Your "woke" breaking point.

[happy-go_vol]

Are you high? Biden's a cradle Catholic who still attends his home church in Delaware.

You are obviously clueless.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Are you high? Biden's a cradle Catholic who still attends his home church in Delaware.

Is Joe aware of this. He doesn’t know the difference in going to church or Costco.

 

[lawgator1]

Perhaps you could do something intellectually crazy...like address the question in the manner it was presented in the article.

Ok, I'll take the bait.

But in order to do so, I need you to truthfully tell me where you found the link. On what blog/site, etc.? And what, if anything, was the commentary. Be honest about it, please. It matters.

 

[Ten_Titans]

When "woke" became a right wing catch phrase for all things progressive, so as to immediately diminish any call for change, no matter how warranted or justified it might be.

The entire radical let's strategy is a Trojan horse.

Mix all of your radical ideas in with a handful of moderate ideas. When the political tides are in your favor, push the radical ideas. When there is pushback, point to the moderate ideas and gaslight anyone who says you are pushing crazy ideas.

Case in point: Confederate statues. It's just about bringing down Confederate statues when Trump talks about it. When he walks away, we are right back to denigrating Mount Rushmore.

You can get away with that when, at no point, you ever discuss any actual policy changes.

If you want conservatives to stop grouping all leftist ideas in the "woke politics" basket... Do the unthinkable and actually start discussing issues in specific detail with pointed policy prescriptions. You can't do that because the majority of the social issues being championed on the left right now exist only in the people's imagination.

 

[Sandman 423]

Ok, I'll take the bait.

But in order to do so, I need you to truthfully tell me where you found the link. On what blog/site, etc.? And what, if anything, was the commentary. Be honest about it, please. It matters.

Why? Having trouble coming up with excuses and deflections on your own?

 

[hndog609]

Ok, I'll take the bait.

But in order to do so, I need you to truthfully tell me where you found the link. On what blog/site, etc.? And what, if anything, was the commentary. Be honest about it, please. It matters.

There's no bait and there's a link directly to the site.

I found it interesting because no matter what you might personally see as your "woke" limit watch the news and ask yourself what you think some of these other people's limits might be. I'll even again quote this from the article:

"Ask: When is enough, enough? Who has to get cancelled? Fired? How many people have to lose their livelihoods? How overt does the racism have to become? How many people have to humiliate themselves in “Antiracist” Struggle Sessions? Who has to be doxxed? Destroyed? Beaten up? Killed? Does it take a public lynching? Or would it take horrors we believed we left behind in the darker chapters of the twentieth century? Where is the uncrossable line between here and there?"

 

[ChattaVolMD]

Don't even get me started.

DC is correct, the concept of grace has been abandoned by those who are most publicly woke. It's tyranny.

I'm reminded of this quote

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis

This has always been a favorite of mine

 

[lawgator1]

There's no bait and there's a link directly to the site.

I found it interesting because no matter what you might personally see as your "woke" limit watch the news and ask yourself what you think some of these other people's limits might be. I'll even again quote this from the article:

"Ask: When is enough, enough? Who has to get cancelled? Fired? How many people have to lose their livelihoods? How overt does the racism have to become? How many people have to humiliate themselves in “Antiracist” Struggle Sessions? Who has to be doxxed? Destroyed? Beaten up? Killed? Does it take a public lynching? Or would it take horrors we believed we left behind in the darker chapters of the twentieth century? Where is the uncrossable line between here and there?"

Nice try. You are dodging the question for a reason: just tell me where you ORIGINALLY saw the link.

It matters to my answer.

 

[hndog609]

Nice try. You are dodging the question for a reason: just tell me where you ORIGINALLY saw the link.

It matters to my answer.

I originally saw the link because I was looking for that author after a conversation came up where I cited that first story when a convo came up at work about how batshit crazy some of the "woke" academia had become. (My co-workers didn't believe me about the dog park hoax so it was fun to show them it was legit)

 

[volinbham]

I originally saw the link because I was looking for that author after a conversation came up where I cited that first story when a convo came up at work about how batshit crazy some of the "woke" academia had become. (My co-workers didn't believe me about the dog park hoax so it was fun to show them it was legit)

I'll add to this that the story is old (2 years) and predates the use of woke that LG alleges.

 

[MontyPython]

The will all turn against Christians quite soon. When/if Biden is elected you will a turn against Christians. They will feel the brunt.

Wow.

Fear mongering incarnate.

Curious... did this happen during the 8 years of the Obama administration? If it did, I'm bummed... totally missed out on stoning the believers.

 

[lawgator1]

I originally saw the link because I was looking for that author after a conversation came up where I cited that first story when a convo came up at work about how batshit crazy some of the "woke" academia had become. (My co-workers didn't believe me about the dog park hoax so it was fun to show them it was legit)

I won't go round and round like this, but am going to assume that you did not read about the fake dog park journal article when you were reading the New York Times, and that instead it was posted somewhere, or discussed somewhere, in or from a right wing blog or gathering of news article favorable to your point of view.

And the whole thing, including specifically the OP and the thread, prove my point.

There are all sorts of gradations of academic journals. There are those well established scientific ones which are staunchly peer reviewed. In social sciences, there are those that are regarded as intellectually rigorous, meaning that the measurement of subjective things has to have some basis in objective reality, including adherence to scientific measurement of inherently subjective things, but using confirmed processes to make those measurements.

For example, even in the social sciences there are some journals which have very high standards on publishing and require surveys or high confidence data to justify any conclusions. Even then, they are subject to peer review by usually at least three outside well-respected members of that community.

But....

There is a whole slew of lesser journals that take a lot of crappy stuff and do little to test it. They usually do not last that long in the field.

These three authors send out a series of bogus papers to see what would happen. As I read it, several got published, a number were rejected. The ones that were accepted went into junky journals. One journal called "Sex Roles," another is billed as based on simply feminist geography.

So what happens with this experiment?

1) The larger academic community laughs at it because it proves what they have been saying for a long time: there are too many of these lesser journals, with no meaningful standards of peer review, that will print basically anything. And that is true. But no one pays any attention to those journals. They are sponsored or promoted by tiny subsets of the academic community and are not representative of the tried and true journals and publications that adhere to rigorous standards.

2) The right wing blogosphere latches on to this and equates it to the "woke" culture, in its entirety. Instead of noting that these were published in junk journals or other publications (heck, most of them it seems only made it online), the right wing seizes upon it to use labels like "woke" and paint all of academia as infested with leftists that publish anything supporting their view without science behind it.

It proves my earlier point. The right wing WAY overuses the label "woke" so as to diminish and unfairly squeeze all academic research, particularly the social sciences into, some kind of one size fits all boogeyman of left wing propaganda.

Its a shame, too, because it then diminishes the entire value of real peer review and adherence to rigourous scientific principles in the legitimate publications.

 

[Purple Tiger]

I won't go round and round like this, but am going to assume that you did not read about the fake dog park journal article when you were reading the New York Times, and that instead it was posted somewhere, or discussed somewhere, in or from a right wing blog or gathering of news article favorable to your point of view.

And the whole thing, including specifically the OP and the thread, prove my point.

There are all sorts of gradations of academic journals. There are those well established scientific ones which are staunchly peer reviewed. In social sciences, there are those that are regarded as intellectually rigorous, meaning that the measurement of subjective things has to have some basis in objective reality, including adherence to scientific measurement of inherently subjective things, but using confirmed processes to make those measurements.

For example, even in the social sciences there are some journals which have very high standards on publishing and require surveys or high confidence data to justify any conclusions. Even then, they are subject to peer review by usually at least three outside well-respected members of that community.

But....

There is a whole slew of lesser journals that take a lot of crappy stuff and do little to test it. They usually do not last that long in the field.

1) The larger academic community laughs at it because it proves what they have been saying for a long time: there are too many of these lesser journals, with no meaningful standards of peer review, that will print basically anything. And that is true. But no one pays any attention to those journals. They are sponsored or promoted by tiny subsets of the academic community and are not representative of the tried and true journals and publications that adhere to rigorous standards.

2) The right wing blogosphere latches on to this and equates it to the "woke" culture, in its entirety. Instead of noting that these were published in junk journals or other publications (heck, most of them it seems only made it online), the right wing seizes upon it to use labels like "woke" and paint all of academia as infested with leftists that publish anything supporting their
view without science behind it.

It proves my earlier point. The right wing WAY overuses the label "woke" so as to diminish and unfairly squeeze all academic research, particularly the social sciences into, some kind of one size fits all boogeyman of left wing propaganda.

Its a shame, too, because it then diminishes the entire value of real peer review and adherence to rigourous scientific principles in the legitimate publications.

You are wasting your keystrokes with this argument. Some of these folks believe that Breitbart tells the truth.

 

[Wafflestomper]

The will all turn against Christians quite soon. When/if Biden is elected you will a turn against Christians. They will feel the brunt.

Christians obsess over being discriminated against. Depending on who you talk to it's either already happening here or is just around the corner. End times! Rabble! Give it a rest.

 

[MG1968]

I was over it when it became clear they didn’t want justice and equality for all. BLM wants power, political power. What they would do with that power will make what Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe seem amateurish.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

You have to admit, the phrase is overused by the right to mock pretty much anything these days.

Kind of like Nazi or Fascists or racist.

 

[Delmar]

When "woke" became a right wing catch phrase for all things progressive, so as to immediately diminish any call for change, no matter how warranted or justified it might be.

It’s popular and overused because many folks don’t like any sort of change. Can’t get out of their little right wing nut box. Sad as it is, I believe there are several regulars on here (and in the White House) that I am convinced would rather it still be in the 1850’s South or 1930’s Germany. To them, utopia would be all white, all the time with the ethnically impure serving them. You know who you are. Why don’t you just admit it instead of trying to talk around it? It will be easy to tell who it is. The stuck pig always squeals the loudest.

 

[lawgator1]

Kind of like Nazi or Fascists or racist.

True. I wince when the left does it, as well.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

True. I wince when the left does it, as well.

Buzzwords get clicks and sadly that’s what it’s about most of the time. That’s both sides.

 

[hndog609]

I won't go round and round like this, but am going to assume that you did not read about the fake dog park journal article when you were reading the New York Times, and that instead it was posted somewhere, or discussed somewhere, in or from a right wing blog or gathering of news article favorable to your point of view.

And the whole thing, including specifically the OP and the thread, prove my point.

There are all sorts of gradations of academic journals. There are those well established scientific ones which are staunchly peer reviewed. In social sciences, there are those that are regarded as intellectually rigorous, meaning that the measurement of subjective things has to have some basis in objective reality, including adherence to scientific measurement of inherently subjective things, but using confirmed processes to make those measurements.

For example, even in the social sciences there are some journals which have very high standards on publishing and require surveys or high confidence data to justify any conclusions. Even then, they are subject to peer review by usually at least three outside well-respected members of that community.

But....

There is a whole slew of lesser journals that take a lot of crappy stuff and do little to test it. They usually do not last that long in the field.

These three authors send out a series of bogus papers to see what would happen. As I read it, several got published, a number were rejected. The ones that were accepted went into junky journals. One journal called "Sex Roles," another is billed as based on simply feminist geography.

So what happens with this experiment?

1) The larger academic community laughs at it because it proves what they have been saying for a long time: there are too many of these lesser journals, with no meaningful standards of peer review, that will print basically anything. And that is true. But no one pays any attention to those journals. They are sponsored or promoted by tiny subsets of the academic community and are not representative of the tried and true journals and publications that adhere to rigorous standards.

2) The right wing blogosphere latches on to this and equates it to the "woke" culture, in its entirety. Instead of noting that these were published in junk journals or other publications (heck, most of them it seems only made it online), the right wing seizes upon it to use labels like "woke" and paint all of academia as infested with leftists that publish anything supporting their view without science behind it.

It proves my earlier point. The right wing WAY overuses the label "woke" so as to diminish and unfairly squeeze all academic research, particularly the social sciences into, some kind of one size fits all boogeyman of left wing propaganda.

Its a shame, too, because it then diminishes the entire value of real peer review and adherence to rigourous scientific principles in the legitimate publications.

You sure know how to fail at assumptions. Let me walk you through it.

Work talk got to how crazy some of this stuff has become of late and it was brought up that a lot of it can be traced to "woke" academic/pseudoacademic pursuits. Remembering that story I said "hold my beer" and googled "dog park sex hoax" and that NYT article is the first to pop. That led me to James Lindsay who wrote the second article cited which, since you apparently weren't paying attention, is the actual piece from which the OP title is derived. As for where I originally came across the hoax papers article I can't be 100% sure but if I had to guess it was here.

Academic Journals - Fake Paper Hoax

 

[LouderVol]

For me it was when it completely degraded a person's ability to admit to a wrong and that being the end of the matter.

And I think there is a right version of woke too. See any of the comments from the Trumpers whenever someone says something bad about Trump. They arent "right woke" enough and are commies/liberals/whatever.

With it on both sides you dont have the right to be wrong, there is no attempt for mutual understanding, yet alone agreement, because both sides are out woking each other.

It's now more politically expedient to be your side woke and wrong, than it is to correct whatever the problem is. It's why you see more divides because neither side is interested in the truth they only care about their version of woke.

Which again goes back to nothing getting fixed. You cant fix something if you arent truthful about the problem, or if you dont let the otherside fix their issues.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Ecclesiastes 1:18

 

[lawgator1]

You sure know how to fail at assumptions. Let me walk you through it.

Work talk got to how crazy some of this stuff has become of late and it was brought up that a lot of it can be traced to "woke" academic/pseudoacademic pursuits. Remembering that story I said "hold my beer" and googled "dog park sex hoax" and that NYT article is the first to pop. That led me to James Lindsay who wrote the second article cited which, since you apparently weren't paying attention, is the actual piece from which the OP title is derived. As for where I originally came across the hoax papers article I can't be 100% sure but if I had to guess it was here.

Academic Journals - Fake Paper Hoax

Regardless, it is important not to ascribe the suckitude of these journals to all academic journals. It is similarly not fair to portray all social scientists or professors as promoting nonsense papers.

 

[volinbham]

Regardless, it is important not to ascribe the suckitude of these journals to all academic journals. It is similarly not fair to portray all social scientists or professors as promoting nonsense papers.

no one is ascribing or portraying this to all journals or social scientists; particularly not the OP

and you still won't answer the OP's question

instead of acknowledging woke gone wild you ignore the question completely to complain about the right

 

[happy-go_vol]

You have to admit, the phrase is overused by the right to mock pretty much anything these days.

It should be mocked laughed at and rejected every second.