BREAKING: The penis is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change

>The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

Other urls found in this thread:

a thread died for this


Peter Boghossian is actually an exceptional philosopher

Pomo is cancer, more at eleven

Pomo can only be negative. Trying to make it positive is what's cancer. Same as Marxism really.

The conceptual violence of the penis thus takes another victim, here literally displacing marginalized discourse in the catalog that maps it (it is faint consolation that the map is not the territory, when the artifact of the map is all that is available to intersectionally oppressed fragmented identities to access discourse relevant to them, discourse that has run cold, but still it is discourse meaningful to them, complaining about it not being fresh being akin to a starving person complaining about cold pizza (not that we shouldn't critique the framework that RE-produces the atrocious circumstances that these individuals find themselves in)!), now to see even this admittedly outdated map erased with nothing left for us, and we realize dumpster food from the trash can of ideology was preferable to none at all, this constitutes a double-assault on our selves, we are killed twice, we lose the battle and even the memories of it; this conceptual penis has balls, wrecking balls, which tear apart and gut the remains of the buildings - building long left for sure, but with potential for squatting - which are/were the skeletons of our post-industrialized-into-the-system mentalities.


pic related

Not sure you know what I mean by negative and positive, fam. Marx himself said he was purely negative.


Frankly I think trying to develop something positive in left-wing theory would be needed, at least in the field of calculation and overcoming value-form.

Yes, people probably disagree with you because they don't understand the true depth of your thought.

Is he wrong though? Marx himself wasn't too positive when it comes to theory, "not a state of affairs which is to be established" etc.

That's fine, but it's not Marxism. You can be a Marxist and an [other thing]ist.

There is no such thing as a purely negative critique. You are always making a comparison. Even if that comparison isn't explicit and precise, it still is there. Even if you don't have a precise idea about what to do, you only criticize something if you at least can make a guess that things could be better. Read the Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you haven't yet.

I have a penis. While I might be a bad person, there is no correlation between my penis and my behaviour. Rude sage cause fuck idpol.

Negative as in critical vs. positive as in constructive, fam.

Marxism is critical of the system as it is, demands we tear it down. Marx doesn't posit a replacement. That's up to the workers.

Pomo is critical of the system as it is, challenging assumptions and breaking down long-held beliefs. This makes way for new ideas that better approximate reality. But some idiots think you can make new ideas with the pomo framework and you get art that is purely masturbatory, sometimes in a literal sense.

Come on, m8

-Karl Marx

Read the Gotha Critique.

-Karl Marx

Words of a nutter who didnt want to take responsibility for the gay shit he knew would be unleashed
Again, fuck these people, hands soft as puss, never worked, ever.

How many levels of shitposting are you on?


Sasuga, pomo.

The authors set out to parody academic idpol, and holy shit, they did it. The paper's conclusion is pure, halal, distilled industrial-strength stuff that covers all the bases:

Men are dick-controlled tyrannical oppressors and rapists? Check. Noneuclidean gender chromodynamics? Check. Minorities? Check. Women are always the victims? Check. Throw in climate change for bonus points and we've got a wrap-up. Well spooked!

And this was published.

It was intentional hogwash, poorly researched gibberish only consistent and coherent in its man-hate and it was published.

What a world.

This happens every few years at least. Academic publishing is so big, there are so many journals and papers getting published and the peer reviewers don't always give much of a shit about what they are reading due to the sheer volume. On top of that, every field has its self-referential pretentious bullshit that still gets published - some academics base their entire careers on that - and it can be hard to distinguish such seriously-meant bullshit from a parody. Worse even, it is sometimes hard to differentiate pretentious bullshit/parodies from serious, correct papers with extremely complex but correct arguments. That is why this kind of stuff gets past the reviews every once in a while.

Reminder that this article has been accepted in a scientific journal:

What's the impact factor of the journal which published that?

It was published in a pay-to-publish journal without any academic credit. There are literally computer generated articles being published, this is nothing. It's time to get worried once these kinds of articles get to journals like "Gender and Society" or something.

What's embarrassing here is that these dorks spent their own money to publish a hoax article. Even Sokal himself didn't have to swoop that low. Who cares what bullshit you're spewing if you're paying for publishing it?

It's the problem with pay-to-publish journals.

Clearly we need a carbon tax for men.

Pay-to-publish is standard for open access journals, which this one was. If you read the article it says they were advised to publish in that journal after the editor of the first journal they applied to didn't think it was a good fit. Even if the journal they ended up publishing it in was a scam, it still reflects very badly on the first journal.

Nice one, skeptic community

There are good and there are bad OA journals; this one's the latter kind. You can find hardly anything on Google about "Cogent Open Access" or "Cogent Social Sciences". Not all OA journals are scams.

That's a bit more worrying and really should be the main point of this article. I have no idea why they would be doing that.

It's not the publication charges that make the journal shit, it's the fact that the journal is being run by scam artists.

This was published in an actual academic journal. My fucking sides.

I've done a bit of digging and both NORMA (the journal they tried to publish in first) and Cogent are owned by Taylor & Francis.
They don't look like a typical scam operation. Cogent only started in 2014/2015, so I'm not surprised there aren't many results when searching for them.

It seems like a fairly sinister scam operation ran by a reputable publishing company, then. I love how these retards accidentally managed to expose this.