[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago (edited ago)
This article exposes how underlying biases can not only distort research but even more so what people do with research. Now an underlying theme, conundrum is, if both blacks and Irish were discriminated against, why did the Irish become successful and blacks have not? Thus the SJW left jumped on this researcher's study to say discrimination against Irish never happened. And since this theme was more important to the narrative, this one study got locked in as absolute fact which other scholars would then be reticent to dispute as to do so would imply racist intentions.
Now what is the truth? There was Irish discrimination and likely it was significantly less than black discrimination. But that answer would be too cloudy for the warrior class and hence history is revised to promote the cause.
Keep this in mind with every historical theme where one party represents a victim class of the SJWs. In fact keep this in mind for all scientific studies that relate to progressive liberal issues. And do conservatives do the same thing? Yes it is human nature to do so, but it is also true that the higher degree of empathy/emotional involvement results in progressives doing it more and to a greater extreme.
[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
Jensen's behavior absolutely smacks of SJW rhetoric. First it's, "there was no mention of actual signs in your piece." After being proven wrong then it's, "oh, well you didn't find that many." They make absolute statements and then when they're refuted they act as though they never made that statement at all. It's ridiculous.
[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I sincerely hope that millennials learn this lesson sooner than past generations. the SJW campus rape issues have been an excellent example for them as they can identify with exactly what is happening. Now they can extrapolate this understanding to everything SJW.
[–] Darth_Shitlord 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
Too many so called academics today are trying to rewrite history to make themselves seem important regardless of what the truth is.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Darth_Shitlord 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Unfortunately I can't read French. Could you please give me a summary of what it says?
[–] Agedwithaview 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
How could anyone forget the scene from "Blazing Saddles"
"We'll give some land to the niggers and the Chinks... but we don't want the Irish! No deal. Ah, prairie shit! Everybody!"
Mel Brooks - 1974
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
Published something that's easily shown to be untrue - no repercussions. Make a joke during a talk that everyone laughed at - get fired and crucified in the media. SJW4life.
[–] brother_tempus 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago (edited ago)
The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa.
As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong.
Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a "categorical pledge" were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams to twenty at the end of the present week.
All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.
[–] phenomenaldouche 1 point 16 points 17 points (+17|-1) ago
Somehow I'm hardly surprised by the news that an 8th grader does better research and is more scholarly than a professor.