Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    12,452
    Thanks (Given)
    4653
    Thanks (Received)
    3763
    Likes (Given)
    1032
    Likes (Received)
    926
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13645831

    Default Scientific journal calls for suppression of research contradicting LGBT ideology

    Scientific journal calls for suppression of research contradicting LGBT ideology
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/s...lgbt-ideology/
    the multidisciplinary peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Human Behavior has released an editorial titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” which states, point blank, that: “Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded.”


    So what, exactly, is academic freedom “bounded” by? You likely already guessed. The authors note that academic freedom should be restrained by “well-established ethics framework” to ensure that “humans who do not participate in the research” cannot be “harmed indirectly” by scientific research that “inadvertently…stigmatizes individuals or human groups.” Research that does this—even inadvertently—could be “discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic” and is dangerous because it “may provide justification for undermining the rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics.”
    ....

    In Quillette, Bo Winegard excoriated the editorial in brutal terms:
    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…
    As the editorial proceeds, it becomes steadily more alarming and more explicitly political. “Advancing knowledge and understanding,” the authors declare, is also “a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.” Such as? Any material that “undermines” the “dignity or rights of specific groups” or “assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic” will be sufficient to “raise ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication.”..
    Last edited by revelarts; 09-21-2022 at 04:37 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. Thanks Black Diamond, Gunny, SassyLady, BoogyMan thanked this post
    Likes Black Diamond liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    42,982
    Thanks (Given)
    29565
    Thanks (Received)
    23316
    Likes (Given)
    1080
    Likes (Received)
    8054
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    9
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Scientific journal calls for suppression of research contradicting LGBT ideology
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/s...lgbt-ideology/
    the multidisciplinary peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Human Behavior has released an editorial titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” which states, point blank, that: “Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded.”


    So what, exactly, is academic freedom “bounded” by? You likely already guessed. The authors note that academic freedom should be restrained by “well-established ethics framework” to ensure that “humans who do not participate in the research” cannot be “harmed indirectly” by scientific research that “inadvertently…stigmatizes individuals or human groups.” Research that does this—even inadvertently—could be “discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic” and is dangerous because it “may provide justification for undermining the rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics.”
    ....

    In Quillette, Bo Winegard excoriated the editorial in brutal terms:
    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…
    As the editorial proceeds, it becomes steadily more alarming and more explicitly political. “Advancing knowledge and understanding,” the authors declare, is also “a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.” Such as? Any material that “undermines” the “dignity or rights of specific groups” or “assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic” will be sufficient to “raise ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication.”..
    I wonder how many hits of acid they dropped before coming to this illogical and unscientific conclusion based solely on opinion and politics. The shame of it is, it's getting to where you have to verify who is labeling the "science/scientific". More than likely after a government grant from the Biden Administration.

    Typical leftwingnut BS. Using censorship as a means to refute science
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  4. Thanks Black Diamond, SassyLady thanked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    11,718
    Thanks (Given)
    6899
    Thanks (Received)
    6795
    Likes (Given)
    688
    Likes (Received)
    2246
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19705058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    I wonder how many hits of acid they dropped before coming to this illogical and unscientific conclusion based solely on opinion and politics. The shame of it is, it's getting to where you have to verify who is labeling the "science/scientific". More than likely after a government grant from the Biden Administration.

    Typical leftwingnut BS. Using censorship as a means to refute science
    Yeah this is sickening

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    22,125
    Thanks (Given)
    3401
    Thanks (Received)
    3160
    Likes (Given)
    770
    Likes (Received)
    626
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    35
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8547063

    Default

    Yay Science!
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    USA East Coast
    Posts
    2,836
    Thanks (Given)
    2854
    Thanks (Received)
    1848
    Likes (Given)
    4474
    Likes (Received)
    1610
    Piss Off (Given)
    221
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6538055

    Default Takes me back to the MANSON era...

    I thought TIMOTHY LEARY had died from his own LSD use.

    So today. LSD combined with BOTOX and TDS brews a scientific concoction of literal STUPIDITY for all to see? WHAT A COUNTRY?



    I may be older than most. I may say things not everybody will like.
    But despite all of that. I will never lower myself to the level of Liars, Haters, Cheats, and Hypocrites.

  8. Likes revelarts liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums