News Feminism hampering science: Research paper, on the greater variability within men, is prevented from publication because it offended a few feminists.

[blickpall]

Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Article: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
(Note: The article is not as long as the scroll bar suggests - that is the result of comments, which I haven't dared to read yet.)

TL;DR: Feminists feel that a certain mathematical paper is damaging to feminist ideology. A handful of women (and at least two men) manage to make it so that the paper can never be officially published.

Brief Summary:

Spoiler

The "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" is a theory that has adequate evidence in numerous species and has floated around since Darwin's research in the 19th century. This researcher realized that although there have been many works which documented this, none had ever tried to propose a reason. So, he created a mathematical, theoretical model which could help explain the greater variability in men, not limited to the concept of intelligence (the commonly accepted hypothesis that men have more idiots and more geniuses than women, i.e. a greater spread of intelligence). This is the summary of what happened to the research:

1. A woman and a man, who worked at the same university as one of the co-authors of the paper, did the following:

a. Hosted a meeting to "explain" to said co-author why his work is detrimental to women and why they "disagree with it."​

b. Wrote letters to the foundation which funded the research anyway, calling the paper "pseudoscientific," which in turn led to the foundation asking any mention of their funding removed.​

2.Other women at the journal in which it was to be published ensured, when they found out that the paper was to be published, that the paper went from "Approved" to "Rejected," which is something that is relatively unheard of.

3. In yet another journal, the article was published, but then it was replaced by some other article right after because yet more female and one notable male feminist decried it as "pseudoscience" and "a piece of crap." This put the author in an impossible situation because he could not re-publish the research elsewhere, since it had technically been published already, even though it was removed without notification or explanation in all publications of the volume.

Notable quotes from the article:
(Note: Emphasis mine. I only selected quotes from the first half of the article because otherwise this section would be too lengthy; this is just a taste.)

Spoiler

"Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates."

"Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model. When I posted a preprint on the open-access mathematics archives in May of last year, a variability researcher at Durham University in the UK got in touch by email. He described our joint paper as “an excellent summary of the research to date in this field,” adding that “it certainly underpins my earlier work on impulsivity, aggression and general evolutionary theory and it is nice to see an actual theoretical model that can be drawn upon in discussion (which I think the literature, particularly in education, has lacked to date). I think this is a welcome addition to the field.” "

On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women... readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”

Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed.

However, a Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed that Penn State WIM administrator Diane Henderson (“Professor and Chair of the Climate and Diversity Committee”) and Nate Brown (“Professor and Associate Head for Diversity and Equity”) had secretly co-signed a letter to the NSF that same morning. “Our concern,” they explained, “is that [this] paper appears to promote pseudoscientific ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF.” "

Conclusion: Feminists can veto publication in mathematics (and presumably other) journals if they feel it goes against the feminist agenda. It is quite possible that this has been going on for some time. Feminism is hampering science at its foundation.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

Nice and interesting. Will it be filed to the archives?

Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Article: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
(Note: The article is not as long as the scroll bar suggests - that is the result of comments, which I haven't dared to read yet.)

TL;DR: Feminists feel that a certain mathematical paper is damaging to feminist ideology. A handful of women (and at least two men) manage to make it so that the paper can never be officially published.

Brief Summary:

Spoiler

The "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" is a theory that has adequate evidence in numerous species and has floated around since Darwin's research in the 19th century. This researcher realized that although there have been many works which documented this, none had ever tried to propose a reason. So, he created a mathematical, theoretical model which could help explain the greater variability in men, not limited to the concept of intelligence (the commonly accepted hypothesis that men have more idiots and more geniuses than women, i.e. a greater spread of intelligence). This is the summary of what happened to the research:

1. A woman and a man, who worked at the same university as one of the co-authors of the paper, did the following:

a. Hosted a meeting to "explain" to said co-author why his work is detrimental to women and why they "disagree with it."​

b. Wrote letters to the foundation which funded the research anyway, calling the paper "pseudoscientific," which in turn led to the foundation asking any mention of their funding removed.​

2.Other women at the journal in which it was to be published ensured, when they found out that the paper was to be published, that the paper went from "Approved" to "Rejected," which is something that is relatively unheard of.

3. In yet another journal, the article was published, but then it was replaced by some other article right after because yet more female and one notable male feminist decried it as "pseudoscience" and "a piece of crap." This put the author in an impossible situation because he could not re-publish the research elsewhere, since it had technically been published already, even though it was removed without notification or explanation in all publications of the volume.

Notable quotes from the article:
(Note: Emphasis mine. I only selected quotes from the first half of the article because otherwise this section would be too lengthy; this is just a taste.)

Conclusion: Feminists can veto publication in mathematics (and presumably other) journals if they feel it goes against the feminist agenda. It is quite possible that this has been going on for some time. Feminism is hampering science at its foundation.

Yep. Conclusion is perfect.

 

[Modus Coperandi]

femiNAZIs

burn this filthy maninist propaganda!

 

[Deleted member 10124]

femiNAZIs

burn this filthy maninist propaganda!

 

[Red Shambhala]

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

 

[OBLITERATION]

1984 coming into fruition

 

[Ihatereddit]

Next time someone tells you feminists have no power, show them this.

 

[FlyFace]

femiNAZIs

burn this filthy maninist propaganda!

Could have predicted the sub IQ Roast Beefs doing this.

"WAAAH! Science is mean and hurtful wahhh.. I KNOW! I'll just remove the things that make me and my sistas look bad while at the same time dumbing down the population by not allowing them access to the latest research! BEING A FEMINAZI SURE IS FUN HAHA!"

Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists.

Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.. man that sounds amazing doesn't it? Women can't even argue with it because it is the truth, not like they won't try to weasel their way out of it but it's proven. Cucks be damned and hey presto.. we might be onto a winner here.

 

[Cleftcel]

What other important information is being suppressed!?!

 

[Deleted member 10124]

What other important information is being suppressed!?!

Next time someone tells you feminists have no power, show them this.

1984 coming into fruition

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

This couldn't be more true. Well put.

1984 coming into fruition

It already is.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Great thread that should definitely go in the archives. A particularly nice illustration of positivism in the service of ideology and how "empirical objectivity" remains malleable and subservient to demographic interests. The peer review process and my own experience with metastasis of stronk womyn marketing to what is allegedly the domain of cool disinterest ramps up my skepticism of "I fucking love muh rational science" ever more.

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

Can always count on @Red Shambhala for great insights into female nature.

 

[Incellectual]

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

 

[morgenthau]

Science always follow social trends and never vice versa.
In Nazi Germany the majority of the German scientists agreed with the fucked up NS-ideology (to keep their jobs).

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

science is completely coopted

controversial studies are not funded

funded studies hoping for bluepill resolutions that end up with red/blackpill conclusions are not released to the public

 

[Newbie17]

1984: vagina edition

Plato IQ.

Good thread nonetheless.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

That’s interesting

 

[Deleted member 18214]

What other important information is being suppressed!?!

 

[guaucel]

IT denying objectivity resemble women that are caught chrating and still deny.

 

[Deleted member 14577]

Plato IQ.

Good thread nonetheless.

slightly smirked at this necro ngl

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Probably sub8 law evidence

 

[ItsOver4cel]

IT denying objectivity resemble women that are caught chrating and still deny.

 

[Newbie17]

slightly smirked at this necro ngl

Thanks for smirking, mate.

 

[Deleted member 14577]

Thanks for smirking, mate.

any time

 

[Newbie17]

any time

Elaboration on your new avatar needed.

 

[MaxZM98]

when the paper says group B will 'prevail' over group A if group A is more selective, does 'prevail' mean genetically superior?

 

[based_meme]

Next time someone tells you feminists have no power, show them this.

Feminism is a modern day societal cancer that desperately needs to be excised.

 

[deathsh+rt]

That's one way to put a fire up a feminists ass just try to publish the truth.

 

[based_meme]

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

Schwarzchild singularity gravitational pull in Newtons IQ.

 

[ThirdWorldcel]

Feminism is a modern day societal cancer that desperately needs to be excised.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

The feminists probably understand the implications of what the authors call the "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis" being wrong better than the authors themselves. The fact that there is so little variability among women is, after all, one of the main causes of inceldom in a free market sexuality.

There are men who are into fat women but there aren’t any women who are into men with small dicks. There are men who are into tall women but there aren’t any women who are into short men. There are men who are into sexually dominant women but there aren’t any women who are into sexually submissive men. I remember reading some study once about if people could imagine living in a relationship where the man is the househusband taking care for the kids, and the female is the main breadwinner. And there were more MEN than women who said that they’d be fine with living in such a relationship

And it’s not just sexuality! The great artists are all men, the “reading’s just for faggots”-types are also mostly men. The funniest people, the comedians are all men, but the super serious black-dressed depressed preacher poet types are also men. The great Saints are all men, the great criminals are all men. Even if you look at IQ tests, women heap in the middle while the extremes (both high and low) are predominantly male. Atheism is mostly male, structured high religion is also male. Or look at male subcultures and what kind of music men listen to. Or male hobbies. There is an extreme diversity among men, whereas with women it’s often more like, “If you know one, you know them all.” People sometimes make fun of Vivaldi and say that he composed the same piece 600 times. This is how being with women often feels like: like knowing one woman dozens of times.

Women often go to pathetic lengths to pretend that they are “not like all the other girls, tehehe” and it’s not true. With men, it’s the other way around: they often go to great lengths to pretend that they are completely normal and just like all the other guys – and it’s not true, either.

So I think from a pro-male perspective the question is how to deal with this diversity, and I think this is one of the reasons why conservatism is deadly for any pro-male movement; men are probably just too diverse to accept only ONE kind of “masculinity” AND STILL BE great enough in number and solidarity to change something for the better.

But I digress. Point is: pro-male groups should and arguably must embrace male variability if they want to successfully defend themselves against the feminists. Purity spiraling has greatly hurt SJW, and "anti-degenerate" far-right purity spiraling will hurt pro-male groups even more. (It's already happening, in a way, because people are already losing interest in alt-right and anti-SJW content and the hype that reached its peak with the election of Donald Trump is long gone.)

I'll keep repeaying that: men are simply ADULT INDIVIDUALS hence the greater variability in comparison to women who are semi children

 

[LastGerman]

In Nazi Germany the majority of the German scientists agreed with the fucked up NS-ideology (to keep their jobs).

Wait, how was it fucked up though? It was based on mere biology and plenty of agreed on that because it is true.

 

[JedRunewatcherCel]

It reminds me of a lecture on the ethics of data. To sum up one of the points they made "sometimes you shouldn't use data because of the discriminatory impact it could have on people."

 

[Yerberito]

That’s interesting

 

[based_meme]

It reminds me of a lecture on the ethics of data. To sum up one of the points they made "sometimes you shouldn't use data because of the discriminatory impact it could have on people."

Facts are OK, except when they hurt my feelings.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

science is completely coopted

controversial studies are not funded

funded studies hoping for bluepill resolutions that end up with red/blackpill conclusions are not released to the public

Facts are OK, except when they hurt my feelings.

Feminism is a modern day societal cancer that desperately needs to be exorcised.

That's one way to put a fire up a feminists ass just try to publish the truth.

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

fucked up NS-ideology

it wasn't