This person thinks a 10-year-old is not a young child. pic.twitter.com/M0dAUm0gYp— Billboard Chris ???? (@BillboardChris) August 27, 2022
Journalists & psychologists take note: Nature Human Behavior is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed. I won't referee, publish, or cite (how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness)? https://t.co/3qXFGizt6h pic.twitter.com/G5BgB2hpqD— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) August 26, 2022
Nothing that smacks of race realism is allowed to published in Nature.
“Although the modern prestige bestowed upon science is laudable, it is not without peril. For as the ideological value of science increases, so too does the threat to its objectivity. Slogans and hashtags can quickly politicize science, and scientists can be tempted to subordinate the pursuit of the truth to moral or political ends as they become aware of their own prodigious social importance. Inconvenient data can be suppressed or hidden and inconvenient research can be quashed. This is especially true when one political tribe or faction enjoys disproportionate influence in academia—its members can disfigure science (often unconsciously) to support their own ideological preferences. This is how science becomes more like propaganda than empiricism, and academia becomes more like a partisan media organization than an impartial institution. …
In plain language, this means that from now on, the journal will reject articles that might potentially harm (even “inadvertently”) those individuals or groups most vulnerable to “racism, sexism, ableism, or homophobia.” Since it is already standard practice to reject false or poorly argued work, it is safe to assume that these new guidelines have been designed to reject any article deemed to pose a threat to disadvantaged groups, irrespective of whether or not its central claims are true, or at least well-supported. Within a few sentences, we have moved from a banal statement of the obvious to draconian and censorious editorial discretion. Editors will now enjoy unprecedented power to reject articles on the basis of nebulous moral concerns and anticipated harms. …”
The Science has shown that it can be completely corrupted and broken by progressive activists under the spell of postmodernism who can’t tell the difference between a penis or a vagina.
Left is not science side or rational side or biological side. Left is mad side: they don’t understand that in nature there have never been “rights”.
– In nature you are male or female by birth, or for some appropriate species (BUT NOT MANKIND) neutral.
– In nature is only worth the law of the strongest, smartest or ablest. When i listen some Vegans or Vegetarians say that we cannot eat meat or fish…… Wake up!! in nature has always worked that animals eat other animals, it is the nature of things and not malice.
– In nature you can choose who you are with, usually the birth group, instead today we are forced to live with people who have different culture or more appropriately a opposite culture and hate us.
ahhh yes, in nature the reproduction of the species passes through the relationship between male and female (for humanity has always worked this way).
Return to nature is not really the ideal we should be striving for. Natural selection is about which genes thrive most in an environment. You could argue there is a genetic preference for liberals, atheists, and nonwhites in today’s world. There is something missing.
Sorry but i respectfully disagree sir. Obviously i don’t want to return in the middle ages or live as Paleolithic man. I think that mankind should never forget that it’s a part of nature and not upon nature or a different thing from nature. In a true natural enviroment, with a true natural selection, liberals or woke would disappear. Vegans and vegetarians would disappear due to their weak diet and also because they probably would save animals that would then kill them. Faggots would disappear because they would not have child and they cannot continue their illness with reproduction. nonwhites would survive but today there’s not a genetic preference for nonwhites, they simply live in western white society and benefit from our civilization. If they live where they were born, probably they would survive less.
Good points. There certainly is an unnatural quality to those groups. But I also think there are traits that wouldn’t survive in a natural environment that are still worth passing on.
This policy is probably the result of an article comparing Black African IQ, with Ape IQ. It caused a big stink at the time.
@Brad, I’m sure one of your readers has the article.
There use be a large body of research on racial differences.
IQ tests are far from telling the full story.
In things like conceptual abstraction, blacks are near zero, things like geometric proof and construction, programing structure , logic sequence etc.
You can say what you would like, but if these differences in IQ and behavior are observable phenomenon, then they are not U. S.
And therein lies the difference -and why Lincoln said they all should be sent back to Africa. I concur. 6,000,000%.
While I agree with the premise, scientific censorship is not unique to modernity. It has always operated under political influence.
I wonder, what happens to all of the taboo research? Is it lost forever, or is it archived secretly for future generations?
You can be quite sure the jews have archived all the information they have stolen and hidden away from Whites.
This is especially true when one political tribe or faction enjoys disproportionate influence in academia—its members can disfigure science (often unconsciously) to support their own ideological preferences. This is how science becomes more like propaganda than empiricism, and academia becomes more like a partisan media organization than an impartial institution….
This is basically a triumphalist announcement from the (((masters of the universe))) that (((they))) own official science. The new Lysenkoism is here. NPCs and normies will now be required to repeat the lies as told. Those who question the lies will be locked out, deplatformed, etc. with the ultimate objective being imprisonment and execution. Truth itself is now redefined as whatever comes from their lying mouth. We can all think of a certain tribe that will never once be mentioned in the pages of Nature. Don’t be the first to stop applauding regardless of how brazenly false it is.
See that SHIT? It’s really GOLD!!!
Science is money.
It’s a business, like government.
Who has the surplus money to throw at science?
Big pharma, big business, big brother…
Poll the ruling class.
The vast majority of them are ‘progressives’, but these’re elite progressives, not Jimmy Dore populist progressives.
These people don’t give a shit about the working class, they see us cattle, and when you what you believe are too many you thin the herd.
Science doesn’t operate in a vacuum.
Poll the majority of scientists, particularly social scientists, they’re progressives.
Money, ideology and culture shapes science.
While some science may be more objective than other science, there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, not even close, especially when it comes to social science, it’s a spectrum.
Social science is a soft science anyway, it’s highly interpretable, as much or more of an artform.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
“Science is money. It’s a business, like government”:
Engineering for example is designing things to be as cheap as possible to manufacture, and to fail in a short time after the warranty expires, and to be impossible or extremely expensive to repair.
This whole “culture” is money and a business. The entire population is corrupted with this culture. The U.S. is truly The U.sury S.ystem.
^ So treat it as an artform, make it mean what you want it to mean, have fun with it, influence people in the direction you want them to go, exercise your power, that’s how the ruling class treats it, they wield science as weapon to promote their interests and values.
“Nothing that smacks of race realism is allowed to published……”
That’s been the unspoken rule among all publishers for 50+ years.
“Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded”
“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.”
Science died in the 80’s sometime.
But how about the Empire’s new plan to colonize the moon and mine its resources, and keep out Russia and China? The Artemis accord has been signed by many of the U.S.’s best allies or satellites including Khazarkraine and Israel.
Artemis should have been painted like a school bus in honor of the Old Negro Space Program. At least no white lives will be lost on this boondoggle.
In what sense is it ‘well-meaning’? — the editorial is anti-rational and the policy it advocates does not serve the interest of science, hence it is not ‘well-meaning’ in the only sense that matters for a science magazine — so it should simply be condemned; saying it is well-meaning is an unfitting concession, a cowardly equivocation.
It’s doctrinaire and dictatorial and doubtless they think they are doing the morally right thing, but that is all part of the psycho-pathology of those driven by secular moral absolutism.