Steven Crowder exposes leftwing academia and peer reviewed studies.

@br0kenrabbit: *doctor pulls baby out of the womb*

Tells the parents, "It's a boy!"

How's that doctor know it's a boy if it can't talk yet and can't "identify" yet lol

Do you know what "common vernacular" means? I mean, you can look it up if you don't.

We have also used a lot of other words, Hijra, 2-spirit, and so, so many others.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gender and Sex have been seperate for a long time, you should see some renaissance writings on gender too. It is pretty fascinating stuff.

And weather we realize it subconsciously or not. We have had a long history of referring non humans as men and women too. Especially appearant in our video games. How many sci fi and fantasy races do we call men and women? Hell, we even call robots men too. Mega Man or Ultra Man coming to mind.

@br0kenrabbit: man and woman , boy and girl.

These terms have been used in language to describe biological sex for pretty much all of humanity, in all languages.

Stop trying to change what words mean to fit you new age psudoscience ideology.

@Maroxad: yes because those fictional characters whether aliens or robots share biological characteristics with the existing sexes.

Tits for example, if a humanoid looking alien has tits we will probably call it a woman.

Gamergate got you into politics? Hmm thats interesting. I was interested in the early 2000's during the Bush/Gore election. Funny you accuse me of being obsessed with culture wars but that's what got you into politics.

Regardless most culture war aspects fall on a right or left spectrum. That's not a good thing but that's just the reality. I can almost always pick your position based off your political leanings probably about 90% of the time. Not everytime but most.

Are you talking about Zaryia and his Tulsi Gabbard thread? 🤣

Sorry but bashing one of two Democrats the left hates while also bashing Fox News doesn't help your case. There is nothing moderate about him.

Language has always included more than one gender. And not just English. Did you know there are EIGHT genders in the Torah?

Here's some Hebrew genders for you to look up:

Tumtum

Ay’lonit

Saris

That's off the top of my head, would have to look the others up.

You should really get out of your hole, it's a big, wide world out there.

Edit: Here's more: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

Well you called him a failed comedian.

He is a 34 year old worth 4 million dollars. So by what criteria is he a failure other then the fact that you dont like him?

Man has been the term to describe an adult HUMAN male. A woman describes an adult Human female.

Trying to make gender and sex to completely different things is going to lose you credibility.

Just as you call and adult female lion a lioness or an adult Male lion a Lion. There are different terms used to describe male and females across all species.

As noted above, even the most ancient languages have multiple genders. You're the one trying to ignore reality all around you. This multi-gender stuff is as old as mankind and language itself. When I get back from my chores I can pull out some Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Sumerian if you'd like, listed in order of my proficiency.

But if you want to talk language and know only English you should really give up.

And they go hard in hand.. sorry that's a fact. An effeminate man will never get to be a woman. If he doesn't want to succumb to stereotypical gender roles I'm ok with that but I'm not going to call him something he isn't.

Read the bolded part again. The issue is that you never grew out of the culture wars, pretty much everyone else did, including myself.

And no they don't. It is, and has always been different interest groups. The left and right are nothing more than coalitions of various interest groups, rather than any one coherrent ideology. The oversimplistic interpetion you are making is why we get lousy observations like "the left eating itself".

And you don't get it right even close to that. Pretty much every time you try to make assumptions on people's political stances you are more often than not, off the mark.

No they didn't or it wouldn't be as prevalent as it always is . The left constantly keeps it alive even on this website. GameSpot even did an article bashing JK Rowling for for trans views in response to the Harry Potter legacy of Hogwarts gameplay. Like why the **** does that even need to be mentioned? Anyone who likes entertainment, has kids in school , etc will be dragged into the culture war rather they like it or not. Talking about culture war stuff is relevant in a forum on a gaming site.

Hmm ok. Well you say that but you have no proof. I can take one stance on a subject and the usual suspects will take the typical left wing stance on that same subject. So I would need examples of my lousy observations, or several examples where I assumed someone's political stance ( users on this forum) and got it wrong.

No? I literally quoted the posts destroying Chowder's idiotic video. Shouldn't have lead with it, everyone was able to get a quick "W" in against you due to it,

Admit Chowder screwed up and that your OP is a disaster so we can have a regular discussion on the goal post moves you brought up a day after.

The study uses data from four decades ago. 40 Years. This is like me using a study on US HDI from 1984 to talk about the current state of US QOL. It also uses anecdotal evidence. You know it'll never work as proof.

But wait, the study says peer reviewed studies are not reliable. So why should I trust it anyway? 😂 I can literally link the study to refute the study. Holy shit.

That wasn't a study, much less a peer reviewed or published one. That was an interview with someone making an off the cuff remark. 🤣 You just pulled a Chowder on messing up the basics. He also never said trash or fake. He gives no indication that "value" refers to quality, validity, or accuracy.

I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed published study that says 10 out of 10,000 journals are false or invalid. I'm waiting for a recent peer reviewed published study that says most papers are "trash". Any day now.

P.S. I'm glad that we are still charging each other to find peer reviewed citation, as if this thread changed nothing. 😉

I was obviously talking about the people here, that constantly bemoan the dumb culture wars. Culture Wars is very loud, but it ultimately has little impact on our lives. Calling a transman a man wont really affect your day to day life (unless you are a transman). But the war in Ukraine, logistics and urban planning, how governments influence our supply chains. Those have a serious impact on our well being.

And for the record, the people keeping the culture wars flame going is primarily people like Tucker Carlsson.

As for times you get people's political stances wrong, look no further than this thread. I honestly dont want to go back and point out all the hilariously wrong interpretions, the list would be too long. You brought irrelevant stuff like transwomen in sports, which has nothing to do with what your own topic is about. You are really clueless about Zaryia's positions. And then there is the fact that you are trying to reduce our arguments down to " yea it's bad but it's all we got".

@zaryia:

I literally quoted the posts destroying Chowder's idiotic video. Shouldn't have lead with it, everyone is laughing at you right now. And it's more than 4 by the way, I didn't quote every post.

Admit Chowder screwed up and that your OP is a disaster so we can have a regular discussion on the goal post moves you brought up a day after.

You quoted multiple people 4 or 5 times. It's the same 4 or five leftist it always is. Crowder made the fat phobic crowd and the entire Peer review process look like a joke.

@zaryia: The study uses data from four decades ago. This is like me using a study on HDI from 1984 to talk about the current state of QOL. Give up.

And according to all data it has gotten WORSE! Not better. You haven't proven otherwise.

The finding, thoughpublishedmore than 30 years ago, is still relevant. Since then, other researchers have been uncovering more and more problems with the peer review process,

Refute this or take the L.

@zaryia: That wasn't a study. That was an interview. 🤣 You pulled a Chowder.

I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed published study that says 10 out of 10,000 journals are false or "trash

The link references 3 separate studies and the interview is with one of the most qualified people on the subject. You have not provided a single counter citation that argues against these points.

Since you obviously can't find a study that counters this can you at least find a qualified person on his level that disagrees? Do you have anything other then " yea it's bad but it's all we got" ?

They are two different things.

• Sex & Gender | Office of Research on Women's Health (nih.gov)
• What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender? < Yale School of Medicine
• Sex and gender: Meanings, definition, identity, and expression (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Gendered Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
• Sex Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Get with the times, Chowder has scrambled your brain. This seems more like you being upset at semantics than reality.

There not completely separate though. Glad to see you fell into the trap.

I didn't quote everything. You took "the L" against around 6 or more posters ITT.

Next time don't lead with a braindead psychopath youtuber.

lol interview with off the cuff remarks and not getting what he said about value.

Do you have a peer reviewed study that only 10 out of 10,000 journals are reliable, accurate, and viable?

Do you have a recent peer reviewed study that says most studies are "trash"? I assume that means fake or inaccurate?

P.S. I'm glad that we are still charging each other to find peer reviewed citation, as if this thread changed nothing. 😉

That's not all they said. But you still gotta' prove your claim so it's irrelevant.

I didn't see this specific goal post move you just did on page 4 and never mentioned from page 1-3. They are obviously related subjects that intertwin with each other, but in the end they are literally different (as explained in my links). As in conservatives are wrong on this different.

Glad you disagree with Chowderhead and a large portion of your party on this though.

@zaryia:

I didn't quote everything. You took "the L" against around 6 or more posters ITT.

Next time don't lead with a braindead psychopath youtuber.

Outside of destroying their argument that neither you or them could refute.

You are a clownshow and I love it.

@zaryia: lol interview with off the cuff remarks and not getting what he said about value.

Do you have a peer reviewed study that only 10 out of 10,000 journals are reliable, accurate, and viable?

Do you have a recent peer reviewed study that says most studies are "trash"? I assume that means fake or inaccurate?

P.S. I'm glad that we are still charging each other to find peer reviewed citation, as if this thread changed nothing. 😉

I don't need to. Your attempt to spin after I butchered you is amazing but I know what happened. You Said my claim that " most were trash" was wild. After my three separate studies and an interview that confirmed my argument you are now asking for a pier reviwed study on the experts comment! Lmao 🤣.

I mean I knew the studies were often bullshit and beat you by your own rules. But watching this desperate meltdown is EPIC. By all evidence that we have most are trash. That's where you lost.

You could have argued that it doesn't invalidate all studies( I would have even agreed with you) buy you challenged my claim and have YET to counter it.

@zaryia: That's not all they said. But you still gotta' prove your claim so it's irrelevant.

I'm going to say at least three studies and an expert opinion is pretty good proof especially since you have provided nothing that counters that.

I don't agree with your party at all. You clowns think they are separate and could be completely unrelated. Your party is an absolute joke on this subject. Glad to see you follow them though . I thought you fit into that group and I was right! Libs are wrong on this as usual. Transwomen aren't women. Nice try though!

Lol teh party of science 🤣 😂

What do you mean. We obliterated Chowderhead's dogshit video. He didn't even know what peer reviewed was.

Ask a moderator to delete the thread or OP, that's your only way to take away those 9-10 "L"s from various users at this point.

Concession accepted. Easy win.

It is. Provide a recent peer reviewed study stating most studies are invalid. I want actual research proving this for a fact for modern day research.

For example: Show me any valid url stating a majority of peer reviewed papers on Covid-19 were false.

P.S. I'm glad that we are still charging each other to find peer reviewed citation, as if this thread changed nothing. 😉 And we both know no one here or anywhere else will stop using them as the absolute BEST forms of citation. 😉 Poor Crowder.

Straw-man. I have not seen or heard this and seems you just made it up to save face. Not even my links state this.

The two words are clearly related on a topic. But they are different in specific meaning.

It's not like we think most peer reviewed papers on climate change and covid are fake 🤣

@zaryia:

It is. Provide a recent peer reviewed study stating most peer reviewed studies are fake.

P.S. I'm glad that we are still charging each other to find peer reviewed citation, as if this thread changed nothing. 😉 And we both know no one here or anywhere else will stop using them as the absolute BEST forms of citation. 😉

Wel Il guess the expert I cited has that same wild claim. Unfortunately you can't find a study that counters mine or even an expert opinion. Until you post something insightful ill let you hold that heavy L.

Smart of you to skip the Chowder angle (aka the OP).

He never said trash (he said value), and he didn't cite his wild claim. So not only are you falsely jamming your argument into his, but yes he has to prove his numbers.

Meanwhile,

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide - PMC (nih.gov)

Provide a recent peer reviewed study stating most studies are invalid. I want actual research proving this for a fact for modern day research.

For example: Show me any valid url stating a majority of peer reviewed papers on Covid-19 were false.

Do not make this your 11th L in one thread.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/sex-gender-and-why-differences-matter/2008-07

First though, it is necessary to point out that the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. Sex refers to the biological differences between males and females. Gender refers to the continuum of complex psychosocial self-perceptions, attitudes, and expectations people have about members of both sexes. Even the terms male and female, man and woman are not interchangeable.

Not interchangeable? Fucking clownworld lmao!

I didn't mention Covid are climate change in any of my examples. Although I can post climate change studies that are wrong if you like?

Peer review is a protection against errendous science. It doesnt make it foolproof. Which is why credible scientific journals redact those that are shown not to hold up to scrutiny.

Calling Transmen and women by their preferred pronouns is hardly a controversial take. Academia stopped doing it ages ago. And laymen have stopped doing it as well for most of the part, which is why the dictionaries are now changing. And your poor understanding of linguistics does and other cultures there being more than 2 genders is not a hot take.

Perhaps you should read some history some time. Rather than shelter yourself in modern era expectations.

One of the best self owns in a while.

@zaryia:

He never said trash (he said value), and he didn't cite his wild claim. So not only are you falsely jamming your argument into his, but yes he has to prove his numbers.

Meanwhile,

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide - PMC (nih.gov)

You arguing over the semantics of the definition of the word trash is amusing but also a little pathetic. He said only a select few hold value and he rarely relies on them. Posting your study that doesn't even attempt to refute my claim isn't what I'm asking for. That simply tells me why they do it and the process but it doesn't attempt to refute the experts claims.

@zaryia: For example: Show me any valid url stating a majority of peer reviewed papers on Covid-19 were false.

Going to need you to refute my citation first. Also Covid has been around for two years so I would wait to see how reliable the studies are on the subject hence I didn't bring it up. Nice attempt to spin though.

Yea but it's not working as I've I already established multiple times.

I need you to proof read your comment there, not sure what your trying to say. You meant to say started doing it ages ago?

Lol oh look the other raging leftist. Come join the circus please.

It is working though, people talking about how it can be improved doesnt mean it doesn't work...

Discussions on how to improve the methodology doesnt mean it doesnt work. Science is a self iterating process, and that includes improving the methodology. Something we have been doing for the past 800 years.

Honestly, have you ever read a scientific paper on anything? There will always be discussions on the limitations of any given experiment and discussions on how to improve every single process.

If the peer review process didnt work, we would have abandoned it ages ago. Yet, we improve and iterate, along side using it with other vetting processes.

So should we just abolish peer review? We put the question to Jeff Drazen, the current editor of the top-ranked medical publication the New England Journal of Medicine. He said he knows the process is imperfect — and that's why he doesn't rely on it all that much.

At his journal, peer review is only a first step to vetting papers that may be interesting and relevant for readers. After a paper passes peer review, it is then given to a team of staff editors who each have a lot of time and space to go through the submission with a fine-toothed comb. So highly qualified editors, not necessarily peer review, act as the journal's gatekeepers.

"[Peer review] is like everything else," Drazen said. "There are lots of things out there — some are high quality, some aren't."

Drazen is probably onto something real in that journal editors, with enough resources, can add real value to scientific publications and give them their "golden glow." But how many journals actually provide that value add? We're probably talking about 10 in the world out of the tens of thousands that exist.

So why wouldn't a top medical journal have any confidence in it if it's working? I mean I feel like your all so desperate to feel right you ignore all the evidence in front of you that says it's an issue.

And they will never get read of it. There's to much money involved. Corporations have massive influence on research and studies, which is part of the problem. These studies should be without a bias or narrative.

Read the bolded part again.

Peer review is but one of many steps in the vetting process.

As we saw with Ivermectin, which at this point has been discredited as a treatment for COVID. It is good we have a step to verify stuff before it gets published as scientific fact in reputable papers. Unless you have a better replacement for the peer review process, then it is best we keep it and iterate upon it. And thus far no one has come up with a better solution.

There are journals that dont have peer review, but they are nowhere near as reputable as those with strong vetting procedures like Nature and Science.

Yes but the shit gets published now more then ever. And it's extremely hard to find what's legitimate, now more then ever.

You really need to quit falling for culture wars dude.

Want to be more specific?

There is a decent chunk of garbage out there, but removing the peer review process is not the solution.

The best way to know what holds up and what doesn't is by looking up the methodology. Rejecting a paper because you disagree with a premise (more than 2 genders) is intellectually lazy. However finding red flags in the actual methodology, such as when the Lisa Littman only asked the parents instead of the you know... the actual people who they were meant to study.

I didn't say they need to remove it but they need to change it.

Someone who identifies as a pansexual with strong political leanings probably shouldn't be doing a study on gender identity.

Just as a CEO of Marlboro shouldn't be funding research to see if Cigarette's somehow don't cause lung cancer.

Sounds like you're playing on semantics. And he said journals not studies, and wanted a subjective "golden glow". So by trash you merely meant "not much value to the field", but not "inaccurate" or "invalid"? Sure buddy. Doubtful, but I'll accept it.

Because I don't want some bozo to link that misunderstood quote or 1984 data in a pathetic attempt to refute me when I link a Federal Climate Report that cites 2,000 recent peer reviewed studies. That'll NEVER fly and they will be shat on. And you know it. The thought of someone linking that to me in response to such a report would make laugh.

So I guess if you don't find them invalid or inaccurate, I honestly don't give a shit anymore. Just wanted to dispel that falsehood.

I have seen no recent peer reviewed study saying most peer reviewed studies are fake, inaccurate, or invalid. Not even your op-ed interview said that.

You should clarify next time. You just said most are trash. I doubt most are trash in those two fields, and I doubt you could ever prove it.

I don't give a shit about fat feeling studies or weirdo meme college classes, that probably doesn't even make up 1% of papers. I pounced on the notion of all studies on all fields being "mostly trash".

Yup:

This never happened. A fake event proves what you thought? Rofl?

This is why you should have used and agreed with peer reviewed studies (IRONY) in your OP instead of a freakshow youtuber.

How did we get to the point where people don't believe scientific experts, but blindly believe poorly-educated Youtubers?

Clearly something has gone horribly wrong with education systems around the world.

Well, to be fair, is that highly educated person... a biologist? No? Then, checkmate.

Anthromorphisation it is called.

We have had a long history of referring non humans as men and women too.

No shit. It is because male and female is a prevalent concept througout fauna and flora. "Man" and "Woman" is synonymous.

So, if you have anthromoprphised animal or object and it male/female the respective term is added.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gender and Sex have been seperate for a long time, you should see some renaissance writings on gender too. It is pretty fascinating stuff.

Yea, i'm sure whenever in time, you'll find a man who thinks he is woman. What does it prove? Nothing. Just more bullshit.

What do animals think of this gender nonsense? Mind if you ask some of them and report back their opinion on the matter? I would ask my cat, but she just rolls over and presents her belly... as she always does.

Topic: Fat studies... ha.. hahaha...

@zaryia:

Sounds like you're playing on semantics. And he said journals not studies, and wanted a subjective "golden glow". So by trash you merely meant "not much value to the field", but not "inaccurate" or "invalid"? Sure buddy. Doubtful, but I'll accept it.

Because I don't want some bozo to link that misunderstood quote or 1984 data in a pathetic attempt to refute me when I link a Federal Climate Report that cites 2,000 recent peer reviewed studies. That'll NEVER fly and they will be shat on. And you know it. The thought of someone linking that to me in response to such a report would make laugh.

So I guess if you don't find them invalid or inaccurate, I honestly don't give a shit anymore. Just wanted to dispel that falsehood.

The journal's give you acess to the studies you acting like one has nothing to do with the other is again amusing but they go hand in hand. They publish the studies.

Even at the best journals, ridiculously flawed and silly articles get through. A few readers can't possibly catch all the potential problems with a study, or sometimes they don't have access to all the data that they need to make informed edits.

Ridiculously flawed and Silly... how exactly would you classify that? Again you playing at semantics trying to grasp for straws is is getting old.

Obviously I don't think this invalidates every study but ,we should certainly be more critical of the trash that's posted. I'm not saying the this study invalidates all peer reviewed work. That again is standard bullshit you cooked up.

@zaryia: You should clarify next time. You just said most are trash. I doubt most are trash in those two fields, and I doubt you could ever prove it.

I don't give a shit about fat feeling studies or weirdo meme college classes, that probably doesn't even make up 1% of papers. I pounced on the notion of all studies on all fields being "mostly trash".

The video was about about fat phobic studies.. another reason I posted it because it shows how ridiculous and easy it is to get in these groups. I mentioned other examples as well including the gender study weirdos. The fact I didn't mention Covid and Climate Change specifically should have been good enough. However the data I posted on the flaws of peer review applied to all studies. It doesn't mean however I'm referring specifically to Climate change. Although I can link bullshit studies in that field as well. There are some bad ones that alot of dumb libs use to scare the shit out of people I'll gladly link. however I don't know the exact percent of bad ones hence I didn't make the claim.

The fat phobic weirdos were using him as a valid source and asking him to REVIEW work. Rather it was classified as peer reviewed is up for debate.

Always amusing when topic starters don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Foot in mouth disease is a hallmark of the education through social media crowd.

Wait what?!?

Did you seriously just say that someone should be barred from certain research because of their sexual preferences?

The fact that we can anphromophize them is a strong sign enough that we use they dont mean adult human female or adult human male. Again look at the origin of the words, the 8 genders in hebrew or all the other cultures that had more than 2 genders.