Are you referring to anything specific with Anglicans and Presbyterians? Last year I went and found my old childhood Presbyterian church again. Woke messages scrawled everywhere, more social messaging than actual religious content.
It's on the wrong side. Mentally Ill Tranny Demon Slayers.
But the weird thing here is... why would Torba come to know they're trannies. If they're hacking to piss him off, why reveal their own personal info even slightly... Am I missing some backstory here that makes this make sense? I can see someone spamming Torba with that type of material when hacking because they're trying to goad.
I don't see it, but I hope we avoid friendly fire around here. We all would like things like in his post to happen, but don't we all agree that they won't? The things I don't like about hopium are: 1) it can be a method to pull in donations but not really pursue the goal effectively (or at all), and 2) it misdirects people from more productive responses.
Kind of like the problem from when suckers, such as myself, donated to winred when they said they'd support the legal fight for election investigations which were instead sucked up by the RNC, and probably bought Liz Cheney a lot of dinners.
This... it's a stupid demand. Barring missing context where this was part of a hypothetical discussion, this is so unrealistic it makes him seem simply random.
There is no process for FEMA redoing an election (lol at FEMA being turned to for something needing trust) because a random guy complains on twitter. There is no legal basis under any circumstances. There's basically only options which result in replacing Biden with Harris, or something along the lines of secession.
We did have the opportunity to deal with the process built into the system. That was the 6th, and before. There are no non-raving delusions available within the legal system.
The only thing we can do is take over our local processes and move towards secure methods and agreed on rules. That's a very long process, so it's easier to tweet some hope cocaine and pretend.
I think we've been told that systemic racism made education unfairly favor White students. How come for the past 50 or so years Asians have been in the top performers? White supremacy designed systemic racism to promote an immigrant group? Interesting concept. And before that, and today, Jews? I thought White supremacists were anti-Semitic too.
Sorry for the silly questions, I forgot my clown kit today.
I am not sure about the numbers, it's hard to get a good estimate for me, but I've seen there is a lot out there as well. I know many labs where people are forced to repeat something until it "works", and had such an experience in my postdoc. Actually my boss then was sloppy and a bit arrogant or deluded on the topic, rather than malicious, probably. I was brought in to do a few "minor things" to finish off a big publication and found the entire thing was flawed because I added more controls from my own initiative, wasted a big chunk of time for years to keep looking with slightly different ways instead of accepting the negative result. And I was treated like I couldn't do the experiments right. I think the boss was not doing it intentionally because when I gave the negative results in tightly controlled experiments she said she couldn't sleep at night. If I had gone with the setup and helped them publish the exaggerated results, it probably would have been a high impact paper in the 20s or so, which would quickly be criticized online and led to us having a bad reputation. And I imagine, from everything taken together, the boss and others would have blamed me for lack of controls if that happened, and continued on without difficulty.
One of the nice things we have now are things like pubpeer where misconduct can be highlighted. It did lead to some changes. Astoundingly, though, there are some cases where the same lab head is found to have fraudulent data again and again, and is still welcomed to publish questionable findings in Nature and other high level journals. Actually for the one that I have the most surprise with, it involved HIV. Sequencing of the HIV genome was done, and they quietly mentioned in their Methods they altered the sequencing read length, and consequently their entire phenomenon can be produced from random data, or any alternative genome of similarly small size. They didn't need to retract, perhaps because the investigator is an HHMI PI. This had been on a journal allowing online comments, and comments were deleted. The journal also had a standard of publishing the reviewer comments, and a reviewer had pointed out the serious flaws with their method and past work that showed this was likely all an artifact, yet this PI was able to publish.
So from places like open peer reviews and things like pubpeer, you see many examples of how alive and well critical evaluations are with individual research papers. Most scientists I know are distrustful and ask tough questions, and welcome tough questions to themselves. But as the above anecdote illustrates, some people play by different rules. That's why I feel we have a big mixture out there. Altogether we can't trust anything we read from journals or scientsts, but there are definitely plenty of good ones out there. Regardless, I mostly agree with you. Things are going downhill rapidly.
The identity politics seemed to be a recent thing. I was applying to be a professor for the goal of being an independent researcher a while ago, and had an offer and interviews. When applying, I looked at poor publication records for new department hires that I could browse, and it tracked well with ... "diversity, equity, and inclusion" goals. I had to write a DEI statement, at minimum, almost everywhere, and the places I got return interest from were ones where that was less emphasized. The statements were outrageous. Naturally, if you were an underrepresented group, you could make use of your identity to pass the barrier. I wrote antiquated ideals of non-discrimination values, instead, and the value of teaching science as a tool of objectivity that can be equally and fairly used by all identities. I feel that did not help, but oh well. After a while, I decided the current identity politics environment is not for me, and went to a pharma company and have been free of identity politics there (so far). Happy to also say, we haven't run from any of our problems, like adverse drug toxicity, in preclinical work done by us our academic collaborators.
Altogether the greater University system lost its way, despite having a lot of merit, still. I think identity politics are going to bring down a lot of norms with Universities and research will be among them. Fewer people need to go to University for most pursuits, IMO, and I also always thought the graduate student system was like abusive slavery that was unsustainable.
Personally I take every bit of research I read on a conditional basis. With Nature, I don't think they intend to lie, but they will be lacking in principles should it come up. For a lot of things that qualified for a Nature publication in the past, say crystal structure of an important protein, there were no expectations, and mostly only a requirement for a standard of evidence. It's still a very mixed bag for me, but I am usually equally happy to read from a range of prestige in journals.
Often the more I know a research field the more I'm influenced by my bias of who is suspicious, and I can also spot flaws more easily in my own area, so I usually only believe little in my own area, and view things outside as something I don't have enough data or knowledge on to judge conclusively. Barring areas of obvious fraud and malpractice, like climate science...
Feynman would probably be quite depressed if he saw much of today's science, and discussions. The Feynman piece was a good read and it should be emphasized today, but it's probably harder than ever to break the point past peoples' arrogance IMO. People tend to think they're super clever because they don't believe in the superstitions Feynman outlined and think all of the bugs he mentioned have been sorted out.
In my graduate study course, we had research misconduct courses. They covered a lot of the topics in the second link, and your other reply, but lacked sufficient warning of how common and easy it is to fall into traps. As if misconduct only happened with some consciously bad intention. One of the advantages today is we emphasized large data experiments and using blinded and unbiased sources for large projects, where a specific hypothesis wasn't tied to the experiments of making a database. That addressed some of the problems in the 2005 article, when it was much less common.
It also made it easier for new types of misleading research to be easy to do. People can keep looking and trying different canned analyses until they get something that looks good or fits what they wanted. Another issue is when the modeling is difficult or not well understood by reviewers, bullshit is easily passed. Climate "modeling" is an example of this. Most of those are horribly designed, and lack attempts at showing they're robust. One could use their types of modeling and substitute random numbers and get an "accurate" model, by the same standards. Or use statistics from baseball. To bring up another scientist with a great legacy, I believe it was John von Neumann who mentioned that if you keep adding variables and playing with them in the way that was done, you can make a model dance however you want it to.
Definitely have seen a lot of that with global warming. But to be the devil's advocate, usually I don't think scientists agree with funders or know what they think. Because funders are supposed to be only interested in the best study supported by data for something significant. For a normal scientist outside of areas like climate, or COVID now, they get funded if they have promising preliminary data, or maybe a new technology, and propose to carry out research. The major corruption usually comes into things like who the investigator knows or worked with, and giving preference to a school. Often fundees end up failing with their main hypothesis, which doesn't hurt them (though in the long term, the overall track record of publishing does come into play). Despite all the human biases that go into various stages of scientific research, I think it is comparatively meritocratic. Things do seem to be getting worse and worse in the types of corruption you mentioned, but still, there are quite a lot of respectable scientists out there. Perhaps we need to do a better job of amplifying them when they are dissenting voices and against the mobs.
Negative empiricism would be a welcome antidote to a lot of problems in these areas. These words even approach being a good title for a general journal of science that delves into these politically corrupted areas, IMO!
In the same space... Champion (from above), and for shoes ... New Balance (?). Vans???
Champion is pretty normal and they seem to have been on a come back. You also get +10 style and dignity points when you wear the non-SJW stuff.
I forgot about Champion. We also have New Balance for shoes. Heard they were comfortable but never liked the style, but meh. We're down to 2 effing companies to clothe (ourselves unless you wear suits or have a personal tailor).
Apparently your company doesn't need employees to work? They have to pay massive fees for this clown show training, and they lose working hours, and pay the employee to attend.
Hope you can get out of that company soon, fren.
How do you manage things dominated by them, if you don't mind me asking?
Though the big question is why you think it must apply to all. I do remember the Red Bull CEO being anti-woke and firing SJW HR people, so surely this is a bit too broad of a brush.
I kind of liked UA shoes. Bigger companies seem to make better shoes, especially for sports. Got any recommendations for alternatives? I can abandon sports shoes if I must, I guess, but dang it's ridiculous we can't even buy shoes from someone who isn't trying to impose racist clown world ideology.
There's no reason I can see that they'd have to tell people bullshit theories and only to whites for that plausible deniability. That implies there is a valid and established basis for the critical race theory dogma, if only it and not a rationale HR course is protective. Unless you're talking about plausible deniability from twitter mobs also.
As for getting sued by employees... the law says you can't discriminate based on race. Telling people it's racist to treat everyone the same seems like it contradicts the law. As does forcing only one race to sit through it and get attacked for skin color.
The RedBull CEO fired the woke SJWs from his HR and hasn't been sued. Just tears on twitter. My Pillow hasn't been sued, except by Dominion. And yeah, the point about customers is well appreciated. I'd switched to them from Nike after their Betsy Ross shoe bullshit, and I was thinking of replacing the UA shoes I had less than an hour ago. Well, great. What's left. New Balance? Either way, not supporting UA again.
This. And try to sue with a good lawyer like Robert Barnes. I think this violates the Constitution to selectively force one group to do something and blame them for something based on race. And when the court system probably screws you, leave and give them the finger. You'll have done a good public service and don't have to force a duplicitousness and debasement on yourself at work.
I like mocking them, and like what I've seen of Greene so far, but meh, not sure this mask helps anything. It probably makes her easy to mock. She and other conservatives will get attacked for being CraZy and people who hear that and see this probably tune her out and view her has a caricature. It's also a simple ad hominem, and TBH, that reminds me of the libs. We usually own them with facts that are hard hitting with delicious irony.
OTOH I could be totally wrong. They can't as easily hide what Republicans are saying if it's written on the mask. And maybe this is an Emperor has no clothes moment for some people if Democrats are constantly mocked. Basically I have no idea and am trying to judge it from the effect it has on a normie, which isn't easy for me.
I'll have to read to make sure but some knowledge I'm aware of seems to contradict that. Firstly, some populations are immune to HIV because they mutated a receptor on the HIV-target immune cells and it couldn't get in. Secondly, an HIV positive patient had his own blood stem cells replaced by a donor of an immune genotype and became immune (known as "the Berlin patient", and this work has been artificially reproduced with gene-editing using CRISPR in preclinical studies). As the immune cell depletion appears independently established, I'm surprised there would be a doubt about having AIDS caused by HIV.
For viruses and microbes correlating with AIDS, are you indicating in the HIV heavy areas that these also correlate, or some type of other study which showed various people with different infections having symptoms of AIDS? This would be a pretty huge finding, if true. But you need more than an association, especially when it makes sense for AIDS to be the one causing the other infections to increase. HIV has a mechanism related to targeting T cells that has been widely reproducible. If the others do not have such such a mechanism, there seems little reason to suspect them of causing AIDS.
Also the HIV genome is widely studied. Most biologists work with modified forms of the HIV viral DNA as a vector to insert genes they study into cells for experiments. It's modified to remove the pathogenic parts and just be a vector for DNA. In the process and history of that, the genome of HIV has been very widely studied. And on the topic of general HIV studies, I suppose few people study it because it's quite restricted by safety level. I have happened across HIV research over the years, on things like drug development usually, but I never happened on Fauci's name. In research, people usually focus and credit those that did the original research, rather than the head of an institute or someone talking to the News media. I'll try to look up what Fauci has actually done, but my feeling is that if he had made erroneous statements on AIDS as he did with COVID, it would not be surprising. But it would be surprising if so many years of ongoing research and investment failed to notice the HIV-AIDS link is mistaken.
Agreed, and those are quite substantial. He might avoid some of those, though.
Graduate students and some grants are decided by department and other lower-level committees mostly made by peers in the department, which are supposed to evaluate such applications based on merit. (in some places, that may actually be fulfilled according to merit, but in many cases not). The bulk of funding is external in most places, such as from places like the NIH (though not for his field, so I'm not sure, maybe the NSF). The University can't cut him, and also, the University is greedy as hell to take that money. They hate funding their own research and love taking a cut of whatever is brought in. For Biology and NIH grants, for example, they automatically take 55-60% from the outset.
He may also avoid some of the grant and student issues because it said he was at Michigan Tech for 28 years. Given the age of someone getting the job as a Prof, he's probably 50-60+ and a lot of people at that stage are not active in external grant applications. If he is an associate professor (the first stage after tenure), his chances of promotions were already over.
I really haven't seen this. Twitter and university leftists make it seem that way. I've never been noticeably hated on or discriminated by with black people, and in fact most treat me nice, and I'm from the Detroit area. I have been discriminated against in job apps all the time, thanks to leftism.
The idea that they are raised to do so is a serious concern that I'm not discounting, but perhaps the people I've met are more from the period when Martin Luther King's words were taken seriously, rather than being of a critical race theory generation.
I kind of feel you. It's not a good look, it feeds into making him the typical sterotypical cartoonish right-winger type, and some people who haven't been red pilled get lost. I personally don't care, even though I find it an odd word choice. It doesn't seem to mean anything more than calling them a bunch of fucktards, just a different guy's lingo.
Hey, 2021, time to be open and let things fall where they may, IMO. When we tried to make tolerant branding it hasn't helped, that I've seen. In general I'd like to see a lot less consideration and capitulation. Those probably move narratives to the left.