Moron bites (#2)

Time for another of these. The rule, remember, is that the instance picked upon has to exemplify a laughably mindless meme. Like this:

Politically incorrect research, however solidly established, is especially singled out for this treatment. Some approved (i.e. Leftist) authority somewhere has provided the excuse to dismiss awkward findings, so that the painful stimulus can be suppressed, and — just to be safe — even the pretext for suppressing it is best forgotten, leaving only the permission to be undisturbed in public circulation. All crime-think has been ‘well refuted’ (sociologically a priori) as far as these people are concerned. “It’s been well refuted” means exactly “wouldn’t it be nice if this didn’t exist?” (or “nice people have told us we don’t need to worry about that”).

Refuted where?

Amused yet?

ADDED: A banquet of ‘well refuted’ science at Slate.

December 2, 2014admin 46 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Humor

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

46 Responses to this entry

  • Thales Says:

    Bonus Irony Points if you can get the same response trolling with, “Leftism is a religion.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 2:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alice Teller Says:

    Taboos must be observed. If they are not we enter a bad, dangerous, very scary world where we will have no idea what to do or think. She is not a moron, she is a woman playing the traditional role of upholding the prevailing ethos. If you gentlemen object, I suggest that you change that ethos.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    She does not claim to be lady. Even if she does not claim to be a scholar, she demands we treat her as such.

    [Reply]

    Alice Teller Reply:

    I do not defend her, merely explain what you are seeing. It is silly to pretend that people are what they claim to be. She may be a scientists but that is clearly not her highest priority.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 3:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    I’m disappoint – I don’t use google anymore. What decade do these ‘progressives’ live in?

    [Reply]

    steverimjobs0 Reply:

    You need to quote from the book “HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS” thats what she pretends to know…! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 5:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Ah…. poor girl!

    I don’t like these “Moron Bites” posts, they strike me as a little too “crush the weak”-ish. I’m not a big Ragnar Redbeard guy.

    Of course I get that we’re supposed to view her more as symptomatic of a greater problem, and not so much as an individual, but still… I can’t help but feel bad.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    OK, I just looked at her Twitter profile, and it looks like she claims to be a scientist. Never mind; screw her.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I also made the mistake of looking at that profile. This tweet sums it up.

    …Resorting to character assassination to discredit eminent scientists she doesn’t agree with; blinding herself to facts that fly in the face of her pet theories; one thing’s for certain: This social justice stormtrooper is no scientist. Were she a scientist in the true meaning of the word — were she more than just a self-important lab tech — she’d conduct an experiment to test her assumptions. At the very least, she’d do a bit more than link to a Slate hit-piece. (Which purports to explain “why he’s wrong” but does absolutely nothing of the sort.)

    [Reply]

    Nyan Sandwich Reply:

    She discredited herself as soon as she said she was “feeling mansplained”

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    When our enemies are weak, crush them. Who says otherwise is a fool.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    I completely agree. Thing is, I don’t have enemies. I have opponents at most, and my only competition comprises those who are worth a damn.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Not having enemies is a classic prog-fostered delusion. ‘Not having enemies’ is what makes the mainstream right so pathetic.

    Izak Reply:

    Oh, OK, thanks for the info, FRIEND!

    BC Reply:

    My master advises against the use of the word ‘fool.’

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    at 13.6k followers, it still doesn’t count as punching down.

    As for punching down, life is suffering, knowledge is suffering, truth is suffering, etc.

    (This is just what I tell myself over and over again when I have a toothache)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Don’t hate the meme-dancing monkey, hate the meme.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 7:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Moron bites (#2) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 7:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    The physiognomy of a feminist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lord Auch Says:

    Is there anything more solid, i.e. scientific, in the social sciences than IQ?

    [Reply]

    Antisthenes Reply:

    I’m inclined to attribute the viability of IQ to the fact that it’s part of cognitive science rather than social science. For me ‘social’ ‘science’ is an oxymoron and arouses as much aesthetic displeasure as cognitive dissonance. My view is that HBD must replace social science.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2014 at 11:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mr. Archenemy Says:

    Feeling progsplained, TBH

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2014 at 2:04 am Reply | Quote
  • defused Says:

    Yes. Everyone knows that bell curves were constructed by reactionary statisticians bent on imposing their linear models of reality on oppressed subalterns. Tune in next week for ‘sociobiology has been refuted,’ or: ‘how I get can published in any social science journal by trolling’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2014 at 2:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Nuclear Fascist Says:

    Nick, is it true you banned Haywire from commenting on your blog because she said she was going to throw a huge NRx party? The kids at /duck/ seem to think so.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No. (Gargantuan ass-holery outside the blog has zero consequences for how people are treated here — see for e.g. Anissimov.)

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    What is the conflict between you two? She can’t seem to give a straight answer. Did you have drama with her from before NRx? Curious why she is always ranting about you.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No past history of any kind, except the Internet drama from her end. The stupid lie she was promoting about my bust up at a party with Peter Thiel (who I have never met, just to begin the unraveling of this bullshit) was vaguely irritating. Otherwise she’s less than nothing to me. Perhaps that’s the problem. I’d hoped that when she flounced out of NRx (which she’d never actually been part of, except in her own lurid imagination) it would be the end of the matter, but clearly the drama queen needs a play, and she can’t make one up for herself.

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    I recall her being involved in NRx before you.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Her contribution being?

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    I don’t want to be in the middle of any drama, but I got into NRx through her writing at Alternative Right. She crashed the transhumanist prog party with established pseudo-scientists through what they called techno-fascism. Her Twitter network was full of NRx philosophers long before I knew your blog existed. I respect you Nick, but I am inclined to believe she is passionate about NRx.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Not wanting to spin this out unduly, but transhumanist-fascism isn’t NRx, and Alternative Right isn’t an NRx site (although it’s become far saner recently under CL’s guidance).

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    I think you are be grasping for straws here. If you don’t want Rachel Haywire to play in your sandbox I understand, (she is definitely not for everyone) but she was involved as the token NRx voice of pop culture. She brought in lots of new people, myself included, and it was her writing that lead me down the path toward writing like your own. Based on your replies to my comments, I’m inclined to think that /duck/ may have been right about you banning her from commenting about throwing some NRx party.

    You say you never think about her, yet you seem very invested in letting people know she is not NRx. This seems like a bizarre competition you have with her, and I really did not expect a philosopher of your status to be worried about some female Boyd Rice type.

    If you unbanned her that would go a long way for me.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I haven’t banned her. In fact, I haven’t banned anybody (a very few individual comments have been deleted — far less than one a month on average — always for spittle-flecked abusive trolling. Haywire not among them).

    The /duck’ thing, as I’m sure you realize, is an impostor. It isn’t possible that anyone could have that information other than me, even were it true, because I have exclusive access to the Outside in back-end. It isn’t true. If Haywire — despite being, incredibly, even more annoying in her online behavior than Anissimov — comes here to leave a civil comment, it will definitely be left up. So if you’re holding your breath, you can stop,.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    *you seem very invested*

    This is the first I’ve ever seen anything on the subject from Admin, and its in response to you. Far from being very invested, I would say that Admin is hardly invested at all.

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    It’s possible you banned her and that she told other people about it who may have been posting to /duck/. Whether you banned her or not, you seem very intent on telling people she is not NRx.

    Again, she was my gateway to NRx, and it was through her that I found your writing. She is nowhere near as annoying as Anissimov. She is extremely obnoxious at times, but she doesn’t cause trannygate. I hope you will unban her if /duck/ is right about your actions.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If I had banned her, I would tell you. I haven’t.

    NRx credentials (of any sort) are not required for permission to post comments here, as a glance through almost any thread would quickly show.

    [Reply]

    Nuclear Fascist Reply:

    What credentials are you talking about? She was doing NRx before you. See her articles about neoreaction on Alternative Right and Attack the System from almost 3 years ago. If I knew you were going to be this way, I never would have bought your books. Your banning of some young cybergothic philosopher is repugnant.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re laying on the trolling a bit thick at this point.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2014 at 4:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Nathan Cook Says:

    That’s an irregular verb, isn’t it? I study; you read; they google.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    proper pronunciation is soft, like ‘goozhle’, as it is the foo tense of ‘goog’ which is obviously a soft ‘oozh’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2014 at 9:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    One should take the role of Socratic questioner in these debates. The assumption must be, “Well, I don’t know, it’s clearly controversial, let’s look at the details, shall we?”

    Force the likes of this woman to mount a defense of HER position; force HER into the defensive crouch. You do this by feigning curiosity. “Well, if you’re argument is so certainly the truth, can you point me to the studies you must have in mind? Ah, yes, I see. Well, really, it looks like your study didn’t refute The Bell Curve per se, it just questioned this minor aspect of it . . .”

    I did this with that Dr. Michael White during the Wade Debates, and I drew him out far enough to admit that, yes, human races are basically like dog breeds. This, a man who had just written an article about why race is a social construct. Point and match, motherfucker.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    C-LAR tried pretty much exactly that. His request for some kind of reference for the ‘well refuted’ claim led to the brush-off recorded above (second tweet).

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2014 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    Announce a prize to anyone who can point to a paper that is solid enough to refute the bell curve. The question is , who would take the hit for the team?

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 11:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/12/10 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Another little piece of Twitter stupidity. […]

    Posted on December 10th, 2014 at 6:01 am Reply | Quote
  • On examining evidences for points of view, etc | The Daily Pochemuchka Says:

    […] for example this recent Xenosystems post about a Twitterer claiming The Bell Curve has been “well-refuted”. There are definitely a lot […]

    Posted on December 26th, 2014 at 2:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/12/10 Says:

    […] Another little piece of Twitter stupidity. […]

    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 10:25 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment