to do is act like a fucking schizo just saying retarded non-stop and derailing the threads. The problem is there actual fucking schizos here that also do this for free so you could never tell them apart if it was an actual glowop

>>15303294
Notice how one of their goals is stated as "disrupting the site and making it unusable" if they can't infiltrate it. The best way to do *that* is to act like a fucking schizo just saying retarded *shit* non-stop and derailing the threads. The problem is there *are* actual fucking schizos here that also do this, for free, so you could never tell them apart if it was an actual glowop

>>15303285
>I accept your gracious concession.
Weird you accept my concession of how pathetic you are, but oookay then. Have it your way.
>>15303273
>You spend most of your posts writing vacuous words like a pseud. Almost none of your posts have any content value, and your attitude is just deny deny deny.
>>15303292
>As another Anon joining the discussion: what puzzles me is that even among the anti-woke public ''intellectuals'' it remains a mystery what the origin is of the incentives that make people accept this behaviour. [...] What do you think?
I don't know man I'm not a psychologist. Seems to me just a convergence of events and incentives that were different for everybody. Left-wing needed a new stick to beat the right-wing with, activist groups needed a new source of revenue for perpetual activism, media is just ALWAYS looking for whatever gets the most views and outrage. I don't even think there's any real conscious thought to any of this people who dipped out because they'd won were just replaced by those who would fight for anything/everything regardless of merit. Just the churn from one thing to the next, and sometimes society goes too far.

Funny thing is it would've probably been A-OK given consenting adults and without forcing society to believe you just because you believe something. There'd be very little good cause to argue against that as a matter of consent. Issue now is they've created a VERY good reason to argue against it and they're likely to be the casualty of the pendulum swinging if it does, when they could've just had the peace to live as they like as homosexuals and others fought for. Maybe they're just overtaken by narcissists because it's infinite free attention. I don't know. I do know the people with real gender dysphoria are in such an extreme minority of "trans" groups now they're shunned as "truscum", which sure fuckin sounds like attention seekers ousting that 0.0001% with a real psychiatric issue to me.

>>15303295
The best solution to this is to ... guess what? NAMEFAG so anons know who the fuck you are and can ignore anonymous fucks just saying retarded shit trying to derail threads. If they are an actual schizo they will eventually leave because what the narcissist does it for is is to create chaos for attention. They literally cannot function without attention (as I explain in detail in this thread >>15299112 ), it is like oxygen to them. If it is a glowop who cares, just dont respond to it. They prey on your ignorance of their tactics then screech "schizo" at anyone who exposes them because they are just trying to create chaos to confuse stupid fucks too retarded to sift through the pile of shit they are dumping everywhere to find out wtf is actually happening
>>15299010

I will tell you the simplest ways to spot these fucking cunts. They will always attack ME. Because I am one of the only people on this fucking board who isnt fucking retarded and KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING

>>15303137
I mean look at this fucking mirroring

>You have contributed absolutely nothing to the thread
>You have done nothing in the thread but try to derail it.

Are you motherfuckers too retarded to notice this?

>>15303308
>Weird you accept my concession of how pathetic you are

You have less awareness than a bot.

You literally type out that I showed you.

Must I remind you of what sarcasm indicates? Or has your puny intellect already doublethought that loss away? That's why you always fail you know, failure to acknowledge your losses.

>>15303312
>>15303324
>>15303335

Is this namefag just a bot? Seems to be. Having a conversation only with himself. Spamming his same timewasting images of random posts that indicate nothing.

Shizophrenic bots. Interesting.

>>15303294
>btw I expressed this sentiment on /biz/ before as well with this exact same schizo or bot years ago
The fact that this fuck is on every board and also on 8kun and has an unlimited number of IPS to samefag on and keep posting even when he gets banned in my mind screams glowbot. I have seen this motherfucker have hours long conversations with himself on at least 6 different IPS in a single thread on /biz/ before but w/e make your own minds up. The point is to stop feeding them. When they schiz out just point out they are a bot and tell everyone else not to respond to them

It really is incredible how the bots and shills descend on this topic and utterly drown it into oblivion.

It's sad that shills really do have less sentience than bots so it's difficult to know at this point.

>>15303361
yeah, just ignore any posts with “bodhi” in the name field

>>15303358
he still mad

>>15303364
It almost looks like they're trying to just spam it until it reaches thread limit...

>>15303308
You're making a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

>>15303361
>>15303364
>>15303366
Look how this motherfucker "no you'd" and responded to himself instantly. This is a fucking bot

>>15303361
This "no you" doesnt even make any fucking sense. "Look a bot is trying to expose bots" like wtf even is this retarded nonsense?

>>15303368
>You're making a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
No no I'm a shill who only writes nonsense get it right ;p

>>15303145
>equivocating Title IX with your DEI boogeyman. Imagine being this fucking assmad the law requires you not discriminate based on sex.
the law doesn’t just require not discriminating on sex. if you read the link, it also requires a university to have a designated employee to ensure compliance with that concept which includes a bunch of duties and prerequisite qualifications. such a person is a perfect example of a DEI bureaucrat, and just because you seem to prefer to believe that “DEI bureacrats” don’t exist doesn’t mean that this isn’t an absolutely valid and incontrovertible example that is by law required to be employed at every university receiving federal funding

>>15302841
What specific problems do you have with DEI besides being a racist incel who can’t handle seeing a marginal amount of non whites in a department? Most of them amount to outreach to disadvantaged communities and helping international students with the hassles of moving to a different country.

>>15303540
You're just repeating the very same reason I called it your DEI boogeyman. Your faith that any/all compliance efforts to prevent sex-based discrimination necessarily results in a slippery slope. You've done nothing at all to evidence this reasoning.Rather, you all just seem to be assmad you can't discriminate. Frankly that's ridiculous to me because there absolutely are overreaches that ARE NOT actually protected by Title IX, such as discrimination against men, but zero of you have raised even that point. Instead you just want to lump it altogether as a monolithic boogeyman. Gee, I wonder why that is.

>>15303559
>What specific problems do you have with DEI besides being a racist incel who can’t handle seeing a marginal amount of non whites in a department?
Continue letting your true colors fly, anon. We appreciate it.

>>15303580
Answer my question. What scary thing do you you think DEI does?

>>15303573
no anon, i think you have reading comprehension issues. think about it, do laws that, for example, require college professors to not distribute illegally copied textbooks to students for free without the publisher, require the university to ALSO hire a “compliance officer” with special duties to investigate the professors and collect reports and have background expertise on the “grievance process”? no, in that case no bureaucrat is mandated and instead the publisher would simply take the offender to court themselves. no bureaucratic compliance office is needed normally.

OTOH for Title IX this sort of thing is mandated. and denying that this falls under the generic DEI umbrella is stupid because in practice the Title IX office is usually inside some actual “Diversity” or etc office within universities, which is a fact that is actually supported by the same link i sent earlier and any rudimentary googling of US university Title IX officers

>>15303583
You don't have a question or an argument. Maybe when you come back with something useful we can talk.

>>15301809
Science is just a subbranch of politics now. It has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

>>15303608
https://ugetube.com/watch/seduction-of-a-generation-edward-griffin_NY741WYhtTG4P2Y.html

>>15301809
I bet one could train a chatgpt to flag political vernacular , mannerisms and grammar and output a politicisation score. Anything that scores to high gets flagged and submitted as a github issue for a user to depoliticise the paper, removing all politicization while attempting to keep what ever earnest science they may have actually conducted

>>15303634
a user who manages to successfully depoliticize the paper is minted 'Galileans' a crypto token that endorses a users commitment to true scientific achievement, in a testament to the galileo affair.

>>15303643
>>15303634
>CO2 causes global warming through the greenhouse effect, we should reduce emissions=political

>>15303608
>think about it, do laws that, for example, require college professors to not distribute illegally copied textbooks to students for free without the publisher, require the university to ALSO hire a “compliance officer” with special duties to investigate the professors and collect reports and have background expertise on the “grievance process”?
For a matter of a federal violation, you have the FBI and related to handle it. As a civil matter, institutions are incentivized to self-police as being caught not doing so and knowing of such an active infringement would render them liable as well.
>no, in that case no bureaucrat is mandated and instead the publisher would simply take the offender to court themselves. This is not, however, a strictly civil matter as it is a matter of federal funds.
The federal government has compliance regulations, and personnell, for a large variety of purposes attached to funding. Naturally one has to determine if compliance is being met and how, and many jobs exist doing so. The federal government controls the federal purse, the institutions choose whether to accept that purse. If they do, that means they are required to comply or risk not having said access to said purse. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Civil_Rights
>OTOH for Title IX this sort of thing is mandated. and denying that this falls under the generic DEI umbrella is stupid because in practice the Title IX office is usually inside some actual “Diversity” or etc office within universities, which is a fact that is actually supported by the same link i sent earlier and any rudimentary googling of US university Title IX officers
Pointing out the wholly reasonable point that the problems normally raised from DEI, such as discriminating to pursue arbitrary equity rather than equality, is not synonymous with Title IX. So either you don't know what the office for civil rights is, or you're against the concept entirely.

>>15303652
That would be flagged as fraud not politics.

>>15303654
>Pointing out the wholly reasonable point that the problems normally raised from DEI, such as discriminating to pursue arbitrary equity rather than equality, is not synonymous with Title IX. So either you don't know what the office for civil rights is, or you're against the concept entirely.
Title IX was made entirely to provide arbitrary equity. What are you smoking?

>>15303559
LOL you have no idea what you're talking about. i would share some of the emails i receive from the DEI office at my university, but i'd rather not dox myself.

>>15303660
>Title IX was made entirely to provide arbitrary equity. What are you smoking?
Wow, okay, so you absolutely don't know the first thing you're talking about. Had you even glanced at so much as a summary of enforcement with respect to OCR, you'd have known the fucking OCR itself has modified its wording and criticized institutions for pursuing equity blindly. The law does no such thing. So really, what the fuck are YOU smoking? Boomer memes?

>>15303662
Mine sends us hilarious messages about inclusivity and black pride every time security reports a shooting or robbery by a "man of shirt and jeans."

>>15302633
but diamonds

>>15303664
Look into the mandates for equity in sports funding and what it did to smaller men's sports. Your lack of intelligence is on full display.

>>15303662
I know, the thought of being less racist is so scary

>>15303654
you’re just arguing in bad faith anon, either that or you’re just beyond the pale in buying into whatever garbage you’ve been fed.

first of all just because there are other federally mandated bureaucrats who must be added to Universities’ staffs for them to receive federal funding besides the Title IX officer does not constitute an argument for why any of such things is a good thing. can you name another bureaucrat that the federal government demands universities to employ that you consider a GOOD bureaucrat?

second, i’ve never said anything in this thread about woke ideology or oppressive equity. you brought that up. for the sake of this conversation you can assume i’m limiting my argument to OP’s point about hires in physics being influenced toward less qualified folks due to DEI initiatives including those that favor women due to perverse incentives caused by Title IX bureaucracy zeitgeist

>>15303662
So you’re admitting that all DEI does is to send some inconsequential emails among the sea of spam unis send? Why do those specific ones make you so irate?

>>15303689
i've said nothing of the content of the emails. merely that you're wrong, and it's obvious to anyone who's an actual academic.

>>15303673
>Look into the mandates for equity in sports funding and what it did to smaller men's sports. Your lack of intelligence is on full display.
Your shifting goalposts is on full display. I'm more than intelligent enough to handle it anyway. Also, again, you're flatly wrong here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#OCR's_test_for_Title_IX_compliance
The OCR's policy considers it equitable if it is proportionate to interest and actual activity. In other words, they don't get to ignore the interests of women. Which is completely in line with the spirit of the regulation. That is so fucking old of a policy it was announced in 2005, and you are THAT clueless. The very same page shows the OCR's admonishment of institutions unnecessarily reducing male athletic opportunities to manufacture compliance. So step by step the OCR is doing exactly what you want. Who is the dumb one here?
>>15303686
>first of all just because there are other federally mandated bureaucrats who must be added to Universities’ staffs for them to receive federal funding besides the Title IX officer does not constitute an argument for why any of such things is a good thing.
I consider ensuring people are not discriminated against by institutions receiving federal funds to be a good thing. Do you? If not, admit it. If you do, stop with the dishonest framing where you keep trying to pretend Title IX and the OCR is related to the other purported concerns of its leveraging as discrimination.
>OP’s point about hires in physics being influenced toward less qualified folks due to DEI initiatives including those that favor women due to perverse incentives caused by Title IX bureaucracy zeitgeist
Oh, so you're ALSO equally clueless. Please quote exactly where it says "hire less qualified candidates for compliance". You are completely equivocating university progressive BS initiatives with anti-discrimination law, and ironically falling for their misuse of it as a result. Hilarious.

>>15303707
>I consider ensuring people are not discriminated against by institutions receiving federal funds to be a good thing.
And yet you argue for discrimination against some people. Curious.

>>15303713
>And yet you argue for discrimination against some people. Curious.
The dishonesty continues. I very clearly did the opposite. Nice try though. Gee I wonder why you're being dishonest about this? Maybe there's an agenda behind it?

>>15303714
>Gee I wonder why you're being dishonest about this? Maybe there's an agenda behind it?
Ironic post considering you openly proclaimed your ideological agenda here >>15303674 and >>15303559 here. We all know what you're here for. Concern trolling isn't something that works on people anymore, especially not when you've showed your hand so cluelessly.

>>15303723
Dipshit neither of those posts are mine. Jesus christ.

>>15303707
>I consider ensuring people are not discriminated against by institutions receiving federal funds to be a good thing.
so you can’t name a single good bureaucrat that the federal government mandates universities hire to their staffs. ok i was right. and again, enforcing laws in universities doesn’t usually require a bureaucrat; the normal process to enforce laws against discrimination is by a discriminated person to take their case against the offender to court themselves. no bureaucrat involved. you have no argument against this so far

> You are completely equivocating university progressive BS initiatives with anti-discrimination law, and ironically falling for their misuse of it as a result.
you honestly think that the establishment of bureaucratic offices in universities tasked with promoting e.g. woman hires is not going to influence the hiring process? you think filling up the staff of a university with people tasked to patrol professors with whether they’re discriminating against women isn’t going to have any effect on what those professors do in terms of hiring?

>>15303725
Not to mention that these officers and their departments will openly seek out women hires over men and establish financial incentives for women students over men.

>>15303725
>so you can’t name a single good bureaucrat that the federal government mandates universities hire to their staffs.
I do not accept the premise of an asshole. My rejecting your premise is not affirming it. Weird how allergic you are to honesty.

Curiously, you also didn't answer my simple question about whether or not you oppose anti-discrimination laws in general or such laws applying to institutions receiving federal funds. Gee I wonder why that is?
>you honestly think that the establishment of bureaucratic offices in universities tasked with promoting e.g. woman hires is not going to influence the hiring process?
Institutions abuse laws when they think they can get away with it. Instead of agreeing to focus on the real problem, some mindblowingly bad institutions openly discriminating against people on racial and sex grounds, you're engaged in this blatantly evasive and dishonest rhetoric. Gee I wonder why that is.
>you think filling up the staff of a university with people tasked to patrol professors with whether they’re discriminating against women isn’t going to have any effect on what those professors do in terms of hiring?
>>W-we can't stop discriminating or they'll be incentivized to discriminate!
>>15303707
>I consider ensuring people are not discriminated against by institutions receiving federal funds to be a good thing. Do you? If not, admit it. If you do, stop with the dishonest framing where you keep trying to pretend Title IX and the OCR is related to the other purported concerns of its leveraging as discrimination.
My question remains unanswered.

>>15303733
>My question remains unanswered.
I do not accept the premise of an asshole. My rejecting your premise is not affirming it. Weird how allergic you are to honesty.

>>15303734
>I do not accept the premise of an asshole. My rejecting your premise is not affirming it. Weird how allergic you are to honesty.
Wow, reduced to trying to give me my own cum back. If I wanted it I'd wipe it off your chin.

There's no premise in my question. It is, rather, asking clarification as to the extent of your actual issue. If you oppose it entirely as asked, then it's pointless to argue about any given example. Can't believe someone is THIS terrified to tell an anonymous person their opinion online. Holy shit.

>>15303737
I wonder what causes this level of aggression in redditors. Is it their feelings of inferiority due to being on the fringes of society, or is it an overcompensation due to some sort of past bullying by jocks and the intelligent?

>>15303723
So you’re saying you’re racist? Ok

>>15303740
>I wonder what causes this level of aggression in redditors. Is it their feelings of inferiority due to being on the fringes of society, or is it an overcompensation due to some sort of past bullying by jocks and the intelligent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>>Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of personal or political crisis[20] but is more commonly found in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[21]
Guess you can't handle an attempt at honest dialogue. Kinda sad really.

>>15303743
You're a person who sees racism under every stone and then tries to lie about being a fence-sitting centrist who just wants to stop discrimination by all sides. Nothing you say can be taken seriously with that level of ideological poisoning.

>>15303748
I'm only asking a scientific question. Do you have an answer for it?

>>15303733
Yes, policies which lead to diminishing of the more qualified candidate are a problem. It doesn't matter if it is the result of discrimination hidden under the guise of anti-discrimination policies.

>>15303733
this is just tiring now anon. you’re evading simple points over and over and it’s not going anywhere
honestly anon i think any neutral observer of the last few posts of yours would judge that you lost.

step back and see if you can contemplate why one would think that. i suspect you are unable to do that easily and challenging yourself to do so might be enlightening

>>15303754
>Yes, policies which lead to diminishing of the more qualified candidate are a problem. It doesn't matter if it is the result of discrimination hidden under the guise of anti-discrimination policies.
And you don't place the onus on "institutions and racist/sexist people abusing the law" because... ? I am speaking of racism and sexism as an equal concept not some woke "muh privilege plus power" nonsense. I want to know where your natural stopping point is. So far whoever replies seems fairly desperate to avoid any indication of it.
>>15303756
>honestly anon i think any neutral observer of the last few posts of yours would judge that you lost.
What, are you now literally going through the narcissistic personality disorder diagnostic criteria and TRYING to match every one in a row now? I mean that would be kinda funny.

>>15303756
not only did he lose, this isn't even the first time he's lost in this thread. he's been taking hard L's all day (potentially over two days depending on time zone) from different anons. it's basically a sunk cost fallacy for him at this point, i think he's trying to salvage some semblance of an argument and consistently failing. which makes it all the more sad to see, all the while simultaneously hilarious.

>>15303763
He's been doing the same for several days across several threads, shitting them up and then blowing out with rage when people refute his paper-thin talking points.

>>15303723
What’s your agenda? What’s wrong with ensuring there’s no racial discrimination?

>>15303776
>What’s your agenda?
Keeping science productive, truthful, and meritocratic.
>What’s wrong with ensuring there’s no racial discrimination?
This is what's called the motte of a motte and bailey fallacy.

How is hard science failing?

>>15303799
let me tell you that many of the most intensive experiments in physics require lots of funding and lots of “personpower” by competent people to execute the experiments, in terms of prototyping, design, construction, calibration, running/operations, and analysis. this means large collaborations. and usually because funding is a major bottleneck, those who get funding become dominant in the downstream activities. if the people with funding are not technically competent then many of the downstream activities are powered by persons with sub-optimal proficiency and then the success of the experiments is called into jeopardy. but admitting any failure downstream of funding implies the risk of defunding the sub-performant people with funding so every incentive exists to put lipstick on the pig of a mismanaged experiment

>>15303799
Because somehow preventing discrimination is bad mmk stop asking questions about why he blames that instead of the bad institutions not being allowed to discriminate is bad he said so mmmmk

>>15303904
>quotes south park
>the show that is contrary to xir’s argument

>>15301809
University was too easy for me that I got depressed
I don't think the tests test real intelligence anymo

>>15301905
> i think it is entirely “conservative” for a scientist like me to take the mentality that politics should be kept out of my day-to-day and instead focus on science
Tru

>>15303889
Worse, if the grant and equipment holders are technically proficient and highly intelligent but their ideas are wrong, they can create a lot of very good-sounding and solidly founded but completely useless results while soaking up millions in grant funding.

>>15301809
Real question is: in what way can we assert hard science? More experiments? More samples? Better equipment? More math?
There gotta be a reason to why hard science isn't as challenging as what it used to be.
Could be because we have the internet which can provide many information that we need that even people without degrees or proper schooling can grasp.
So what are your contributions in this?

Personally I think we should read original books instead of watered-down textbooks as it gave us lesson to think logically instead of just learning what universities told us to learn.

>>15303951
What I mean is like original texts, excerpts, manuscripts, of the original thinker of certain knowledge.

>>15303889
So... Um... Engineers?

>>15303956
engineers are equally liable to this failure mode. if your boss is incompetent on the physics and gives you specifications for a device you should engineer, then that becomes your job. if a grad student or a postdoc comes along and points out that the design is flawed or the experiment needs to change to a new spec, then the engineer who has invested months or years of their life to this lost cause has every incentive to argue in favor of keeping it alive just to maintain their relevance and salary. engineers are certainly not the ones who ever question the overarching goals of experimental physics programs except in obvious scenarios where physicists suggest something impossible from the engineering perspective; often this is not the case and the engineers get duped into a boondoggle and are just as big cheerleaders for it as the physicists

>>15303951
i don’t think reading old books has any relevance to modern science except by giving very crucial context to the paradigms at play today.

of course it is important to know the prevailing wisdom that dictates what and what not can be said in the current context

but we should give some recognition to the Kuhnian idea that physics progresses through radical paradigm shifts. all the greats in physics were movers and shakers and unoriginal thinkers never did anything

Lol everyone on here is insane

>>15304249
>i hate 4chan, i hate /sci/
why are you here if seeing the content on this board triggers you emotionally? look at something else or just walk away from the screen if seeing /sci/ makes you angry
goodbye

>>15304249
You probably eat your own shit so I dont think I will be taking mental advice from you today sir

>>15303671
technically diamond is a mineral, not a stone

>>15304258
>>15304259
>seething
See this is what I’m talking about
Perhaps the problem isn’t hard sciences but you
I couldn’t take your opinions seriously because you’re unable to calmly state them
Rather it’s just more tard postin and shit that screams autism or some other psychological condition

>>15304279
kek I agree faggot. You can hardly have an adult conversation on this board without a schizo or autist having a meltdown and shitting all over the place and flinging it everywhere. Doesn't mean you can't troll them for lolz after they already ruined it

>>15302523
Trannies are a highly visible symptom, but it's true we had the likes of Franz Boas dedicatedly injecting ignorance of racial differences into our anthropology departments cira ~1900 to ~1940. Many intelligent people were sounding the alarm about Jewish cultural subversion in the 1870's. It's been at least several generations of failure to get to this point.

>>15302523
>The rot set in decades before the whole "tranny" issue, you dumbass. You're fucking OBSESSED.
We've had trannyism since the 1900s, anon... Unless you want to argue that the rot set in during the Enlightenment you're obviously misinformed.

>>15303088
What did they do before the English Revolution? Most of my knowledge on the subject comes from "The Nameless War". Wasn't it just spreading black plague and getting themselves kicked out of towns for trying to exploit the locals?

>>15304304
Don't forget kidnapping Christian children and draining their blood for rituals.

>>15304304
Well they were in Holland after being expelled from Spain. That is where they financed Cromwell for the English revolution to be let back in to England. Ever heard of the Hyksos or the amarna letters? Read them, you will be able to tell exactly who they are talking about

>>15303904
>"preventing discrimination"
>discriminating in favor of the congenitally stupid on the basis of proportionality

>>15303998
My experience as an engineer has been that there's plenty of projects around to do, so no need to keep a bad idea going for employment sake.

>>15304312
I hadn't heard of the Hyksos or the amarna letters, thanks for the tip. I wonder if this will cover how they got the ancient Egyptian farmer's land and then rented it back to them.

>>15304305
That's true, that appears to have been a big deal based on volume of related art.

>>15304324
>I wonder if this will cover how they got the ancient Egyptian farmer's land and then rented it back to them.
Read about the Amen priesthood. You can find articles on all of this here:
https://esotericawakening.com/

>>15301809
Academia is corrupt and ineffective, and thus has to be replaced with something much better. And you know that technology to make it better is already available, so only inertia keeps us from trying to do science otherwise. Well, I do science otherwise, and of course I'm not funded by the state. Destroy every government. No settlement should be a subject to some larger settlements. Only some ecological crimes should be dealt with by anonymous assassination or other persuation of the perpetrators.

>>15301809
>“engagement” and “outreach”
Not useful for science but will probably bring in more money.

All of the low hanging fruit is gone. For most universities, garnering merit through making actual scientific progress has reached a point where returns are too diminished.
They only wanted the merit for marketing purposes to begin with.
Right now, it is more profitable to garner social/cultural/political merit through cheap diversity virtue signals than it is to garner scientific merit through difficult/costly scientific progress.

The problem is both in the universities and in the demand side (students).
Both need to be addressed to fix the issue.
The activists in the universities want easy money and to spread their ideology.
The students have easy money (student loans) and are propagandized by the activists (to value the diversity bs).
Some combination of removing activists, restricting money, and depropaganda is required.
Depropaganda is the hardest because kids lean left by default. It might only be possible to stop the propaganda then wait for undamaged generations to enter the market.
The money might be easiest and it would lead to activists getting fired for being dead weight. Get rid of student loans (or at least restrict them to top performing students) and restrict the NSF grants (and any other government cash) to actual science and actual academic activity.
Starve the universities in a way that keeps the useful stuff funded until the plague leaves.

Science is a dead end. I don't care about it other than what it can do practically. It carries zero meaning in my life.

Science will only matter if it turns inward to explore who we are, rather than the supposed external world around us.

>>15302339

It's actually interesting to study. We can do it scientifically. Your feelings about /sci/ are, from a purely material view, actually neurons firing off. The problem, though, is how that becomes your subjective experience. The subjective experience that you are experiencing is what we call "buck broken." There is no mechanism by which we can ever generate the feeling of being buck broken simply from reconstructing the brain. In other words, as Nagel put it, "what is it like to be buck broken?"

>>15304301
Oh so it all goes back to being racist.

>>15305008

We are all divine souls stuck in human bodies. Every body has it's own limitations. Some people are less intelligent. Some people are more intelligent. That's okay to admit. Come to peace with reality rather than resisting it.

>>15302368
What’s do you find so offensive about ways to curb sexual harassment and racial discrimination?

>>15304631
You should be aware that shortage of money used for research that comes from the university (mostly used to pay grad students) is not caused by some boogeyman DEI or anything of the sort. Same goes for NSF grants where most of the money comes from.
Outreach and engagement are extremely useful for science and getting people interested in pursuing those degrees. That’s one of the main reasons I’m doing a PhD now.
You don’t care about any of that though, it’s pretty clear from your language what your feelings towards certain people really are.

>>15302523
this anon gets it
it was started in enlightenment

>>15305117

The elevation of the human mind over the soul. Forgetting that logic ultimately comes from feeling.

>>15302523
>he thinks the word "trannies" in that context mean "trannies" literally
maybe you should go back to >>>Reddit you newfag.

>>15301885
>>15302523
>you didn't stop the women when they knocked at the door
Fixed it. Trannies are just the inevitable terminus once everything has been reduced to "muh heckin feelings".

>>15305220
This. Women only complain about trannyism now that it hurts them, but the same complainers fostered the environment that enables them to exist. See: JK Rowling and her catering to loony leftists in the early 2010s.

>>15305008
Well of course it does. That's why they never answered my question about why they misplace the onus on the law rather than institutions or individuals. Doing so would require they either accept the premise and reason for the law and have to argue uphill from there, or explicitly admit they want the "freedom to discriminate" and argue uphill from there. By avoiding explicit answers they can duck, dodge, and ballet dance rhetorically however they wish. >>15303762

Though the funny thing to me is this idea you can somehow trick someone into supporting racism. Yeah sorry guys but "anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because because okay" doesn't trick anybody.

>>15305220
I have no clue as to what that picrel meme is all about or who the fuck any of those dweebs in it are, but the GI Joe tea party part make me kek! "Yooo Joe!"

>>15305353
>Women only complain about trannyism now that it hurts them, but the same complainers fostered the environment that enables them to exist.
Cue Joker meme "You get what you fucking deserve."

>>15305858
>Though the funny thing to me is this idea you can somehow trick someone into supporting racism. Yeah sorry guys but "anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because because okay" doesn't trick anybody.
Equality of outcome is inherently discriminatory because people are inherently different. There is no "equity" without racism. Given a level playing field, people will naturally self-segregate into competence bands and different fields based on their ability to compete.

>>15301809
You are failing

>>15301809
Contemporary physics has a lot of problems honestly. Some of the big ones are the approaches to problem solving and the complete lack of economic advantage for students to pursue it.

>>15305858
They are inherently discriminatory, actually they are far more discriminatory through over-representation of the chosen class than typical whole societies which have no way to achieve absurd ratios by the mere nature of numbers.
When the chosen class, as a whole, is extremely under qualified, this only serves to exacerbate the discriminatory nature.
I don't think you understand.
I will not get on a plane because of diversity. Not just the pilots, but the engineers, the factory workers, etc. Every step in the chain has steered away from risk aversion. I can't wait until it's mayhem again and comfy qualified people are back on top. Enjoy chink level risk exposure, I wills it back and laugh at the videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V6gf86cctg

>>15305957
Yet another example of flatly not understanding OCR or the relevant law, and running on mistaken assumptions parroted ideologues. Same as was already dealt with >>15303707
So your problem isn't the law or the concept of the law, as nothing about "not discriminating" is discriminatory.

>>15305008
>Oh so it all goes back to being racist.
More specifically, it all goes back to Jewish racism.

>>15305048
I made no claims about where the money shortage comes from or that there even is one.
My main claim is that there is TOO MUCH money going to bullshit making it increasingly lucrative to not do real science.
>Outreach and engagement are extremely useful for science and getting people interested in pursuing those degrees.
That might be a legit reason or it could just be a way to make more money. It seems to be in alignment with both.
>it’s pretty clear from your language what your feelings towards certain people really are
You got me. I dislike activists and I like actual scientists.
Or was that an implicit accusation of some kind of -ism or -phobe?

>>15306739
I want one of these people to defend outreach programs, instead of merely making flippant attacks against their perceived enemies. They should be able to articulate in explicit terms what the benefit of a 50%-70% female classroom is, or a 25% black college admissions scheme.

>>15305957
>over-representation of the chosen class

>>15302335
You just said Yes/No/Yes/No. You must be in social science

>>15305861
The Witcher is a very successful videogame series about a cross between Conan the Barbarian and James Bond, who gallivants around a medieval fantasy world as a sword-for-hire, killing monsters and romancing a harem of sexy sorceresses. Netflix bought the rights to make a tv show out of it and hired the buff Superman actor, Henry Caville, to play the lead. But Caville has demonstrated a knowledge and appreciation of the source material, and supposedly butted heads with the writers on multiple occasions to keep the original tone as a male power fantasy. This is in contrast to the the socially progressive writers who want to make an essentially different narrative that focuses on the lives of those aforementioned sorceresses as powerful women, as well as other progressive causes and stylistic choices.

This came to a head after the filming of the third season where now Caville, the star, has left/been removed from the show. In the interim, Netflix is releasing a completely original prequel show about a middle aged Asian lady who also fights monsters and stuff.
Basically, imagine if they cast Arnold Schwarzenegger to lead a Hercules show, only for half the screen time to be about Hercules' Amazon warrior friend. Then after years of fighting, they fire Schwarzenegger, drop the Hercules premise, and make an entirely new show about warrior women in ancient Greek land, while keeping 'Hercules' in the title in hopes it will attract more viewership.

>>15306791
It's originally a Polish novel series. The show is supposed to be a mirror of the novels, and Cavill likes the novels. It's set in fantasy Poland in the Medieval Period, and all of the races are based on nations local to Poland, so the northern barbarians are the Rus and the southern lands are Italy and Albania.

The show got a lot of flak from the original audience because it cast a bunch of nonwhites as Polish people, and made the northern barbarians mixed race instead of Russian while the southerners were black instead of Italian.

>>15301809
Now that hard science has conclusively failed, what comes next?

>>15308829
i think next is engineers and doctors. literally people will start dying from buildings collapsing and fatalities from failed tonsillectomies

>>15306739
You've failed to point out how something with is completely separate from conducting research gets in the way of it. You're being hyperbolic making it seem there's people screaming to you in the lab.
>increasingly lucrative to not do real science
That's a nonsensical statement given all the bullshit that an university will spend money on. DEI is at the bottom of that list. The problem of student loans has all to do with predatory capitalism and nothing with DEI.
>I dislike activists and I like actual scientists
Yes, such radical activism it is to spend some time trying to get more people interested in science. Especially when such an activity has zero effect on performing research.
I think it's pretty clear what you mean together with this guy
>>15306772
Making up retarded numbers in his head.

>>15308887
>Making up retarded numbers in his head.
I wish he was. Those are lowballed compared to the actual numbers in state colleges.

>>15308860
I was thinking of "what comes next (to solve problems) now that science has been debunked." But you're right. The rot is already migrating through the technical professions. It will get much worse as essential services are increasingly left in the hands of people of quota.

>>15305957
What does a deliberate dive by a Chinese pilot in China have to do with diversity?
You're making shit up to be transparently racist.

>>15308894
Women being more present in higher education is a pretty well documented phenomenon.
Why exactly would you be upset about the presence of a bit more black people in college and assume they don't deserve to be there? Truly a mystery why you'd feel that way

>>15308906
>Why exactly would you be upset about the presence of a bit more black people in college and assume they don't deserve to be there? Truly a mystery why you'd feel that way
What do you find so offensive about trying to curb sex and race-based discrimination in higher education?

>>15308910
Oh spare me that boohoo white men are the most discriminated bullshit. It straight out of boomer memes and Fox News. it all goes back to you being upset that there’s more Black people in campus. The idea that there’s so many white people being left out is ridiculous in state colleges and in the Ivy League legacy admissions are a vastly more common problem of people with no qualifications being there.

>>15308933
The dishonesty continues. Nice try though. Gee I wonder why you're being dishonest about this? Maybe there's an agenda behind it?

>>15308933
>legacy admissions are a vastly more common problem of people with no qualifications being there.
they are both problems, sure, but honestly if you look at the data the “achievement gap” is much more pronounced for diversity acceptees. in fact there is a pronounced effect for diversity acceptees to drop out of hard science majors into social sciences and “studies” departments that is well documented; with legacies the trend is more to track into what their parents’ majors or grad specialties were

>>15308933
>Oh spare me that boohoo white men are the most discriminated bullshit.
Talking about by law, this is a fact. This is why you would like to brush over it with sophistry and won't address it. Saying "muh" doesnt make a fact magically go away

>>15308933
You people wanted to make everything about race with people who wanted everything to be about merit. You won't like what happens next, I promise you.

Turns out you were being judged on the content of your character all along.

>>15308941
Come on, tell me how it’s such a harrowing experience that there’s a single percentage increase of Black people in the student body and how it’s so discriminatory.

>>15308933
-the recent anti-White/anti-Aisan Ivy League admissions lawsuits determined discrimination is ok, IF it's against Whites and Asians.

-legacy admissions are a joke and should be illegal. that shit is something you'd see in the Middle East or dictatorial Africa.

>>15308946
There’s a myriad of explanations as to what causes the achievement gap. This is anecdotal and it’s not about a black person because there are literally none in my grad program, but a Latino girl dropped out of the program because of economic problems. The university in my opinion failed to properly disclose the true cost of living for the area and have shit stipends. My parents are well off and can help from time to time but it is a pretty clear advantage nonetheless.
At the end of the day it’s a minuscule amount of people that fail and to claim that this means white people are being discriminated because a few black people got accepted to a program is ridiculous.

>>15308963
What specific problems do you have with meritocracy besides being a racist incel who can’t handle seeing a marginal amount of whites in a department? All this is is outreach to local communities and helping in-state students with the hassles of entering a career.

>>15308966
Lmao you mean the lawsuit made by Edward Blum, a long time conservative activist that’s long been for discrimination? It’s so obvious he was looking through admission denials and approached the people to spin up a story

>>15308994
What’s your agenda? What’s wrong with ensuring there’s no racial discrimination?

>>15308966
>>15308996
>>15308946
Even assuming that every single black person admitted to an Ivy League did not deserve to be there (pretty racist take) we're talking about 5-10% of the students compared to 30+% of legacies alone.

>>15309054
Answer my question. What scary thing do you you think meritocracy does?

>>15309059
The fact that schools in the US are funded by property taxes means that class entirely supersedes any attempt at meritocracy in college admissions. See legacies and donor kids. Nothing wrong with meritocracy, but it’s impossible to actually implement when it just benefits the wealthy.

>>15309059
NTA, but you've a very convenient strawman notion of meritocracy there. Those schools do not exactly admit you for simply having a high IQ, and there is literally something called "legacy preferences". Pure nepotism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

I do think it is awfully convenient, even though I disagree with affirmative action, that people taking issue with affirmative action don't realize the wealthy have long since already had exactly that as well. Yes, I am for meritocracy. That is why the wealthy shouldn't get unearned placement just for being wealthy, and "legacy preferences" are extremely non-meritorious.

However I am also a very pragmatic person. If legacy preferences cannot or will not be made illegal? Then fuck you, there's nothing wrong with admitting any other kind of arbitrary preference that isn't on the basis of purely being earned. Pick your poison.

>>15309082
I consider ensuring people are not discriminated against by institutions receiving federal funds to be a good thing. Do you? If not, admit it. If you do, stop with the dishonest framing where you keep trying to pretend meritocratic admission is related to the other purported concerns of its leveraging as discrimination.

>>15309090
You've failed to point out how something with is completely separate from conducting admissons gets in the way of it. You're being hyperbolic making it seem there's people screaming to you not to go to college.
>I do think it is awfully convenient, even though I disagree with affirmative action, that people taking issue with affirmative action don't realize the wealthy have long since already had exactly that as well. Yes, I am for meritocracy. That is why the wealthy shouldn't get unearned placement just for being wealthy, and "legacy preferences" are extremely non-meritorious.
That's a nonsensical statement given all the bullshit that an university will spend money on. Legacy admissions is at the bottom of that list. The problem of lack of meritorious admissions has all to do with predatory capitalism and nothing with legacy admissions.
>However I am also a very pragmatic person. If legacy preferences cannot or will not be made illegal? Then fuck you, there's nothing wrong with admitting any other kind of arbitrary preference that isn't on the basis of purely being earned. Pick your poison.
Yes, such radical activism it is to spend some time trying to get more deserving people into academia. Especially when such an activity has zero effect on your life.
I think it's pretty clear what you mean together with this guy
>>15308963
Making up retarded numbers in his head.

>>15309091
Why do you think you’re being sly when it’s so obvious what your intentions are? You have yet to give evidence on how DEI in any way affects scientific research at an university.

>>15309093
Amazing arguments as expected from retarded racists

>>15309096
>>15309098
Wow, reduced to trying to give me my own cum back. If I wanted it I'd wipe it off your chin.

There's no premise in my argument. It is, rather, giving clarification as to the extent of your actual issue. If you oppose it entirely as stated, then it's pointless to argue about any given example. Can't believe someone is THIS terrified to tell an anonymous person their opinion online. Holy shit.

>>15309093
It is not completely separate. In principle they are both the same, in that both are not meritorious. Nor is my statement "nonsensical" due to relative privation.
Far from grappling with the issue, you've tried to dodge it. All while ironically admitting to the force of my earlier rhetoric by quoting me word for word >>15309091 while not addressing it for your own perspective. Or so I assume that was you, else why interpose? Here, again, is the exact same thing. You hypocritically dismiss one non-meritorious system, yet downplay the other without consistency.

So far all you've done is dodge, and two of my much earlier posts and questions were suddenly ignored without any answer once I got to the meat of it. Very convenient. Gee I wonder why that was. Each and every time you quote me, you admit I was right.

>>15309102
>There's no premise in my argument
Quoting me again doesn't work here, especially as saying "there's no premise in my ARGUMENT" is not the same as trying to explain a question had no hidden motives or different premise.

Congratulations. You've played yourself. If your argument has no premise it wasn't an argument. Dumbass.

>>15309104
>>15309105
I can't believe it took you this long, I'm disappointed in your intellect. I had to get really blatant before you even noticed something was wrong.

>>15309106
I just showed up you fucking schizo. >>15309090

>>15309110
You spent several minutes typing up a response to someone who was just feeding you your own text run through an AI chatbot. If that's what winning looks like, then hand me the L right now.

>>15309112
So did you fail to notice I immediately called you out on that >>15309104
? Or do you need this fantasy to feel better about yourself? Either way "I'm being a completely dishonest prick" isn't the win you think it is.

>>15302383
I'm very dishonest, most people are too dumb to know when I'm lying. Being honest is a cuck move, mostly hebrews and Christians who got psyop'd by their 10 commandments. I prefer lying, thats why I got the big contract from Trump and Putin to post on /sci/.

>>15309102
Provide a concrete example as to why white people are being discriminated by the acceptance of single digit percentages of black students while legacies make up more than 30%. What could be the reason you are focusing on the black students, assume that they all do not deserve to be there and ignore the many many more legacy whites that had an unfair advantage? That’s thy I state it’s pretty clear what you’re trying to say.

>>15309120
It's kind of pointless to continue talking to someone who is explicitly admitting to being reduced to trolling. You basically won. If he had a good position he'd have argued it.

>>15309117
>immediately
After around 2 and a half hours replying to your own posts. Listen, I had plenty of fun mocking you but you don't need to feel so insecure about this. Just accept that people, even you, can't differentiate your own arguments from those of a "retarded racist" as was stated in >>15309098

>>15309127
>After around 2 and a half hours replying to your own posts.
...The person you've been talking to is not me. I already made that clear.

>>15309125
>being reduced to trolling.
Oh no you misunderstand me entirely. I came here specifically to troll you, because narcissists with low common sense are funny to mess with.

>>15309130
Kinda failed at it given you've been "trolling" the guy who ain't me. The joke ended up being on you in the funniest way possible.

>>15309131
And you're so not trolled that you're shitting and crying about it now. I understand.

>>15309133
This was the last post I'd made >>15306483 before just now returning here >>15309091

Just trying to warn you about them stairs bro.

>>15309137
Fuck I misclicked. I meant returning here >>15309090 obviously. Goddamnit.

this thread has gotten all mixed up.-: far as i can tell there are two sides. side (A) consists of one anon who accuses anyone who is critical of DEI of being a racist or sexist (B) consists of a schizo named bodhi who posts jew memes and (C) are some anons who think DEI might possibly maybe if you think about it maybe possibly is unfair to white males

do i have this right?

>>15309152
Well there's me, (D), who actually does want meritocracy and doesn't think A, B, or C, are correct for various reasons. Not sure how but people ended up, or that one idiot ended up, confusing my multi-paragraph points about the law and OCR with person (A). DEI certainly can be abused and has problems but that's true of any law as long as the institution is rotten. I also made that point way earlier days ago.

>>15309154
so you think that discrimination against white men should be abolished, right?

>>15309155
We probably wouldn't agree as to what exists why or where, or anything else for that matter, but in general yes I am opposed to discriminating regardless of the reason or supposed virtue behind it. Not just about race or sex either. However my position is somewhat of a lost cause given how thoroughly the well is poisoned.

>>15309160
but in the case that policies are directly discriminating against white people, you oppose them? just trying to understand.

>>15309162
Yes, if we could be said to agree on what "discrimination" means. I mentioned already the example of OCR admonishing certain institutions creating a bullshit scenario of sabotaging opportunities to pursue "equity" over equality proportionate to the interests of the students. Does that clarify matters enough?

>>15309165
so you're against affirmative action based on race. ok. just wanted to make sure.

>>15309162
>>15309120
You have failed to answer this point

>>15309168
who answer what?

>>15309166
Yes. From the perspective of principle it is discriminatory, and from a pragmatic perspective it's not solving the real issue. The real issues they should and could be fighting for pertain more to matters of funding and economic developmental disparities and how they reflect on education. On the same basis I am also wholly opposed to legacy preferences or any kind of nepotism, and this as well would've been an appropriate target.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Just being a different sort of racist is not exactly helpful, and is very much the wrong way.

>>15309165
see anon, this is why this board exists. you just went on a long drawn out multi-post ideological defense of some ridiculous ideological cause, you got worn down by anons, you saw some reality, and then you moderated yourself and internalized the fact that you were being extreme and that you should learn some sense
that is good. a positive role model for future anons

>>15309152
(A) I want someone to tell me how DEI affects scientific research which is the first post of the thread. Especially when the only example they could come up with was some cringe emails. Affirmative action is a completely different discussion.

>>15308887
>You've failed to point out how something with is completely separate from conducting research gets in the way of it
People tend to chase the easiest money. If there is money to be made in diversity virtue signalling then some people will opt to do that instead of research.
>That's a nonsensical statement given all the bullshit that an university will spend money on.
Why would they spend money on bullshit that is less lucrative than real science? It's almost as if they crunched numbers and determined that bullshit helps their bottom line in some way.
>DEI is at the bottom of that list
Women's studies, AA studies, queer studies, etc. are in the curriculum. They are above any bullshit student group activities at least. If schools are engaged in affirmative action, that means money for DEI is going to the admissions dept. Most schools probably have some diversity dept (just go to any university website and search for "diversity" in the search bar). The fucking community college in my town has one.
>The problem of student loans has all to do with predatory capitalism and nothing with DEI
The abundance of student loans is what gives the universities a bunch of extra money to throw at DEI.
>Yes, such radical activism it is to spend some time trying to get more people interested in science.
The people you get interested matter. Anything beyond general outreach (for example, specifically trying to get more women or POC) will necessarily mean lowering the bar. Lower quality will mean less bang for your buck in research.

>>15309180
This... this has been my position from the start. DEI is not synonymous with equity initiatives and affirmative action nor discrimination. I also made that clear and that has remained the central point of confusion, equivocation, the whole fucking time. That's why I stopped bothering after the 26th and only made a single post on the 27th as people refused to answer relevant questions honestly.

>>15309186
Goddamnit I meant the law as pertains to OCR and things like Title IX are not synonymous with DEI.

It is very late here.>>15309180

>>15309186
>DEI is not synonymous with equity initiatives
the middle e of dei is equity

>>15309169
Answer why do you specifically focus on black student admissions and claim they lead to white discrimination when legacy admissions of white people are the vastly more numerous and are the actually the ones taking spots from the whites you claim are discriminated against.

>>15309187
YES, anon, I'm aware >>15309188. I microsleep'd my sentence I think. I'm about to go to bed. Sorry for that.

>>15309190
is me arguing with you?

>>15309168
>>15309190
You're replying to the wrong anon.

>>15309180
This... this has been my position from the start. DEI is not synonymous with OCR or Title IX. I also made that clear and that has remained the central point of confusion, equivocation, the whole fucking time. That's why I stopped bothering after the 26th and only made a single post on the 27th as people refused to answer relevant questions honestly.
>>15309187
Fixed it to avoid the ensuing confusion from passerby. Going to bed.

>>15309190
Legacy fucks over everyone.
To the white non-legacy student that gets denied over a less qualified black student I'm sure it is reassuring to hear at least a bunch people that are white got in through legacy.
Fuck your worldview that only sees groups of people (grouped by skin color) and not individuals.
If you don't like legacy then get rid of legacy. Don't impose a second unfair practice and pretend you fixed anything.

>>15308829
Going back to the topic of the thread, what do people think will come next after science? Now that science has empirically failed, will anything replace it? Is there a new system or academy waiting in the wings?

>>15309183
>People tend to chase the easiest money. If there is money to be made in diversity virtue signalling then some people will opt to do that instead of research.
What does that have to do with it preventing research though? How does the existence of such program that is a minuscule portion of the budget ?
I'm still at a loss as to what do you mean by this. This is just a strawman.
>Why would they spend money on bullshit that is less lucrative than real science? It's almost as if they crunched numbers and determined that bullshit helps their bottom line in some way.
Science is not lucrative you should have noticed this by now. Even when talking about grant overhead, that again, has zero to do with the existence of a DEI department.
>Women's studies, AA studies, queer studies, etc. are in the curriculum.
So? Just because you don't like those fields does it mean that they shouldn't exist?
>The abundance of student loans is what gives the universities a bunch of extra money to throw at DEI.
Once again, minuscule amounts compared to for examples multi million dollar sport coaches contracts.
>(for example, specifically trying to get more women or POC) will necessarily mean lowering the bar.
There it is. All that word salad to just admit its always about racism.That's why you focus on the small amounts of salary given to some DEI secretary because you think that women and minorities are fundamentally lesser people.

>>15309213
>There it is. All that word salad to just admit its always about racism.That's why you focus on the small amounts of salary given to some DEI secretary because you think that women and minorities are fundamentally lesser people.
I'm saying as soon as you shift your criteria away from merit then you will NECESSARILY be sacrificing merit.

>>15309213
>How does the existence of such program that is a minuscule portion of the budget ?
The admin budget is usually 2-10x the academic budget. Several institutions I know spend more on DEI admin staff than the entirety of STEM professor salaries, with individual employees making 6 figures while professors make 5 figures.

>>15309221
i can attest to the truth of this anon’s post. admins in DEI definitely make more money than science departments

>>15309227
Because of how employment laws work, we can see how much our colleagues make. It's a very sobering and sometimes horrifying experience to know that certain make-work DEI jobs make over 200k/yr when a new professor is lucky to get over 65k. I could found my own department just by firing one staff member who does nothing.

>>15309205
>over a less qualified black student
Why are you assuming that's the case? Interesting.
>Fuck your worldview that only sees groups of people (grouped by skin color) and not individuals.
It is inherently impossible to ignore the fact that a certain population is less than two generations removed from abject poverty as the result of among many things the deliberate exclusion from the GI Bill and access to post WW2 programs that helped build the wealth of the middle class with social spending. and that's just in the 50s. The black girl who had to be escorted to school by federal agents while people had black child dolls in nooses around her is still alive.
>>15309220
In addition to that, as discussed above, merit is a complete fantasy when wealth wholly supersedes it both in better quality of schools and having access to legacy privileges. This affects everyone, but because of the reasons above, disproportionately affects the black population.
>>15309231
>>15309227
>>15309221
These are vague claims and highly specific situations with no context. In my university, every professor starts at $100k+. Admins make more or less depending on their level.
How are the salary budgets allocated? What is the position level? In many institutions high level admins will always make more than a professor. You are again focusing on the DEI people when there are certainly more people who also have a higher salary than a professor.

>>15309241
says the DARVO practitioner

>>15309241
>You are again focusing on the DEI people when there are certainly more people who also have a higher salary than a professor.
Well I'd like to cut a lot of admin jobs frankly, because admin is huge and bloated, but I'm happiest to start where I know the workers do nothing necessary. That's where all good budget cuts start.

>>15309231
>>15309250
Where the fuck are you that a professor makes $65k? That's strange as fuck. Surely you mean research staff?
Why are you assuming that DEI work is worthless? interesting.

>>15309258
>Why are you assuming that DEI work is worthless? interesting.
Assuming?

>>15301809
No shit. Political correctness and identity politics has absolutely destroyed western civilization and it will only continue to get worse.

>>15309250
>Well I'd like to cut a lot of admin jobs frankly
same, and i think a lot of academia feels the same way. it is just not an accepted “progressive” meme and not many academics want to admit they are “conservative” in this way but it is absolutely the consensus of academics to eliminate stupid bureaucratic lv”oversight”

>>15309265
There really is no way that the management-level staff of a university needs to be larger than its teaching staff. At many state schools in the US the ratio of managers to professors is 1:1 or higher, which is just absurd. We could be funding so many experiments or hiring new staff with that money. It's just being stolen from the taxpayer.

>>15309275
Forget funding new hires even. Just reduce tuition and fire all of those administrators. You could get college costs down by a huge amount just doing that.

>>15309260
Smells of racism but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Answer my points above because it looks like you're embellishing some numbers. I'm looking at my Uni's records and admins who break six figures are in high positions and the people who work department level admin barely clear $50k.

>>15309289
What's racist about disliking admin bloat?

>>15309231
>>15309227
>>15309295
Point to me where the far cat DEI admins are

>>15309279
it is really ridiculous how fake tuition costs fall on universities. tuition is the most fraudulently accounted thing in the entire system.

basically everything parents pay and where all student loans go is into endowments.

the real accounting of university operational costs comes from federal funding . the entire system that forces young people into debt is a charade.

>>15309301
What's racist about disliking admin bloat?

>>15309250
arguable.
the replication crisis publishers on your school campus aren't any better or more valuable than an administrative idiot, i don't see why you seem to think they are. none of them produce anything of value, but at least the admin types aren't wasting research funding as fast as they can.
see picrel.
in the same timeframe as picrel, medical error has gone from being an uncommon cause of death to being on par with cancer & heart disease. so we'd be worse off with more doctors

>>15309307
You're mysteriously faulting the existence of DEI for somehow completely destroying scientific research and claimed that it was due to salaries of those people specifically. I showed you that's not the case and surprise, the director of Science and Research is among the top earners, hmmmm. Now you're deflecting to admin bloat in general, which I agree but it wasn't your original point.

>>15309311
Hmm, that's a good point anon. What do you think about >>15309208? What can be done now that science has been objectively disproven as a valid occupation? Will there be a successor?

>>15309311
did it ever occur to you that the pic you posted and the underlying paper i’d complete bullshit?

>>15309326
>You're mysteriously faulting the existence of DEI for somehow completely destroying scientific research and claimed that it was due to salaries of those people specifically. I showed you that's not the case and surprise, the director of Science and Research is among the top earners, hmmmm.
That would be a weak but passable argument if any of those things had happened. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you might just have a traumatic brain injury and your memories are fuzzy rather than the unlikely (but very worrisome) thought that you may be arguing in bad faith.

>>15309332
>Several institutions I know spend more on DEI admin staff than the entirety of STEM professor salaries
So you're saying you were having a stroke when you claimed this with zero evidence or context?

>>15309332
in other words, you admit to being a complete ideologue. do i have that right?

>>15309339
I stated that empirical fact with the confidence of seeing institutional salaries within the bounds of the law. My claim was independently replicated in a process of peer review by >>15309227 and stands as scientific consensus.

>>15309340
Is disliking administrators and bureaucracy an ideology? If so, what political party subscribes to that ideology so I can vote for them.

>>15309346
yet you repeatedly supported the federal law that forces universities to mandate that all schools that receive federal funding to specifically add a Title IX Compliance Officer to their staff?

>>15309332
If I'm following the thread, you made this post.
>>15309183
>If there is money to be made in diversity virtue signalling then some people will opt to do that instead of research.
>>15309344
I posted the empirical data showing that the top earners in my university are professors and the Director of Science and Research. You were claiming DEI staff were making way more than those positions for some reason. Show me the positions and salaries that you claimed. Because some rando DEI admin making more than a professor is insane.

>>15309352
Wrong anon. You were arguing with this racist schizo >>15309354

>>15309344
Messed up my filter but my point still stands. Where are these fat cat DEI earners? STEM professors are indeed the top earners at the University contrary to your claims.

>>15309354
the problem is not whether DEI “officers” make more or less money than faculty. the problem is that they make any money at all. they should be categorically zeroed out

>>15309372
Oh so now it's just some personal grievance you have out of spite specifically to DEI admins out oef all the others but before you were claiming that DEI people personally were responsible for inhibiting research?
>>15309183
>People tend to chase the easiest money. If there is money to be made in diversity virtue signalling then some people will opt to do that instead of research.

>>15309377
>Oh so now it's just some personal grievance you have out of spite specifically to DEI admins out oef all the others but before you were claiming that DEI people personally were responsible for inhibiting research?
i have no idea where you got that from but my basic answer is: No

>>15309227
>>15309231
>>15309221
Still waiting on some documentation on this

>>15309446
Not specific to university but there is this
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-manager-salary
first google result of "how much do dei admins make"
For some numbers specific to universities
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+do+university+dei+admins+make
they all seem to be in the 6 figure range

Now I want sources for your refutation

Why are you all arguing about DEI, meritocracy and having more female and non-whites in science in a true /pol/tard shitfest?
And why is almost nobody talking about
>Reproducibility
>Incentive to just publish trash
>Flood of (meaningless) papers
>Shit tier pay causing moves to industry
>Directors and group leaders being more of administrators than scientists
>Highly specialized training, lack of fundamentals

>>15309832
Don’t do his homework for him, he made specific claims about his institution that he didn’t substantiate.
Why did you put manager in the search field? That’s as if I put dean or department chair modifier on a professor salary.