Thursday, 11 June 2015

New Scientist's Political Officer issues a statement

And just like that, New Scientist jumped the shark. It showed it was more interested in gender politics than facts or reason.

I expect it'll start producing articles claiming 4 out of every 5 badgers was raped by Old White Straight Men - the current hate target of the authoritarian left.

"Let's look at the mitigating circumstances. Hunt is 72."

Hmm. so he has a lot of 'lived' experience? Do we disregard the 'lived' experience of people now? What are the rules of this game? Do we just move the goalposts when it looks like the opposition might score?

Lots of scientists have done good work at his age. In fact, it's rather AGE-IST to focus on it... hmm, that's not very nice!

"It was once OK to make remarks belittling racial.. groups"

You mean, like white people? Yeah, it's a good thing Feminists never belittle racial groups!

" if we take Hunt's argument to its logical conclusion – and we might expect a Nobel laureate to have applied some logical rules – it rapidly hits the rocks"

Hmm. His argument is that males and females work better when segregated sexually. Your counter evidence is .... not presented.

Ok, so where else have we heard this idea? Some sort of political group back in the 60s? It's very famous, but ... I know it's starts with Fem.... just can't think of what it's called...

Now, I know you love this Strawman you've built here, but what if we look at his actual words.

"Three things happen when they are in the lab.... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry."

There are two claims there. One is that workplace romances happen. It takes an impressive amount of doublethink for you to be blind to it, but you've managed it somehow.

The other is that when women are criticised, they cry. Now this is a matter of opinion; it's certainly false that all women cry when criticised, but equally it's clearly false to say that women cry as infrequently as men - in fact, the idea of men crying is seen as absurd and pathetic, which is why feminists invented the meme of "male tears", and vow to drink them at every opportunity.

" Girls do better in science in all-girl classes"

So... follow this through... women work better in single sex labs. You just agreed with him, you moron.

Yes, feminists are so good at doublethink they can spout vitriol at someone for being obviously 'wrong' - then repeat it as divine truth.

"What about gay scientists"?

What about them? If men and women are performing better in single sex environments, the few who have same sex romances are not substantial enough to have a negative impact. Overall, the fact remains. YOU MADE HIS CASE FOR HIM.

"Maybe lesbians can work with straight males."

Maybe, but some lesbians have sex with men, some even decide they are bisexual, and many straight men fancy lesbians. There's also no evidence of mixed sex classes working better if the females are same-sex attracted - as you know - as you already pointed out - so you are aware this is an incredibly dishonest argument.

"people are always falling in love"

Rubbish. Anyone with any scientific discipline knows this is utter bullshit.

Overall, far fewer people will fall in love with the same sex. This isn't in dispute outside of the echo chambers of the Feminist establishment, and if you call yourself a scientist yet still manage to ignore the data to the contrary of an emotionally appealing position, then you are not worthy of the name.

and crying, come to that. "

No, you don't get it both ways. Feminists have argued for decades that men are inferior because they cry less - and now you want to claim they cry all the time?

What a liar you are.

"He can't actually be against women scientists"

Good thing he never said he was. But you want to smear him with that libel - it suits your politics.

"What this really demonstrates is how far from gender equality science is"

Yes, it demonstrates that the feminist ideology is incredibly far from any fact-based approach. And the feminist response? Is to remove anyone who speaks up, who doesn't toe the party line. Exactly as the Nazis did with 'Jewish' science and the Soviets did with science that contradicted the Party.

"we need to start understanding this emotional response in otherwise intelligent men."

Or we could try examining the truth of what he said? Rather than, as the author and other feminists have done, placing the weight upon Feelz rather than Facts.

"anyone looking at this psychological impact of social evolution should do it in a co-ed lab"

Under supervision of a member of the Sisterhood, to make sure the 'correct' conclusions are always reached?

"Debora MacKenzie is a consultant for New Scientist"

The New Scientist has a Political Officer now?

Jesus H. Christ.

Y'know, I've read, subscribed and purchased this magazine my whole life. I'm sorry to see it's gone rotten.

Goodbye. When you were good, you were very, very good, but now you are just bloody awful.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please try to avoid logical fallacies!