Steven Crowder exposes leftwing academia and peer reviewed studies.

You're arguing pronouns.

@LJS9502_basic: nope Im arguing biological sex and the terms man and woman which leftwing academia has recently been pushing to not mean biological sex but identified gender.

I agree. Funny enough Silentchief's pivots even derails his own threads.

Culture Warriors like him never really care about science, but in this case, peer review and the scientific processes literally get in the way of his culture war.

No what defines a man and woman is semantics.

Man and woman aren't really used in science. Male and Female (referring to sex) are. I dunno about your biology textbooks when you were in School. But mine never mentioned 'Gender' Sex on the other hand...

It does, and watching them try to explain themselves is amusing. They don't catch all the ridiculous contradictions. It's best just not to waste time with them and save your energy fighting them when they try to effect policy.

Aka most of academia. "The ratio of liberal to conservative professors has profoundly changed from 4 to 1 a few years ago to 17 to 1 today." "Liberal professors outnumber conservatives 12 to 1: Study".

This isn't the result of some George Soros (we know what this means) or Illuminati plot. This is because people with more liberal views tend to pursue those fields and careers more. It's the nature of it.

And thank god for it, or we'd have climate deniers and anti-vaxxers running amuck, and be backwards in general in most of science. Like it or not, they drive things forward.

Also I don't get what the issue with gender vs sex. You guys are getting mad over terminology, and think the science is for the most part wrong due to opinions. What an odd hill to die on.

So you're having a semantics debate, not a scientific one.

I think there should be two clear terms so that we DON'T get into these arguments. One for literal biological difference, and one for psychological/cultural ones.

This nuanced distinction should be welcomed by everyone so you can stop incorrectly yelling "anti-science" or "muh biology". Albiet it destroys the Culture War, which conservatives wouldn't like. That fuels them.

We're already going backwards because the left has taken it over.

The left used " muh science " to pass batshit insane policies not the right.

Now we're watching full grown men roll over women in sports. I wonder what's next.

I simply brought examples to prove a point. You then argued about those examples. It's not that I don't care about science but I will gladly point out how deeply flawed it is, when it contradicts itself.

It's not my culture war btw that's a disingenuous statement. I would say it's those with generally leftwing viewpoints that want to constantly infringe on other peoples belief ( and they sometimes use flawed science as reason to do so.)

Totally worse than idiotic Covid and Climate change policies or policy ideas. lol.

Nah we're still progressing just fine.

@zaryia: Totally worse than idiotic Covid and Climate change policies or policy ideas. lol.

The lefts climate change policies are fucking abysmal. Relying on shit that simply doesnt work yet. While the right may not do enough the left tries to do to much. As far as Covid what insane policies has the right proposed that you dont like? I'm not talking about conspiracy theories among the fringe I'm talking about actual policy.

@zaryia:

Nah we're still progressing just fine.

Nah not really. The average Life expectancy dropped ( and that was before Covid)

Opinion. As opposed to things that have objectively made it worse (GOP) and a party that's been wrong on it for decades? lol.

Anti-masking and anti-vaxxing. Also general covid misinformation in general. This had disastrous results.

How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Generally going up except for Covid. Same with general QOL. We are progressing, thanks to scientists mostly which are liberal or democrat, few cons.

Life expectancy in the U.S. and peer countries has generally been increasing from 1980-2019. While life expectancy in the United States decreased from its all-time high of 78.9 years after 2014 (driven by increase in overdose deaths), life expectancy increased in 2018 and 2019 and was back up to 78.8 years in 2019. Life expectancy increased in all comparable countries from 2018 to 2019.

Life expectancy at birth decreased in most peer countries in 2020 due to COVID-19. In contrast, life expectancy went up in Australia and Japan in 2020. These two countries’ successes in managing COVID-19 infections led to the lowest rates of COVID-19 mortality in 2020 among peer countries.

@zaryia:Opinion. As opposed to things that have objectively made it worse (GOP) and a party that's been wrong on it for decades? lol.

Wasn't the world supposed to have ended by now like 3 times? Will your side ever get this right or will the fear mongering keep happening? Germany adopted most of the lefts energy policies... how's that working for them?

@zaryia: Anti-masking and anti-vaxxing. Also general covid misinformation in general. This had disastrous results.

Can't think of any right wing policy that was Anti Vax. They wanted freedom of choice they never made people not get a vaccine. ( matter of fact the most influential GoP members urged people to get it). Conspiracy theorist don't pass policy but that's what you get though when the science constantly flip flops... distrust.

@zaryia:

Generally going up except for Covid. Same with general QOL. We are progressing, thanks to scientists mostly which are liberal or democrat, few cons.

Except it's lower then what it was in 2014.

Regardless that would be credit given to medical surgeon's not scientists. Surgeons are more likely to be Conservative. Way to stay tribalistic though.

A majority of papers never said this, and most predictions were accurate.

Thank god for scientists (most are liberal and/or dem) though, so we even know this is a real and major problem. Conservatives would have us think it's all fake still. We'd be in for some deep shit if not for them.

Energy in most 1st world countries is from the "left" leaning fields period. So this statement is pointless.

Most anti-mandate policies are. Full stop that's their net effect.

Driven by overdose deaths, and it just about came back in 2019. Then Covid hit. Overall we've seen an increase over the last 100 years and every decade.

Nope. Pharmacology, Oncology, Chemistry, Agriculture, Education, etc. Most in biological medicine fields are Democrat leaning. All of it adds up and helps increase our QOL and life expectancy. Surgeons alone don't do this lol. Most doctors in general are Dems now, after the GOP went full loony tunes.

Looks at OP and posts I quoted. Lol irony.

Anyway yeah most scientists/PHDs are liberal or left leaning. They advance society.

Academia is not faltering and not all a sham. Perhaps a literal handful of elective courses you might have a point (but didn't we always have that?), but you guys are blowing this shit way way way of of proportion.

From activists, yes. But the actual scientists, which this thread is about. Never stated anything of the likes, if anything, their predictions often ended up understating the actual effects.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00585-7

Also, Germany did not remove the nuclear power plants due to pressure from left wingers, they did it as a kneejerk reaction following the Fukushimi accident. In 2021 coal became germany's biggest producer of energy. They basically went the opposite direction any leftie would have wanted.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105

Can't think of any right wing policy that was Anti Vax. They wanted freedom of choice they never made people not get a vaccine. ( matter of fact the most influential GoP members urged people to get it). Conspiracy theorist don't pass policy but that's what you get though when the science constantly flip flops... distrust.

Anti vaccine mandates? For a population to get rid of a virus, society needs to reach herd immunity. Also the rhetoric coming out certainly didnt help either.

Science doesnt flip flop as much as update their information as new informaiton is obtained. But yeah, keep trying to convince people that you arent anti-science, while making ignorant statements like the one above.

Academia continues to make new discoveries us engineers keep using to make better technology. Meanwhile Tin Foil hatters like Stephen Crowder continue to get kicked out of platforms for spreading hate speech and disinformation.

While running from debates from Sam Seder.

Yeah, who should I trust? The community that has repeatedly proven themselves trustworthy by providing new discoveries which I can funnel into the tech I develop, or the guy who repeatedly fails fact checks and is one of the biggest cowards on the internet?

Also Left Wing Academia? Am I the only one who finds those sentiments deeply disturbing?

TCHBO!

@zaryia:

A majority of papers never said this, and most predictions were accurate.

Thank god for scientists (most are liberal and/or dem) though, so we even know this is a real and major problem. Conservatives would have us think it's all fake still. We'd be in for some deep shit if not for them.

I'd have to see the proof that " most" predictions were accurate. All I see is lots of goal post moving. Regardless the earth faced several extinction level events before men existed. You coud be in deep shit anyway.

@zaryia:

Energy in most 1st world countries is from the "left" leaning fields period. So this statement is pointless.

Except gas and oil which actually works.

@zaryia

Most anti-mandate policies are. Full stop that's their net effect.

Hysterical bullshit. Not one state outlawed vaccines or mask

@zaryia

Driven by overdose deaths, and it just about came back in 2019. Then Covid hit. Overall we've seen an increase over the last 100 years and every decade.

What does the past 100 years have to do with your claim? PHD becoming more left is fairly recent.

@zaryia

Nope. Pharmacology, Oncology, Chemistry, Agriculture, Education, etc. Most in biological medicine fields are Democrat leaning. All of it adds up and helps increase our QOL and life expectancy. Surgeons alone don't do this lol. Most doctors in general are Dems now, after the GOP went full loony tunes.

Agriculture is massively rightwing. Pharmacology has been a shit show. So this is just mostly tribalistic bullshit honestly.

@zaryia

Academia is not faltering and not all a sham. Perhaps a literal handful of elective courses you might have a point (but didn't we always have that?), but you guys are blowing this shit way way way of of proportion.

I say it's definitely faltering I wouldn't say it's all a sham. I mean a fat studies movement being fed to a nation that's already morbidly Obese could be an issue.

@Maroxad: Funny you keep mentioning Sam Seder but always leave out Diaper boy Ethan Klein. You're side has plenty of clowns.

What community specifically are you talking about?

Because we are talking about Steven Crowder not Ethan Klein. This thread was created with the assertion that Steven Crowder exposed Academia, an assertion which was refuted on the first post.

Why is it so difficult for you to stay on topic, seriously?

As for which community? It should be obvous

providing new discoveries which I can funnel into the tech I develop

Clearly I am talking about the academic community, or more specifically the scientific

But you mentioned Sam Seeder who was called into a debate by Ethan Klein. The original debate was with Ethan Klein. Selective memory much?

It wasn't refuted though. All the fat phobic people on that video looked like absolute fucking clowns. You can debate that it isn't indicative of the greater academic community as a whole, but at the very least that group was absolutely exposed.

Saying the scientific community is a bit broad. Not sure what tech your referring to specifically. But the scientific community in general is vast and hardly a monolith. Honestly that's a broad statement that makes no sense.

Strong sign enough for what? What? Don't mean adult human female? It is...

Fantasy...

You know, people love to make things up. Are there other anthromophized genders?

the 8 genders in hebrew or all the other cultures that had more than 2 genders.

Yea. As i said, travel to any point in human history, look hard enough and you'll find people falling under these descriptions. I never claimed intersexuallity and transpeople don't exist. You don't want to understand, that it doesn't make "gender". It's humans who made up words. Language.

Also, very funny writing Sciene big and fat... then refering to religious scriptures.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

What else you learned from the Torah/Talmud? How God created the world, the jewish people and other fantas-tic stories? I mean, i don't want to bust anyones religious believe, but this is SCIENCE here. So please...

I'm not sure how old you are, but when I was growing up, there would be certain girls who would very much be into things generally associated with guys. You know, sports, cars, video games, not Barbie, ballet, and easy bake ovens like they were supposedly supposed to be. Back then, we called them a tom boy, basically, a girl who liked doing guy stuff. Today, they're trying to apply a new gender to it because everything to them has to fit under a label for a group they've defined.

Most the shit the woke crowd tries to espouse as being some new scientifically backed psychological transformation is actually the social construct, not the fact there are two genders, and if a girl wants to do guy stuff, good for her, she has that right to do so, and not be told she's any less of a girl for it by these people.

They claim certain genders liking certain activities is the social construct, but once anyone deviates from those roles they want to fabricate a new label for them. It's hypocrisy, and ass-backwards to say the least. And these are the confused, uneducated individuals trying to tell others how science works.

am happy am not the only one to notice research issue.

Both Ethan Klein and Steven Crowder looked bad, but Steven Crowder more so. Furthermore, this thread concerns Steven Crowder, not the former. Again, it is about the scope of this thread. Try to stay on topic... you are already notorious on this board for derailing topics, so please, just for once...

It was refuted. And pretty much anyone who understands anything about scientific methodology left the video completley unimpressed. Why do you think the reception to the opening post was so bad?

Science isnt something you get to pick and choose. The scientific community is broad, but there is only one scientific community, and controversies get resolved in that community, while one could argue there are subcommunities, specializing in certain fields, but all ultimately fall under the scientific community, and discoveries made in physics can affect those in chemistry and even biology. I am not going to reject one field while accepting others, that is not the mark of a curious mind. I reject papers, not fields and branches. And when I reject a paper, I do so because there are serious flaws with the study itself, not because it conflicts with my narrative. This is why I accept GMOs and Nuclear Power, in addition to trans validity, climate change and the efficacy of the vaccines.

Seroiusly, this thread made you look really bad, even worse than you usually look. And then you use phrases like "Leftwing academia" in your topic title, which is a massive Yikes.

When we discuss gender, we discuss linguistics... not science. And religions are a byproduct of culture, which include linguistics. In fact, religious texts can be really useful in gauging sentiments held by the people, or at least those in power at the time of any given culture.

As a side note, linguistics too can be a good way to view sentiments. You can understand a lot from any given group by looking at their language.

Anyways, we have already moved past this conversation, so how let's not derail the topic again.

@Maroxad:

Both Ethan Klein and Steven Crowder looked bad, but Steven Crowder more so. Furthermore, this thread concerns Steven Crowder, not the former. Again, it is about the scope of this thread. Try to stay on topic... you are already notorious on this board for derailing topics, so please, just for once...

Well thats completely subjective. This thread had nothing to do with that incident. So if you want to stay on topic address the video not a seperate incident.

@Maroxad:

It was refuted. And pretty much anyone who understands anything about. scientific methodology left the video completley unimpressed. Why do you think the reception to the opening post was so bad?

The sad thing is none of you do. It only took a little more research to show none of you knew wtf you were talking about. And I was speaking specifically about the peer review process. Which isn't as rigorous or as accurate as any of you claimed. I actually didn't even mention scientific methodology in the OP at all

@Maroxad:

Science isnt something you get to pick and choose. The scientific community is broad, but there is only one scientific community, and controversies get resolved in that community, while one could argue there are subcommunities, specializing in certain fields, but all ultimately fall under the scientific community, and discoveries made in physics can affect those in chemistry and even biology. I am not going to reject one field while accepting others,

Funny because that's exactly what you do when you accept the trans study. You reject Biology In favor of neurology and psychology.

@Maroxad:

Seroiusly, this thread made you look really bad, even worse than you usually look. And then you use phrases like "Leftwing academia" in your topic title, which is a massive Yikes.

It made me look bad with the usual suspects and I would prefer you think I look bad. You are batshit insane as are the other 5 leftist who come into every circle jerk thread one of you creates. The fact you didn't even acknowledge the fat phobic group( not once) shows how utterly bias you are. I even framed the OP as a discussion instead of saying it was an absolute fact . Watching you quote the Torah and debate thst gender is an argument about linguistics made you look as bad you ever have. I'm also convinced at this point you don't have a single original thought of your own. You basically piggyback off of Zaryia and Brokenrabbit which is pretty fucking sad.

@silentchief you cited a bunch of studies that you clearly didnt know how to interpret. Just look at how much you pushed the whole peer review process in the beginning of the thread in regards to the Crowder video, when anyone who has done anything in STEM would be able to tell. And insisted it wasnt as virtually everyone pointed out how the video had nothing to do with Peer Review.

Also if you wanted an open discussion you could have done so much better than starting the video with a blatant propaganda piece from Steven Crowder.

People arent piggybacking off eachother as much as they have come to the same conclusions. Why? Because we all derive our conclusions from academic sources.

Not my problem you fail to realize what words actually mean, also, this is hilarious

Keep entertaining us with statements like this. Or maybe I should just stop here, let you save some face at least.

@Maroxad: . you cited a bunch of studies that you clearly didnt know how to interpret. This is par on course for you though. Just look at how much you pushed the whole peer review process in the beginning of the thread in regards to the Crowder video, when anyone who has done anything in STEM would be able to tell. And insisted it wasnt as virtually everyone pointed out how the video had nothing to do with Peer Review.

Also if you wanted an open discussion you could have done so much better than starting the video with a blatant propaganda piece from Steven Crowder.

People arent piggybacking off eachother as much as they have come to the same conclusions. Why? Because we all derive our conclusions from academic sources.

Not my problem you fail to realize what words actually mean, also, this is hilarious

I literally posted a Study on peer reviewed studies. Wtf are you talking about? But this coming from the exact same guy who has argued against dictionary definitions. You even argued against literature from a certain course had nothing to do with said course eventhough I pulled it from an expert in the field. Why do I even waste time with you? You would look to the sky, tell me it's green and if I told you it was blue you would say I was colorblind.

Well posting the study wouldn't have been any better either because you have ignored it everytime. Why not discuss the people Crowder clowned and tell me why they aren't a good representation of the community as opposed to ignoring the people even exist and talking about past debates that had nothing to do with the op?

Unless you don't like the source that is. And why is it the usual suspects that always come to the same conclusions? The same people who always agree with me agreed with me while the same who never do wouldn't even discuss the op.

@silentchief said:

You reject Biology In favor of neurology and psychology.

Keep entertaining us with statements like this. Or maybe I should just stop here, let you save some face at least.

Ohh no please keep going. What's better you? Or the genius who you piggyback off of? They guy who asked why we don't call animals Men and women but male and female? Somehow not knowing the fact each animal class has a term to seperate male and female. I'm not sure what your exact expertise is but stick to that because when you go out of your realm you sound like a clown.

Do people even find Steven Crowder funny? The guy is 20 years too late to the edgy race and misogyny jokes. All that's left is to see him run off like a coward to Sam Seeder and PotHoler54 when he's asked to debate. I figure maybe this thread can pivot, seeing as the entire premise is in ruins and the OP doesn't understand basic scientific principles and publication methods.

The problem is you don't either apparently. That's what makes it worse. You don't even know basic definitions of the words you use. You called me a Grifter for **** sake.

Does anyone find Crowder funny? I don't know he has 5.6 million followers and is worth 4 million dollars at 34. His spoof on the It's gonna be all white documentary was golden. Although that may have been one of his people not him.

I've been authored in papers before....so I figure I do.

Ah, so Steven is funny since he has money and followers.

Coldfeet Crowder sucks ass, just like Tucker. Both have a lot of idiot viewers, who cares? Both are fake acts and their lawyers will tell you so.

Maybe you have, the point is alot of shit gets into papers.. Is that an untrue statement?

Well you need those things to be successful. So objectively some people do. He has had some funny videos although his best wasn't done by him. Comedy is subjective.

You care. You have a thread on Tucker every week 🤣. I'm convinced half his viewers are people that hate him and watch his shit and bitch about it later.

No I don't. Lying sucks.

I was just fact checking him, Russia, and the CPP all at once. Not difficult to grasp.

Damn. I'm going to have make a lame right wing site and rake in the money. They aren't too picky about who they throw their money at.

Like I said ... YOU give a shit.

Neither is the left. Look at the Young Turks or Diaper boy Ethan Klein.

Well, if he only posted videos that weren't misleading, he wouldn't have any videos to post.

I'm just fact checking him. It's sad that so many people listen to fake acts like Jones, Tucker, and Crowder. Cultists really.

Also why did you lie. I don't make a thread about him each week.

Sooooo YOU give a shit !?

You make quite a few, on either Tucker or Fox News. Point is you spend alot time worrying about shit you don't care about. Your pathetic gotcha attempt to take every statement I say so literally is yawn inducing.

I'm not sure why you keep typing this. If I see the Kremlin or crazy Lawmakers using Tucker yeah I obviously give some shit.

But you said I make threads about him weekly. You lied.

I fact check them. But not as much as you said.

Laughing and correcting, and not that much time.

Then just stop making dumb statements lol.

@zaryia:

I'm not sure why you keep typing this. If I see the Kremlin or crazy Lawmakers using Tucker yeah I obviously give some shit.

But you said I make threads about him weekly. You lied.

I was just answering your dumb ass question.

Then you got a taste of your own medicine, you lie all the time.

I never lie.

Meanwhile you make quite specific lies. Lol "muh 1 week!11".

I was actually interested in seeing this thread pivot as well, to counteract the growing anti-intellectual and anti-science attitudes that are arising, especially in political discourse.

Most pseudoscience and anti-science sentiments generally arise for some ideological or financial gain. Sometimes both as we saw with Creationism in the early 10's. One thing that is abundantly clear, even from the TC's own very blatant failings, both from his OP and following posts, is that most people have absolutely no clue what scientific principles are and WHY we have them. Steven Crowder has 6 million subs and I for one find that really alarming. As someone who is so blatantly clueless (and a horrible comedian besides) has such reach and influence.

Anyways, my stance is that us who know better, regardless of political affiliation, need to communicate science a lot better. I feel like we often overestimate our opponent's scientific literacy, I for one have been guilty of this. I doubt I am anywhere near as intelligent as you when it comes to sciencey stuff, afterall I am just an engineer. But as we have clearly seen, most people dont know what peer review is, they don't know what proper inquiry is, and they seem to accept or reject science based on how well it affirms their presuppositions. Hell, most don't even seem to realize what falls under what, as shown by some people's complete inability to understand gender in this topic, or this quote,

You reject Biology In favor of neurology and psychology.

Edit: But perhaps knowing is not what they need, anyone can access information, what truly matters is to understand. And this I think need to be better taught, make sure students actually learn to understand the scientific method, rather than just getting a surface level knowledge of it.

OMFG I remember that. So embarrassing for Coldfeet Crowder.

He can't really debate though, he's super bad at it. While Sam is amazing. So I get it.

Agree. The OP has no clue and at this point it's retreading the same ground while he embarrasses himself. People like Crowder are purposely obtuse since it draws in views to people who eat up their own confirmation biases (case in point, OP). Everything about him is disingenuous. He's a total coward.

It's the reason that people like Crowder, Shapiro, Project Veritas, etc., are all jokes.

yes sir!

I call it the affirmation industry.

His comedy career was never anything special. But he saw great success in Louder with Crowder. Why? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but from what I can gather, he frames ideas in an easily digestable and yet convincing way. Now, yes, those with a moderate level of critical thinking (or in this case scientific training) can quickly spot the fallacies commited by crowder. But Crowder's fanbase are not exactly... the most intelligent people around.

While he isn't great at comedy, he does a decent job affirming cherished beliefs and narratives. Basically being comfort food gullible right wingers.

Some time ago, I used to be pretty far left, as I was consuming left wing affirmation videos. But I noticed some things being said in these propaganda pieces werent adding up. So I debated with myself, if I should let these people cloud my views. I chose that the best choice was to unsub to them.

Unfortunately, there are so many biases that give people like Crowder a much greater pull and grip than the guys I watched. Because of how big Crowder is, the Groupthink he commands is huge. And they need to continously look right, that is why Ben Shapiro and Crowder debate inexperienced people, while avoiding more experienced ones like the plague. That is why the latter avoids Potholer and Sam Seder so much. Because those guys can only function for as long as wool cover the eyes and ears of their audience. Or when a college student makes a very strong argument against him, he says something quippy (usually in a way that reframes or avoids their statement), and then cuts the argument, pretending he won.

Edit: While this isn't exactly political. On my server in FF14 there is one player who engages in similar levels of cowardice and dishonesty. But no one falls for it, but she still pretends she wins arguments, even as she is flat our refuting her own arguments. Proving everyone else right. There are a few who do fall for her, but most could see right through her.

Not science? I thought it's "scientists" who made up this believe of yours. All over sudden it isn't science? What a tremendous moving of goal posts.

A man is an adult male human.

Male anatomy is distinguished from female anatomy by the male reproductive system...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

Where we have two traditionally recognized genders, male and female, some species of fungi can have thousands of sexes. It sounds confusing, but it’s actually helpful — with so many variations, the fungi can mate with nearly every individual of their species they meet. It must make for a wild singles night.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes

How many genders are there in other animal species? "Other" as in not-homo sapiens.

@palasta: Notice how they specifically use sex to refer to the mushrooms? As for the part you bolded, you ignored the previous 2 words. Traditionally recognized, which refers to how we, at least in the west have traditionally recognized gender.

Why do we change it now? Because quite frankly, the binary model we traditionally used for both gender and sex no longer hold up

Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.

Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

Do you understand what a binary is? A binary means there are only 0's and 1's, no numbers outside 1's and 0's, where 0 and 1 ∈ Z.

Scientists study the phenomena that is gender dysphoria. And the studies show positive results. You don't see papers that reject the validity of transgender people. Because the positive results have repeatedly shown that they DO in fact manifest.