JFL IncelTear whore writes a "study" on IT "humour"

[Newton the 2nd]

Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology

This paper gives a comprehensive account of a humorous practice on the IncelTears subreddit, whose aim is to poke fun at, and give a social commentary…

www.sciencedirect.com

Imagine being a dirty TOILET pretending to post a "study" on a science website about the sinister and impotent faggot "humour" of r/IncelTear.

LISTEN UP YOU FUCKING WHORE : WOMEN ARE CHROMOSOMICALLY INCAPABLE OF 2 THINGS : DOING SCIENCE AND BEING FUNNY. YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PURPOSE IN LIFE : SPREADING YOUR LEGS AND GETTING FILLED WITH CUM. EITHER YOU GET FUCKED, OR YOU GO AND KILL YOURSELF.

 

[calimero]

Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology

This paper gives a comprehensive account of a humorous practice on the IncelTears subreddit, whose aim is to poke fun at, and give a social commentary…

www.sciencedirect.com

Imagine being a dirty TOILET pretending to post a "study" on a science website about the sinister and impotent faggot "humour" of r/IncelTear.

LISTEN UP YOU FUCKING WHORE : WOMEN ARE CHROMOSOMICALLY INCAPABLE OF 2 THINGS : DOING SCIENCE AND BEING FUNNY. YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PURPOSE IN LIFE : SPREADING YOUR LEGS AND GETTING FILLED UP WITH CUM. EITHER YOU GET FUCKED, OR YOU GO AND KILL YOURSELF.

She is a humor researcher but maybe she should have considered analysing our humor, because I think it's a little more sophisticated than IT

 

[ZtarvationArmy]

Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology

This paper gives a comprehensive account of a humorous practice on the IncelTears subreddit, whose aim is to poke fun at, and give a social commentary…

www.sciencedirect.com

Imagine being a dirty TOILET pretending to post a "study" on a science website about the sinister and impotent faggot "humour" of r/IncelTear.

LISTEN UP YOU FUCKING WHORE : WOMEN ARE CHROMOSOMICALLY INCAPABLE OF 2 THINGS : DOING SCIENCE AND BEING FUNNY. YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PURPOSE IN LIFE : SPREADING YOUR LEGS AND GETTING FILLED UP WITH CUM. EITHER YOU GET FUCKED, OR YOU GO AND KILL YOURSELF.

I hate when garbage like this is slapped with the label of "science." science is a formal system of reasoning to better understand the natural world. it has nothing to do with such foidtartation.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

She is a humor researcher but maybe she should have considered analysing our humor, because I think it's a little more sophisticated than IT

No shit they are retarded

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I hate when garbage like this is slapped with the label of "science." science is a formal system of reasoning to better understand the natural world. it has nothing to do with such foidtartation.

Foids just want their fantasies to be slapped with a "science" label to pretend to be as smart as men. They deserve to be whipped for that

 

[ZtarvationArmy]

Foids just want their fantasies to be slapped with a "science" label to pretend to be as smart as men. They deserve to be whipped for that

 

[calimero]

I hate when garbage like this is slapped with the label of "science." science is a formal system of reasoning to better understand the natural world. it has nothing to do with such foidtartation.

Regardless of what the foid writes I have to defend qualitative science. What you say is really a question of philosophy of science. Positivistic science is only an outcome of creative and organic thought process, which all contributes to how a theory is formed. We never arrive at formalism purely by reasoning, they are subjected to a human and often social process. This is why rationalism doesn't make sense, humans simply don't think in this way. The formalized version is just the way we present it in, after a lot of trial and error. Thoughts regarding theory forming process are always omitted. Many theories that couldn't be falsified ages ago were later falsified by fMRI and cognitive science. Rationalist would probably have called it pseudoscience in that time because noone was able to formalize it, and thereby disqualifying it as science. By their reasoning, psychoanalytics and analytical psychology is sometimes called a pseudo science, even though the research draws on comparative evidence and based on that, it finds causal connections within the psyche. The psyche is also part of the natural world. Because their is no operationalisation or formalization of their concepts (yet) it is qualitative science, but definitely not pseudoscience. Also all of continental philosophy is easily deemed as unimportant by that way of thinking. That's why I think science is bigger than positivism and the falsification principle, and we should be aware that it doesn't marginalize others disciplines as the "main" paradigm. Not saying that her paper is a good example of qualitative science, but we should be aware of the dangers of rationalism.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Regardless of what the foid writes I have to defend qualitative science. What you say is really a question of philosophy of science. Positivistic science is only an outcome of creative and organic thought process, which all contributes to how a theory is formed. We never arrive at formalism purely by reasoning, they are subjected to a human and often social process. This is why rationalism doesn't make sense, humans simply don't think in this way. The formalized version is just the way we present it in, after a lot of trial and error. Thoughts regarding theory forming process are always omitted. Many theories that couldn't be falsified ages ago were later falsified by fMRI and cognitive science. Rationalist would probably have called it pseudoscience in that time because noone was able to formalize it, and thereby disqualifying it as science. By their reasoning, psychoanalytics and analytical psychology is sometimes called a pseudo science, even though the research draws on comparative evidence and based on that, it finds causal connections within the psyche. The psyche is also part of the natural world. Because their is no operationalisation or formalization of their concepts (yet) it is qualitative science, but definitely not pseudoscience. That's why I think science is bigger than positivism and the falsification principle, and we should be aware that it doesn't marginalize others disciplines as the "main" paradigm. Not saying that her paper is a good example of qualitative science, but we should be aware of the dangers of rationalism.

Psychoanalysis is just a jew fantasy for cucks. If you believe in it you're retarded

 

[calimero]

Psychoanalysis is just a jew fantasy for cucks. If you believe in it you're retarded

There are many schools of psychology e.g. Jungian, Kleinian, etc. which are all empirical and have scientific merit.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

There are many schools of psychology e.g. Jungian, Kleinian, etc. which are all emperical and have scientific merit.

Psychology is not a science

 

[calimero]

Psychology is not a science

Not according to rationalists no. I suggest that they look at their own reasoning process and assess if their own original thought which can't be formalized has no meaning or could never lead to scientific theory

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Not according to rationalists no. I suggest that they look at their own reasoning process and assess if their own original thought which can't be formalized has no meaning or could never lead to scientific theory

Nah to me if you shit theories are disproven every other century you're just not a real scientist. It has nothing to do with rationalism. You view of science is called copism.

 

[calimero]

Nah to me if you shit theories are disproven every other century you're just not a real scientist. It has nothing to do with rationalism. You view of science is called copism.

Those theories are not disproven and have only been around the past century, they only have no operationalisation so can't be falsified. But so has all of continental philosophy. It's hard to disprove them, but there is tons of qualitative and comparative evidence that makes them empirical. And even if you have negative results as a scientists, it's still science, actually that is completely the point of science. If you say it hasn't got anything to do with rationalism, you are atleast saying that science should be positivist, i.e. it is quantifiable. But all of quantitative science is factually preceded but qualitative science. You can't isolate one from the other. For my masters I have always practiced quantitative science, which made me recognize that comparative evidence and sometimes just intuition is essential to theory-forming. But even some of my classmates said that Jungian psychology was a pseudoscience, so you can see what a dismissive attitude positivism has towards not quantifiable types of evidence, which is why it can be dangerous. Luckly science nowadays has a paradigm shift away from positivism, which helps to even the playing field, while at the same time computational approaches are stronger than ever.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Those theories are not disproven and have only been around the past century, they only have no operationalisation so can't be falsified. But so has all of continental philosophy. It's hard to disprove them, but there is tons of qualitative and comparative evidence that makes them empirical. And even if you have negative results as a scientists, it's still science, actually that is completely the point of science. If you say it hasn't got anything to do with rationalism, you are atleast saying that science should be positivist, i.e. it is quantifiable. But all of quantitative science is factually preceded but qualitative science. You can't isolate one from the other. For my masters I have always practiced quantitative science, which made me recognize that comparative evidence and sometimes just intuition is essential to theory-forming. But even some of my classmates said that Jungian psychology was a pseudoscience, so you can see what a dismissive attitude positivism has towards not quantifiable types of evidence, which is why it can be dangerous. Luckly science nowadays has a paradigm shift away from positivism, which helps to even the playing field, while at the same time computational approaches are stronger than ever.

It helps retards who can't come up with shit that makes sense to cosplay scientists. Your attitude is nothing new, you're just being loose as fuck.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Those theories are not disproven and have only been around the past century, they only have no operationalisation so can't be falsified. But so has all of continental philosophy. It's hard to disprove them, but there is tons of qualitative and comparative evidence that makes them empirical. And even if you have negative results as a scientists, it's still science, actually that is completely the point of science. If you say it hasn't got anything to do with rationalism, you are atleast saying that science should be positivist, i.e. it is quantifiable. But all of quantitative science is factually preceded but qualitative science. You can't isolate one from the other. For my masters I have always practiced quantitative science, which made me recognize that comparative evidence and sometimes just intuition is essential to theory-forming. But even some of my classmates said that Jungian psychology was a pseudoscience, so you can see what a dismissive attitude positivism has towards not quantifiable types of evidence, which is why it can be dangerous. Luckly science nowadays has a paradigm shift away from positivism, which helps to even the playing field, while at the same time computational approaches are stronger than ever.

Defending jew science made you side with that whore in OP yet you can't seem to find the connection. "Coincidence"

 

[calimero]

Defending jew science made you side with that whore in OP yet you can't seem to find the connection. "Coincidence"

I'm defending qualitative science against the often repeated fallacy that science should be or can only be "formalizable and rational" (note the normative attitude)

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I'm defending qualitative science against the often repeated fallacy that science should be or can only be "formalizable and rational" (note the normative attitude)

Where the fuck did I ever say that you hallucinating jew. I dont even use that cucked vocabulary I have a brain of my own.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I'm defending qualitative science against the often repeated fallacy that science should be or can only be "formalizable and rational" (note the normative attitude)

"normative attitude" You're definitely gay

 

[calimero]

Where the fuck did I ever say that you hallucinating jew. I dont even use that cucked vocabulary I have a brain of my own.

I replied to Ztarvationarmy and you replied to it

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I replied to Ztarvationarmy and you replied to it

Ah then he's right. Stop being a cuck and question the bullshit you learned in jewniversity. Math physics and engineering = science. All the rest is roleplay for women who want to invade colleges to fuck chad from the Uni football team

 

[calimero]

Ah then he's right. Stop beinf a cuck and question the bullshit you learned in jewniversity

I have never been in a qualitative field, I was always in a quantitative field which is how you learn that formalisms are only an end result of lots of trial-and-error, intuition, imagination, discussion, etc. You see that you discover things by different types of evidence, a lot of it is by comparison and identifying causal mechanisms even though you might be unable to falsify it yet. The general public has this view of "only hard and exact science is science", but then we would be left with no theory forming and analysis at all, because as I said, you can't isolate the one from the other. Analysis is the ground work from which operationalisation and formalisms follow. This all follows from actual practice.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I have never been in a qualitative field, I was always in a quantitative field which is how you learn that formalisms are only an end result of lots of trial-and-error, intuition, imagination, discussion, etc. You see that you discover things by different types of evidence, a lot of it is by comparison and identifying causal mechanisms even though you might be unable to falsify it yet. The general public has this view of "only hard and exact science is science", but then we would be left with no theory forming and analysis at all, because as I said, you can't isolate the one from the other. Analysis is the ground work from which operationalisation and formalisms follow. This all follows from actual practice.

You're just a traitor opening the city gates of science to the jews basically. Faggots like you are dangerous. Question yourself and have some self awareness before spewing this bullshit philosophy mumbo jumbo.

 

[calimero]

Ah then he's right. Stop being a cuck and question the bullshit you learned in jewniversity. Math physics and engineering = science. All the rest is roleplay for women who want to invade colleges to fuck chad from the Uni football team

An example: a psychologist creates a hypothesis about human behaviour based on tons of observation. The theory can however not be formalised so it is unfalisifiable, so it is qualitative science but we can merely build theoretically on it. Years later a computational linguist devised a way to operationalise and formalize the theory by means of speech patterns. This either enforces the theory or disproves it. It can now be used more pragmatically and maybe it leads to real-life applications, while first it just existed in isolation and purely theoretical. Does that mean the intial theory had no worth? Really the opposite.

This is a pattern that you always see in science.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

An example: a psychologist creates a hypothesis about human behaviour based on tons of observation. The theory can however not be formalised so it is unfalisifiable, so it is qualitative science but we can merely build theoretically on it. Years later a computational linguist devised a way to operationalise and formalize the theory by means of speech patterns. This either enforces the theory or disproves it. It can now be used more pragmatically and maybe it leads to real-life applications, while first it just existed in isolation and purely theoretical.

This is a pattern that you always see in science.

Human psychology isnt real you faggot. You can't turn it into a science. Its the literal opposite of the legacy of Newton and what the scientific method advocates for.

 

[AnilBashir]

ITs humor is just slapping each other on the back and laughing at untrue statements they tell each other

 

[calimero]

Human psychology isnt real you faggot. You can't turn it into a science. Its the literal opposite of the legacy of Newton and what the scientific method advocates for.

If you can turn it into quantifiable results it is exactly the same as what Newton was doing. He formalized causal patterns in nature. In the same way you can formalize patterns in language or identify causal mechanisms in the psyche or in human behavior.

 

[calimero]

You're just a traitor opening the city gates of science to the jews basically. Faggots like you are dangerous. Question yourself and have some self awareness before spewing this bullshit philosophy mumbo jumbo.

You know science can be applied to all levels of society. It is more dangerous to only have methodologies for mathematics, physics and engineering and deny that the social world exists. Imagine if politicans and policy-makers didn't rely on scientific research anymore.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

You know science can be applied to all levels of society. It is more dangerous to only have methodologies for mathematics, physics and engineering and deny that the social world exists. Imagine if politicans and policy-makers didn't rely on scientific research anymore.

No it can't you delusional faggot. 3 centuries of social sciences they can't come up with shit despite modern technology, loads of cash, government funding and a SHIT TON OF DATA. KYS you kike science defender. Ill celebrate psychology the day it won't exist solely for foids to use it to justify their retardedness.

 

[Todd The Harpooner]

Hi, Marta.

I just want to let you know I've dumped my load to thoughts of fucking your Dumb Polack face numerous times.

What is it with hot flat mousy blondes like you and Na'ama Katz being obsessed with incels?

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Hi, Marta.

I just want to let you know I've dumped my load to thoughts of fucking your Dumb Polack face numerous times.

What is it with hot flat mousy blondes like you and Na'ama Katz being obsessed with incels?

That blonde polish slut wants to get creampied by a nazi incel

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

"Vigilante"

 

[ZtarvationArmy]

Regardless of what the foid writes I have to defend qualitative science. What you say is really a question of philosophy of science. Positivistic science is only an outcome of creative and organic thought process, which all contributes to how a theory is formed. We never arrive at formalism purely by reasoning, they are subjected to a human and often social process. This is why rationalism doesn't make sense, humans simply don't think in this way. The formalized version is just the way we present it in, after a lot of trial and error. Thoughts regarding theory forming process are always omitted. Many theories that couldn't be falsified ages ago were later falsified by fMRI and cognitive science. Rationalist would probably have called it pseudoscience in that time because noone was able to formalize it, and thereby disqualifying it as science. By their reasoning, psychoanalytics and analytical psychology is sometimes called a pseudo science, even though the research draws on comparative evidence and based on that, it finds causal connections within the psyche. The psyche is also part of the natural world. Because their is no operationalisation or formalization of their concepts (yet) it is qualitative science, but definitely not pseudoscience. Also all of continental philosophy is easily deemed as unimportant by that way of thinking. That's why I think science is bigger than positivism and the falsification principle, and we should be aware that it doesn't marginalize others disciplines as the "main" paradigm. Not saying that her paper is a good example of qualitative science, but we should be aware of the dangers of rationalism.

IQs me

 

[Incedel]

I hate when garbage like this is slapped with the label of "science." science is a formal system of reasoning to better understand the natural world. it has nothing to do with such foidtartation.

(((Science))) in the eyes of foids and leftist morphed from a tool of reasoning into a belief system. Instead of something used to get the best estimation of reality its just gospel that they spread around to compel people to act how they want kind of like religion that they claim to hate

 

[Newton the 2nd]

(((Science))) in the eyes of foids and leftist morphed from a tool of reasoning into a belief system. Instead of something used to get the best estimation of reality its just gospel that they spread around to compel people to act how they want kind of like religion that they claim to hate

Anything else is wrong

 

[Incedel]

Anything else is wrong

MAKE SURE TO GET VAXXED, QUAD BOOSTED, TRUST THE SCIENCE, 15 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE CURVE

 

[Newton the 2nd]

MAKE SURE TO GET VAXXED, QUAD BOOSTED, TRUST THE SCIENCE, 15 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE CURVE

I want to get steroid shots in the ass

 

[Trannydestroyer]

I have to agree with @calimero social sciences are useful it's true social science we are getting blackpilled studies but todays social science is jewish degeneracy shithole

 

[Newton the 2nd]

I have to agree with @calimero social sciences are useful it's true social science we are getting blackpilled studies but todays social science is jewish degeneracy shithole

No one needs studies for the blackpill. They don't say anything a truecel hasnt already lived or seen first hand. The only purpose of the scientific blackpill is to use it in debate to convince normies they are retards. Social sciences are only useful for retards to make themselves look and sound smarter. Fake sciences through and through.

 

[calimero]

No one needs studies for the blackpill. They don't say anything a truecel hasnt already lived or seen first hand. The only purpose of the scientific blackpill is to use it in debate to convince normies they are retards. Social sciences are only useful for retards to make themselves look and sound smarter. Fake sciences through and through.

If it weren't for social sciences basically every societal decision would be taken on basis of nepotism, populism and power. Apart from being theoretically interesting to study it also has a lot of practical value. Same with psychology.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

If it weren't for social sciences basically every societal decision would be taken on basis of nepotism, populism and power.

Social sciences only exist because we collect data. Its not an excuse to come up with retarded shit theories that mean absolutely nothing except for foids who believe in astrology.

 

[calimero]

Social sciences only exist because we collect data. Its not an excuse to come up with retarded shit theories that mean absolutely nothing except for foids who believe in astrology.

Yes those countless population studies probably mean nothing. Fisher really invented the ANOVA for nothing.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Yes those countless population studies probably mean nothing. Fisher really invented the ANOVA for nothing.

Jfl this is just a quantitative method, its 100% in line with what I say.

Real science = Anova
Jew science = Shanatova

 

[calimero]

Jfl this is just a quantitative method, its 100% in line with what I say.

Real science = Anova
Jew science = Shanatova

Yeah it's in line with what you say, but as soon as a social scientist uses it to derive or support a theory, it's foid astrology

And when a psychologist uses factor analysis it's jewish psychology.

And if cognitive psychology didn't use mathematics the theories would mean nothing?

Or if the fMRI wasn't invented, the theory of brain areas would mean nothing?

You will find statistics, formalisms and computational methodology in every academic field. Like I said, the one doesn't exist without the other. Formalisms and operationalisation follow theory and hypothesis.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Yeah it's in line with what you say, but as soon as a social scientist uses it to derive or support a theory, it's foid astrology

And when a psychologist uses factor analysis it's jewish psychology.

And if cognitive psychology didn't use mathematics the theories would mean nothing?

Or if the fMRI wasn't invented, the theory of brain areas would mean nothing?

You will find statistics, formalisms and computational methodology in every academic field. Like I said, the one doesn't exist without the other. Formalisms and operationalisation follow theory and hypothesis.

In physics math isnt used to support a narrative. You just deduce laws from the data and then you make predictions and compare the prediction to new experiments. You're not trying to invent retarded esoteric theories to explain things that only exist in your head. The projection is way too strong in social sciences, inconsistent in time and space.

Btw neuroscience isnt a science either its 100 cucked. Biology barely a science. Its literally a glorified pokedex.

 

[calimero]

In physics math isnt used to support a narrative. You just deduce laws from the data and then you make predictions and compare the prediction to new experiments. You're not trying to invent retarded esoteric theories to explain things that only exist in your head. The projection is way too strong in social sciences, inconsistent in time and space.

Btw neuroscience isnt a science either its 100 cucked. Biology barely a science. Its literally a glorified pokedex.

If you pick a random paper or survey a field in social sciences, you will be overwhelmed with statistics. The main form of research is modern statistics. And this form of science is only 100 years old (credit to Fisher who built it single handedly and was even ostracized from the field due to Pearson's pride). From statistics you can draw very valid conclusions to support your theory. Keyword: significance.

Btw if you like mathematics so much, you will love neuroscience. It's maybe the most beautiful application of mathematics and statistics there is.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

If you pick a random paper or survey a field in social sciences, you will be overwhelmed with statistics. The main form of research is modern statistics. And this form of science is only 100 years old (credit to Fisher who built it single handedly and was even ostracized from the field due to Pearson's pride). From statistics you can draw very valid conclusions to support your theory. Keyword: significance.

Btw if you like mathematics so much, you will love neuroscience. It's maybe the most beautiful application of mathematics and statistics there is.

>survey

jfl

 

[calimero]

>survey

jfl

survey a.k.a. review paper

 

[Newton the 2nd]

survey a.k.a. review paper

I hope you're as proud of "studies" (gender studies, race studies, etc) as you are of jew science.

 

[cvh1991]

I hate when garbage like this is slapped with the label of "science." science is a formal system of reasoning to better understand the natural world. it has nothing to do with such foidtartation.

Bump