There are things you can conduct rigorous scientific studies on, and things you cannot. All the shit people tend to cite when supporting leftist nonsense is usually in the latter category, conducted with artificial rigor to make it look like they did something. Even among most things you can study, 80% of studies are crap. Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
You can also typically read any study in the opposite direction to be used against their point. Saying kids usually ‘know’ their gender and sex by the age of 4-5 is used here to mean we have to fight against it. You could also use it to mean that even a child knows if they’re a boy or a girl and alternative genders aren’t a thing.
‘Identifying as’ also isn’t a thing. If you’re a man, or a woman, or like guys or girls or whatever, you just are that thing. Self-identifying is another way of saying ‘I pretend to be’, and I’ve never heard any usage of it that goes against that. They’ll say shit like “colonialism made the gender binary” when all cultures recognize the gender binary and often build it deeply into their language because of how important it is.
I went to college with someone that I think is representative of how people fall into all this. You get someone lost and confused at a vulnerable time in their life, fill their head with nonsense, and then give them religious purpose without the productive parts of religion. I’ve seen plenty of people turned in that way. They’ll usually then claim to be their own special category, and get with someone of the same sex that simply dresses and looks like a member of the opposite sex. Not just in terms of clothing and haircuts, but everything. Chicks that look like actual dudes.
How gay and nonbinary are you if you still ended up being attracted to someone that looks like a dude? Girl I’m thinking of’s wife looks like plenty of her ex BF’s because of how butch she is.
Self-identification is really the crux of this and why this whole thing is a religion. Their interpretation of the Self is that it is an immaterial soul-like entity that is thrown into the universe. The idea that the material world impacts the Self in any way is verboten and anyone who says it does or should is their enemy. Facing any of the constraints of a body at all is seen as an unjust cruelty of nature to be corrected by technology. This is why they use language like "black and brown bodies" as well.
If I had to pick between a caricature of religious zealots that want someone thrown in jail for wearing a skirt that’s too short, or the average Wokey, I’d rather the world be run by crazed religious fundamentalists. At least with them the values they’re trying to hold to have a measure of objective value and productive worth. There is no benefit to anything woke. They’re mostly creating and encouraging derangement and mental illness. The caricature of one is trying to discourage openly gay people and things like that, but the reality of the other is an actual war on white people and straight white men and calling for them to die in public.
The religious stereotype is trying to control language by not having you say God is gay or to overuse curse words. There’s an objective standard there. The Wokey stereotype is trying to police every thought you’ve ever had and making up new rules of language that don’t even work. Christian zealots still tried saying we’re all equal under God, with Wokies saying we’re all inherently unequal and need to be separated and treated according to skin color and that if you’re Christian you’re insane.
I can’t think of anything about what the left is afraid of that isn’t actually better than what they’re doing openly every day. Every conversation with them is like a big con job where you enter into mental gymnastics to appreciate their non existent point. At least with something like Christianity, you see people saying “our people have held for thousands of years that it’s a bad idea to do X and Y, so we don’t want people to do X and Y.”
Christianity seems to work a lot better than what was come up with to replace it. Postmodernism is defined exclusively by being nonsense.
Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
To this day, scientist know that self-reported food intake in fantasy, but nutrition studies still almost all are self-reported food intake.
They know it's false, but they keep doing those studies anyway.
You can warn beforehand so-called ''diet-resistant'' fat people that they must report acurately and that their food intake will be mesured independently too. And they only report half of what they eat in their food diary.
I get why they still do it because they want money for a study and you can’t keep people in a lab for months on end or anything. The more you know about most studies the less you’ll trust them all though. The Covid shot studies are the funniest because there’s obviously no long term data on any of them since they’ve only existed for half a second. They’ll still argue they’re safe though based on this and that. Then data mounts that says for plenty of people they’re not, probably even as many people as Covid is fatal for.
There’s also the element of human stupidity that comes into nutrition studies because if you ask the average person what they ate, they usually discount half of it because they either forgot because it was a ‘quick snack’, or because they’re going about their day and thinking about other things and eating mindlessly. They’re also not used to talking about food in the way a nutrition study would require. Ask the average person how they eat and you’ll usually get vague things like ‘I eat organic’ or ‘I eat pretty well I think’, the latter based on them having an obese friend that eats 5 pies a day and them only eating 2.
There is also straight-up denial and lying because it just cannot possibly be a self-inflicted problem. Muh magic genetics.
I was helping a parent fill-out their questionaire for their T2 diabetes treatment.
On the question about weekly sugary drinks concumption, they write 5. I correct them, they drink 24 per week.
They say it's impossible they drink so much.
Well let's see. The soda crate contains 24 sodas. They drink them all every single week. The sodas aren't vanishing in a black hole.
The reply : "well maaaaby 10" and they write 10.
Even after slapping them in the face with reality, they insisted on a number off by a factor 2.5.
You can be sure the next questionnaire without hand-holding, they will wrote down 5. Because they thought about drinking less of it without actually changing anything.
You can't help people in this sort of mindset, but you sure as Hell shouldn't be lectured by "Experts" in Fat Studies about how "bodies all work differently" when confronted with obvious falsehoods.
I run a business related to this and have to deal with things like that too. I always have people take pictures of everything they eat and drink if it comes up for medical documentation and half the people aren’t willing to do it, with the other half having it come back as completely unlike they described. They’re the worst with liquids because they think of them as water, even if it’s 3-4 Starbucks shakes a day. Same with fountain drinks.
I’ve had people show up with a Starbucks cup and fountain drink simultaneously in hand and when we document their sugar intake they say they avoid sugar. Then you do the math and it’s always an almost entirely glucose based diet. A lot of girls live on danishes and lattes and pie and alcohol.
Alcohol’s another hard one. Most people in big cities are alcoholics and think they’re not because they have more-alcoholic friends.
There are things you can conduct rigorous scientific studies on, and things you cannot. All the shit people tend to cite when supporting leftist nonsense is usually in the latter category, conducted with artificial rigor to make it look like they did something. Even among most things you can study, 80% of studies are crap. Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
You can also typically read any study in the opposite direction to be used against their point. Saying kids usually ‘know’ their gender and sex by the age of 4-5 is used here to mean we have to fight against it. You could also use it to mean that even a child knows if they’re a boy or a girl and alternative genders aren’t a thing.
‘Identifying as’ also isn’t a thing. If you’re a man, or a woman, or like guys or girls or whatever, you just are that thing. Self-identifying is another way of saying ‘I pretend to be’, and I’ve never heard any usage of it that goes against that. They’ll say shit like “colonialism made the gender binary” when all cultures recognize the gender binary and often build it deeply into their language because of how important it is.
I went to college with someone that I think is representative of how people fall into all this. You get someone lost and confused at a vulnerable time in their life, fill their head with nonsense, and then give them religious purpose without the productive parts of religion. I’ve seen plenty of people turned in that way. They’ll usually then claim to be their own special category, and get with someone of the same sex that simply dresses and looks like a member of the opposite sex. Not just in terms of clothing and haircuts, but everything. Chicks that look like actual dudes.
How gay and nonbinary are you if you still ended up being attracted to someone that looks like a dude? Girl I’m thinking of’s wife looks like plenty of her ex BF’s because of how butch she is.
Self-identification is really the crux of this and why this whole thing is a religion. Their interpretation of the Self is that it is an immaterial soul-like entity that is thrown into the universe. The idea that the material world impacts the Self in any way is verboten and anyone who says it does or should is their enemy. Facing any of the constraints of a body at all is seen as an unjust cruelty of nature to be corrected by technology. This is why they use language like "black and brown bodies" as well.
If I had to pick between a caricature of religious zealots that want someone thrown in jail for wearing a skirt that’s too short, or the average Wokey, I’d rather the world be run by crazed religious fundamentalists. At least with them the values they’re trying to hold to have a measure of objective value and productive worth. There is no benefit to anything woke. They’re mostly creating and encouraging derangement and mental illness. The caricature of one is trying to discourage openly gay people and things like that, but the reality of the other is an actual war on white people and straight white men and calling for them to die in public.
The religious stereotype is trying to control language by not having you say God is gay or to overuse curse words. There’s an objective standard there. The Wokey stereotype is trying to police every thought you’ve ever had and making up new rules of language that don’t even work. Christian zealots still tried saying we’re all equal under God, with Wokies saying we’re all inherently unequal and need to be separated and treated according to skin color and that if you’re Christian you’re insane.
I can’t think of anything about what the left is afraid of that isn’t actually better than what they’re doing openly every day. Every conversation with them is like a big con job where you enter into mental gymnastics to appreciate their non existent point. At least with something like Christianity, you see people saying “our people have held for thousands of years that it’s a bad idea to do X and Y, so we don’t want people to do X and Y.”
Christianity seems to work a lot better than what was come up with to replace it. Postmodernism is defined exclusively by being nonsense.
To this day, scientist know that self-reported food intake in fantasy, but nutrition studies still almost all are self-reported food intake.
They know it's false, but they keep doing those studies anyway.
You can warn beforehand so-called ''diet-resistant'' fat people that they must report acurately and that their food intake will be mesured independently too. And they only report half of what they eat in their food diary.
I get why they still do it because they want money for a study and you can’t keep people in a lab for months on end or anything. The more you know about most studies the less you’ll trust them all though. The Covid shot studies are the funniest because there’s obviously no long term data on any of them since they’ve only existed for half a second. They’ll still argue they’re safe though based on this and that. Then data mounts that says for plenty of people they’re not, probably even as many people as Covid is fatal for.
There’s also the element of human stupidity that comes into nutrition studies because if you ask the average person what they ate, they usually discount half of it because they either forgot because it was a ‘quick snack’, or because they’re going about their day and thinking about other things and eating mindlessly. They’re also not used to talking about food in the way a nutrition study would require. Ask the average person how they eat and you’ll usually get vague things like ‘I eat organic’ or ‘I eat pretty well I think’, the latter based on them having an obese friend that eats 5 pies a day and them only eating 2.
There is also straight-up denial and lying because it just cannot possibly be a self-inflicted problem. Muh magic genetics.
I was helping a parent fill-out their questionaire for their T2 diabetes treatment.
On the question about weekly sugary drinks concumption, they write 5. I correct them, they drink 24 per week.
They say it's impossible they drink so much.
Well let's see. The soda crate contains 24 sodas. They drink them all every single week. The sodas aren't vanishing in a black hole.
The reply : "well maaaaby 10" and they write 10.
Even after slapping them in the face with reality, they insisted on a number off by a factor 2.5.
You can be sure the next questionnaire without hand-holding, they will wrote down 5. Because they thought about drinking less of it without actually changing anything.
You can't help people in this sort of mindset, but you sure as Hell shouldn't be lectured by "Experts" in Fat Studies about how "bodies all work differently" when confronted with obvious falsehoods.
I run a business related to this and have to deal with things like that too. I always have people take pictures of everything they eat and drink if it comes up for medical documentation and half the people aren’t willing to do it, with the other half having it come back as completely unlike they described. They’re the worst with liquids because they think of them as water, even if it’s 3-4 Starbucks shakes a day. Same with fountain drinks.
I’ve had people show up with a Starbucks cup and fountain drink simultaneously in hand and when we document their sugar intake they say they avoid sugar. Then you do the math and it’s always an almost entirely glucose based diet. A lot of girls live on danishes and lattes and pie and alcohol.
Alcohol’s another hard one. Most people in big cities are alcoholics and think they’re not because they have more-alcoholic friends.