You should try to be the first to get them on the air to talk about this imo. If it ends up someone like Rubin, I think it's going to unnecessarily alienate a lot of people.
-
-
-
I'd love to hear them on the Waking Up podcast, but I also think it'd be good to see this on Rubin's show. He has a large audience and it'd be great to see some actual liberal anti-ID politics voices on there.
-
Many of the most reasonable people I can think of toward the center of the political spectrum are very wary of Rubin and for good reason imo. It'd be one thing if they were going on there to challenge him, but the focus should be these papers. Harris would be super balanced imo.
-
It would be better if they broke out of the IDW entirely and went on “MSM” podcasts, but who knows if that’s possible.
-
Yeah, I agree with this too. The WSJ did a piece on it (they're the ones who exposed/ended the project) but it was an opinion piece.
-
Keven, you seem to be a level headed thinker. What’s wrong with Rubin? Beyond the usual SJW nonsense, I don’t see why anyone would be “weary” of him. What are the “good reasons”? He comes across as honest, well intentioned, n willing to change his mind imo. Who is he alienating?
-
Since I'm tagged, although you probably don't have an opinion on the levelness of my head, I'll send you a few tweet threads that get at why, as a "rational centrist," I intensely dislike Rubin:https://twitter.com/AdotSad/status/1020815140546011136 …
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t like this “shaming” approach. It’s amusing, but ultimately disrespectful and mean spirited.
-
It's not shaming. They wrote the journals themselves, as parodies.
-
It’s bringing massive amount of public shame on the ladies that passed these papers. Ruining their academic careers. There are less spiteful ways of going about this. It feels ostensibly like a load of men mocking a load of women.
-
No one knows who the "ladies" (or even if they were female) are who passed those papers. So how can it be "bringing shame on them"? You can't bring shame on someone if you never name them.
-
Actually, the editors of the journals do know. But at most, likely, these referees will just not be asked to review anything anymore.
-
Perhaps. I think the editors should stand by them. The buck ultimately stops with them, after all.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are these papers available online somewhere? I feel the urge to read them.
-
Yes
@oftenworried. Here you go. Read the full papers and project fact sheet: http://bit.ly/2OsWnnH -
Brilliant, thanks!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s like a way nerdier version of
@SachaBaronCohen ‘s whole shtick... “Who is Academia?”Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This was hilarious, then I stopped laughing and just went "oh shit" - and that's where I am now. Oh shit.pic.twitter.com/Se91DDvQrn
-
It is an oh shit moment. It’s like a worm that infects many many computers. It does it slowly, under the surface and then over time builds momentum. Sadly we are talking about the minds of our youth not software. We need an anti virus... but what is it?

-
Science instead of ideologically motivated bullsh*t science.
-
I wish it was that simple. The upside of the internet is the ability to transfer information to many people very quickly. The downside is the ability to transfer misinformation to many people very quickly. Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias make the latter attractive.
-
I have a good amount of trust in humanity’s Scientific endeavors. The Peer Review process is a good institution for catching these human flaws. Make no mistake I love Science. That is why I must decry blatant & unapologetic ideological influence when it reads its ugly head.
-
I love Science too. I really do. It’s a fantastic system. One I cherish dearly. I just don’t trust people....
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.