This is how “scientific consensus” is achieved
(twitter.com)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Consensus is dogma.
It's been a growing problem since Pasteur's overlooked plagiarisms
I'm pretty sure the DNC simply tells them what to say and they do their best to not make it obvious. Not that they've been particularly effective at hiding who their masters are these days. Their Covid scam red pilled a lot of people, and I've coined (at least as far as I know) the term "Covid conservative". Remember when The Science knew that Trump was right about the lab leak and kept their mouths shut because they were more concerned about not validating him than telling the truth?
Did it really though? It seems to me that the vast majority of the population just blindly went along with it rather than develop even an iota of skepticism about what was happening. No one I'm aware of had any grand revelations as a result of Covid and its attendant misdeeds.
Maybe a lot was an overstatement but I saw some movement in my personal life.
There were some small glimmers of hope that shown themselves during COVID but I haven't seen anything since. It's enough to keep my hopes up that they aren't TOO far gone.
Most people went along with it because the frog got boiled on them. Its not like everyone was told the full plan when lockdowns started, it was just supposed to be two quick weeks and by then all of society was participating so resistance was pretty futile for the individual.
But before even that summer ended I personally saw growing swaths of my local area both stop caring and stop believing. Even my own corporation said, in response to Biden's attempt at force vaxxs, that "we haven't seen sicknesses drop since the vaxx started so we ain't doing that."
So while its untested how people will react if it happens again, I can guess that any repeat will see far less compliance both on the personal and especially on the business side.
I'd consider myself a "COVID conservative".
I'd already discovered KiA & KiA2 pre-COVID, but I certainly wasn't fully redpilled yet.
I used to find John Oliver entertaining.
I can't go back to some of the normie communities I used to participate in pre-COVID because they are too cringe.
I was the same with John Oliver, but I think that might have been before covid. It was when his show was brand new and I thought, “oh nice, a show about trying to get to the truth of things no matter what.”….. then his bias unraveled at an accelerated pace and it became unwatchable.
I'm not sure if it's just a copypasta on Twitter, but it's so true that Oliver's show is a perfect example of Pavlovian conditioning.
His entire show is:
Of course the most flagrant pro censorship is women, the matriarchal “polite society” and “political correctness” has always been female led and forced.
My mother has become more based over the last few years with COVID, BLM, mass immigration, Trudeau, etc.
She recently attended a semi-pro sporting event. She returned to inform me that it bothered her when the local fans booed the opposing team when they scored against the hometown 5.
She felt it was rude to the other team and shouldn't be allowed.
And the best way to get popular apparently is to write propaganda exactly as your masters tell you.
The proliferation of censorship in science is a direct result of the forced injection of women into STEM. It turns out that gender and racial demographics do carry inherent behaviors, and forcing diversity into an already-evolved space is the fastest way to destroy it. It’s another example of “the dirt isn’t magic”; lowering and changing standards in order to introduce more women into scientific spaces didn’t magically turn those women into scientists - it just ruined those spaces.
So what I'm seeing is, the longer you are in college, a place to go and learn about life and gain experience, the more you hate the experience you learned, and want to not hear about it anymore, nor let anyone talk about it at college, on campus, or at all.
Seems like a slap in the face if you think about it. You paid for years to learn you're an intolerant bigot that sees and hears things they hate everywhere.
The value of a hierarchy is directly proportional to the percentage of women participating in it. Because women can’t compete with men on even footing, so the only way for a space to become “equal” is for women to be massively boosted by tilted rules. Then it is no longer a valid hierarchy measuring and elevating competence or dominance. It is just a validation machine for elevating women.
The % on the last table make no sense to me.
I think it's unintentionally confusing to mask the real problem: liberal women.
The presenter is a woman who went to a small liberal arts college and was director of USGS under Obama (a "first woman", yeah). All-girls primary schools. "Anyone who is doing anything in my life [before college] was female". Didn't take her husband's name. Thinks science has to change to accommodate women having children. No real talent for or self-direction in science, but gets elevated time after time just for being a woman.
On the other hand, she wants to be objective and pretend to be an actual scientist herself, so is personally conflicted and I think that plays out in this table - which is possibly the worst way to present this data.
If the data was presented clearly the audience would say "so... basically you're the problem?" and it would be personally embarrassing and hurtful.
I believe if you look at the last column it describes the top 20% most censorious group - so 82% female, etc.
Thanks.
How are women 30% least censorious, 65% middle censorious and 82% most censorious?
If it is ''their % of the X Censorious category'' and women are just most of the sample, then how is that data breakdown a wise choice? I'm sure breaking down the data differently would have been more useful.
The three columns describe three different groups of people. The group that is least censorious is 30% female. The group of middle censorious is 65% female.
The group of crazies is 82% female.
They didn't do per capita adjustment. Transgender are a small % (tho larger than the rest of the world.). So. 16% or what ever of the most censurious are trans. So what % is trans overall? Data useless without that.
I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Fascinating, faggots and queers are 4 times as likely to censor you as not censor you, proving once and for all DoM is a faggot.
it didn't used to be this way. In the 10s and 20s they had to explicitly bully scientists into compliance. now academia is so fucked it happens implicitly.
They just select who becomes academics for pliability. You notice they're hugely Asian?
This is how civilization dies, how can progress continue?