Academic journal publishes another hoax paper


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The coming dark age: The academic journal Cogent Social Science has published a hoax paper that claims the penis is a social construct that is causing global warming.

The authors begin, “Anatomical penises may exist,” but the “conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct.” It goes downhill from there. “There are many women who have penises,” they boldly claim. Then, they gratuitously listed some crude synonyms for the penis, such as: “beaver basher,” “custard launcher,” “pork sword,” and “mayo shooting hotdog gun.” They explained that “manspreading” — when a man sits with his legs open — is “akin to raping the empty space around him.”

At this point, it is worth stopping to ponder that this didn’t raise any red flags with the editors of the journal. Not only did they think this was perfectly intellectual, publishable material, they praised the authors for their work.

Yet, the absurdity didn’t end there. The authors tied everything in to climate change.

Even more astonishing was this statement by the authors:

In their tell-all article in Skeptic, the authors admit they jammed the paper full of jargon and made it purposefully incoherent. They said, “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.” Finally, they made this particularly damning observation: “We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.”

Make sure you read the tell all article, which step by step reveals the utter bankruptcy of the entire social science field that would allow this fraud to get published, getting passed by two reviewers and a partner journal that recommended the paper to Cogent Social Science.

As I said earlier this week, the time has come to cut off all funding to any university that supports anyone who teaches this crap. Donations from alumni should cease. Parents should refuse to send their children there. And the students there now should rise up in outright revolt, demanding their money back.

Share

14 comments

  • Michael Miller

    .

    This is what I LOVE about the Internet….spreading mirth around the globe at the speed of light !

    .

  • Cotour

    I will post this here because there are a lot of hoaxes going on:

    I got it to it a bit with a friend about Hillary and her email server last night at dinner. My host immediately accused me of listening to too much propaganda and then went into “But what was her intent?” as I was leaving.

    To keep the conversation at an audible level and civilized I followed up with an email which I await a response to.
    ————–
    If a person were to create a parallel to the governments secure system a non secure server in order to facilitate a separate email system in order to IMO control their opponents and the governments potential access to that information and possible shady or illegal activities, what is their intent?

    Why would a Secretary Of State do such a thing? I would think that anything that A Secretary Of State would communicate to another would probably be at some level of security. Either “Secret”, “Top Secret” or higher.

    Why did she have her server professionally wiped clean of supposed “personal” communications? Remember when she was asked “Did you wipe your server clean?” She replied “Do you mean with a rag?”.

    By using a separate and illegal, parallel, security lacking server and forcing all of her associates to use it she has legally contaminated them all. Not that it apparently matters. If you were to do such a thing you would still be in the brig.

    As a matter of law all of the Secretary Of States work product, including all of her communications, are the property of the government. She used her system to communicate both personal, secure and top secret information that it is reasonably believed was hacked and read by many of our adversaries, including the Chinese and the Russians.

    Talking about the Russians, Hillary, Bill and their foundation have a much deeper connection to the Russians.
    Read a 2015 NY Times article that surprisingly lays out in detail her involvement in the transfer of 25 % of the uranium in a company called Uranium One to Russia and Russian interests. Their foundation received up to $50 million +++ dollars in “donations”. $50 million +++ to the Foundation and $500K directly to Bill Clinton as a “speaking fee”. Where was the speech? Moscow.

    Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Graph: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

    Please think about all of this ( there is much, much more) and tell me what her “intent” was? And whether you have a problem with it. Does it bother you that as Secretary Of State she had the final sign off on this Russian / Uranium One deal that delivered 25% of OUR uranium into the control of the Russians while being financially enriched for her “services” ?

    Also keep in mind that the Foundation (which had a 90% overhead cost and 10 % to their good causes) has had about $2 BILLION dollars pumped into it by multinational corporations and foreign governments in anticipation of gaining access to the “future” president.

    Talk about pay to play. On one level you have to admire the big think nature of the entire operation, but not when you are supposed to have the American peoples interests at the fore front of your concerns and you are willing to surrender your sworn fiduciary responsibly to our adversaries in your own financial interests. Yes, intent, what might her intent be?

    I await a response.

  • pzatchok

    “Read a 2015 NY Times article that surprisingly lays out in detail her involvement in the transfer of 25 % of the uranium in a company called Uranium One to Russia and Russian interests. Their foundation received up to $50 million +++ dollars in “donations”. $50 million +++ to the Foundation and $500K directly to Bill Clinton as a “speaking fee”. Where was the speech? Moscow.”

    Hillary is fine.
    Her husband back in1994 arranged a nice deal with Iran. If Iran stopped refining uranium and would let investigators into the facility we would GIVE them refined uranium for their power plant.
    Of all the things Iran just restarted the refinery a few years later and never once let investigators in. Who would have thunk?

  • Cotour

    The money and the details are of interest for sure, but its the empowered Secretary Of State of the United States leveraging her potential as the next president to further enrich herself with the use of a front “Foundation” that is the issue in addition to the money. The massive, massive amounts of money.

    This activity is by definition treasonous to my thinking and plainly counter to our nations security. Intent? What was her intent is what people are allowing themselves to get jammed up with? This is a form of self delusion and is a threat to us all. Facts are not negotiable. My dislike for this woman does not change the facts about her activities.

    I will make a prediction here, the Mueller investigation must in the end reveal and indict Hillary, her husband and many others for their treasonous activities. As chaotic as this will be this is what must happen in order to drag us all back to some level of rational thinking. This irrational thinking is used by the Left as a part of their strategy.

  • Cotour

    Cooperate as soon as Hillary is served a subpoena.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/flynns-letter-to-senate-committee-cites-escalating-public-frenzy-in-refusing-to-turn-over-records-in-russia-probe/2017/05/22/f6705d04-3f19-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.adc41849957d

    Good for thee but not for anyone else.

    Our system does not work if there is perceived by half of the country that there are two sets of rules / laws for us and the “special” people. This is why forces must join and make sure that she and her co conspirators are brought to justice. If this is not accomplished we will for ever after be a lost and devalued Democracy. A fraud and a joke.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman, yes, this special paper is spoofed, because not all, but only White’s man penis can be made responsible for climate change by US media and education system, based on ruling neo-Marxist ideology. Black man’s and other colored man’s penis are free of guilt by definition.

  • Cotour

    Like I said previously, this entire thing IMO will ultimately come back and be sitting right at the door of the Clinton Foundation, and then our country will be able to rectify what must be rectified.

    http://usapoliticsnow.com/woah-new-evidence-forcing-re-opening-clinton-email-investigation/

    Chaulk another Dead Zone vision up to me Wayne. Now let it progress and happen, peel it like an onion.

  • Garry

    Don’t be distracted by “intent,” which is not a necessary element of the charges Hillary should face.

    When I held a security clearance decades ago, I (and all others who held clearances) had to have regular briefings on the handling of classified information, with an emphasis on intent being irrelevant. The rules and procedures were drummed into my head so many times that I could recite them almost word for word (and I handled classified info only on very rare occasions).

    My understanding is that the briefings have become much more frequent in the decades since.

    File this not under “intent,” but under “good for thee but not for me.”

  • Edward

    Garry is correct. I, too held a security clearance, and anybody — **ANYBODY** — with the potential for handling classified information had to regularly get training about the rules and consequences of mishandling such information. Such information is distributed only on a need to know basis, and like Garry, I rarely had a need to know. Both the training and the rare distribution reduced the likelihood that the bad guys would get the secure information.

    Hillary Clinton was at a level in which she could not have known all the rules and punishments. She could not have served in her position without that knowledge. No matter her intent, she knew that she was doing wrong. Her intent was to do wrong. It couldn’t not be. Why she intended to do wrong may be questioned, but she knew that she was doing wrong. Some or many on her staff are likewise culpable.

    That she is getting away with her wrongdoing is a moral crime against all those who were punished for mishandling classified information, despite innocent intentions.

    Garry or I would still be in prison, had we done any one of the things that Clinton did in mishandling classified information or for conducting official government business with a personal computer account. That she is getting away with her wrongdoing is a moral crime against all those who had/have security clearances and were/are subject to the punishment she is avoiding.

    If I sound angry, I am not. I am furious!

  • wayne

    Alex– it’s always the White Man’s Fault, isn’t it!
    (I’ll take 100% of the blame, if I can get 10% of the credit, on the back-end, against the gross.)

    Cotour–
    Special Counsel isn’t investigating Hillary, not his Charter to do so. (dumbest move ever by the republicans, in allowing a counter-intelligence investigation to morph into a criminal investigation. Distract from the agenda for 2 years, and then someone will get zapped with a process-crime.)
    Nobody, is investigating her, and nobody ever will.

    Garry– Yepper. “Intent” is a red-herring for the actions Hillary obviously committed. The bar has always been “negligence.”

    LevinTV:
    The Espionage Act
    https://youtu.be/tN4Cg5iKP0g
    (0:52)

  • Cotour

    Gary, I am not for one minute distracted by the term “intent”, the term is a distraction as per Comey’s design.

    Wayne, it may not be Muellers charge to investigate Hillary but what I propose is that the investigation will come across some information that will tie it together under the heading of “The Russians” .

    And then there is this for example: https://youtu.be/N4JayH8gd9E

    The collusion between the Obama White House, Attorney General Lynch and FBI Director Comey. All of this has the potential to all fall together in order that the legal reconciliation can occur. It must occur, even if after the trials they are all pardoned. IT MUST HAPPEN.

  • Cotour

    Drip, drip, drip.

    https://youtu.be/oWEBD3CmvMg

    Oh, its coming.

  • pzatchok

    Hillary never signed any paperwork saying she was in attendance to any security briefing.
    So her first line of defense is”I was never informed”.
    Her second is that she was just plane too stupid to understand it after20 years in politics.
    But ignorance of the law is not a defense.

  • pzatchok

    As for this hoax paper.

    Good for the authors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *