'Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled By Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study

Space

WR GOAT
Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
17,056
Reaction score
0
Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.
Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/20...oax-study/

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

"We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success."

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

"Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972)."

The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.
 
Seems rather phallacious

<NoneOfMy>
 
Last edited:
No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

<{hmmm}>
 
"Cogent Social Sciences" is a pay-to-publish, open access, digital journal covering any social science from Law to Sport, Leisure and Tourism.
Cogent does 15 similar journals:

Cogent Arts & Humanities
Cogent Biology
Cogent Chemistry
Cogent Environmental Science
Cogent Food & Agriculture
Cogent Geoscience
Cogent Mathematics
Cogent Medicine
Cogent Physics
Cogent Business & Management
Cogent Economics & Finance
Cogent Education
Cogent Psychology
Cogent Social Sciences
Cogent Engineering

Not exactly a lofty target.
 
lol so they paid to have their fake paper published? I'd take money from idiots making a non-point too. How does this make progressives appear stupid and not the ones that gave progressives their money?
 
lol so they paid to have their fake paper published? I'd take money from idiots making a non-point too. How does this make progressives appear stupid and not the ones that gave progressives their money?

Apparently it only cost them $625. Cheap propaganda.
I think they got rejected from NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, and their claim is that since Taylor and Francis (the publishers of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies) told them to try Cogent (personally I'd consider being told to try pay-to-publish an academic snub), that means there's no such thing as a reputable Gender Studies Journal.
To be honest I've never read any Gender Studies papers to have an opinion on how valid the field is, but this "hoax" is a transparently bad attempt at repeating Sokal's stunt for political mileage.
 
lol so they paid to have their fake paper published? I'd take money from idiots making a non-point too. How does this make progressives appear stupid and not the ones that gave progressives their money?

The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.

So they were either stupid for giving positive feedbacks or greedy and unscrupulous for giving positige feedbacks. Either way, not a good look. Also, lol.
 
lol so they paid to have their fake paper published? I'd take money from idiots making a non-point too. How does this make progressives appear stupid and not the ones that gave progressives their money?
Well, if you care about your reputation, you shouldn't publish garbage like this.
 
So they were either stupid for giving positive feedbacks or greedy and unscrupulous for giving positige feedbacks. Either way, not a good look. Also, lol.
lol give me 600$ to fuck and ugly bitch and I'll do it gladly, and i'll even whisper in her ear how sexy she is while i do it. Same situation in my opinion.
 
This type of thing has been done before. The Sokal Hoax. A physics professor got some nonsense paper published in a humanities journal.
 
What an effective use of time and money.

What's with conservatives these days, fucking bunch of useless SJWs.
 
Pretty embarrassing for Cogent and their meticulous peer reviewers.

Deeper concern, indeed.

As a matter of deeper concern, there is unfortunately some reason to believe that our hoax will not break the relevant spell. First, Alan Sokal’s hoax, now more than 20 years old, did not prevent the continuation of bizarre postmodernist “scholarship.” In particular, it did not lead to a general tightening of standards that would have blocked our own hoax. Second, people rarely give up on their moral attachments and ideological commitments just because they’re shown to be out of alignment with reality.
 
Back
Top