Thursday, October 4, 2018


I've seen this report several times now, but let's use Stacey McCain's Hitler, the ‘Intersectional’ Führer
Last night I nearly died laughing about the hoax perpetrated by three scholars who tricked academic journals into publishing shoddy nonsense crammed with “social justice” rhetoric and postmodern jargon. Among other things, they re-wrote a 3,000-word section of Mein Kampf and turned it into “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” which was published by the peer-reviewed feminist journal Affilia. It gets worse:
Since August, 2017 the academics — James Lindsay, a math doctorate, Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history — submitted 20 papers to various peer-reviewed journals under pseudonyms and seven were accepted.
In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the “rape culture” supposedly prevalent within dog parks.
Yes, feminists consider sex between animals to be rape culture:
“Dog parks are microcosms where hegemonic masculinist norms governing queering behavior and compulsory heterosexuality can be observed in a cross-species environment.”
How do you know determine “consent” in dogs? But this absurdity was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and among the scholars who address the underlying problem is Neema Parvini:
The news that these journals are nakedly ideological will not surprise many of those who work within the disciplines of the humanities in the modern academy. Now the ticking off of buzzwords seems to stand in for checking the quality of scholarship or the coherence of arguments. The battle was lost around 1991. . . .
In literary studies, the radical feminist Hélène Cixous argued that the ideology of patriarchy was all around us: “a kind of vast membrane enveloping everything”, a “skin” that “encloses us like a net or like closed eyelids”. How could anyone lay claim to “objectivity” in such conditions? By 1991, such thinking had become de rigueur. . . .
Thus, the competing systems of knowledge that came out of the Enlightenment — rationalism and empiricism — are both always-already tainted as “products of the patriarchy.” It has been the explicit goal of post-modernity to reject reason and evidence: they want a “new paradigm” of knowledge.
Not only are the journals nakedly partisan, at the point the whole academy, with the possible exception of a few hard STEM areas funded primarily by the defense industry, are co-conspirators with the democrats and the DNC. Any conservative folks who somehow sneak in the grad school vetting process know enough to keep their heads down, at least until they're granted tenure, and even that is no guarantee any more. Trust me, I know.

No comments:

Post a Comment