Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay are two academics who had grown tired of Leftist theory after Leftist theory being skimmed over by supposed experts resembling Evelyn Wood students hopped up on too many diet pills in think tanks and scientific panels. In their travels in academic circles, they had come to believe that these “peer reviews” were nothing more than uncritical publications of tripe that was neither scrutinized nor (possibly even) read by supposed peers.
In an effort to prove that idea true, they opted to plan a way to fool these academic “superiors” into accepting a research paper whose subject was so controversial and cockamamie as to be utterly baseless and useless. Their idea?
The penis is not actually a sex organ, but a social construct that is endangering the future generations of millions.
We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.
“You read that right. We argued that climate change is conceptually caused by penises,” Boghossian and Lindsay wrote in a celebratory article announcing the success of their hoax.
They supported the argument that penises cause climate change by writing in part:
Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments. We need not delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism, or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of (exclusionary) dialectic objectivism. All perspectives matter.
Understand that the entire thrust (pun intended) of this research paper was to purposefully create a project that was academically worthless, having no merits (references) whatsoever to support the argument. They even went so far as to produce whole paragraphs of utter nonsense in the hopes that enough “fashionably acceptable Liberal terminology” would break them down and force them into uncontrollable fits of euphoria, thereby publishing the work as “peer-reviewed.”
Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as toxic hypermasculinity, is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones
“No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense,” the authors wrote afterwards of the above paragraph. “Anyone claiming to is pretending. Full stop.”
The pair chose Cogent Social Sciences as their “peer-review” destination, determining that these people were of sufficient Leftist ideology to fall for this bait, hook, line and sinker. And that’s exactly what happened.
Cogent Social Sciences published the monstrosity of a manifesto with much fanfare, thinking that they’d just uncovered the next Woodward and Bernstein of the Pop Psychology Realm. As it turned out, the joke was on them.
“The most potent among the human susceptibilities to corruption by fashionable nonsense is the temptation to uncritically endorse morally fashionable nonsense,” the authors wrote afterwards. “That is, we assumed we could publish outright nonsense provided it looked the part and portrayed a moralizing attitude that comported with the editors moral convictions.”
The paper, they said, “was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory. Working in a biased environment, we successfully sugarcoated utter nonsense with a combination of fashionable moral sentiments and impenetrable jargon. Cogent Social Sciences happily swallowed the pill. It left utter nonsense easy to disguise.”
When academia believes this kind of feces to be the stuff of which theories are made, it’s time to do away with the pleasantries and call this for what it truly is: Progressive crap.
Source: The Daily Caller
Best of the Wurst…
dick move?
Desperate officials just went into damage control mode after Trump’s disastrous display on the world stage.
Here’s a Real p***k for ya
The Men in the girls bathrooms President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLsSg9wZlE
“The Dumbing Down of the Next American Generation” needs to be the title of someone’s next thesis paper! The liberals all but destroyed our next generation….feeding them nothing but c**p and indoctrinating them into the Liberal Trash can. I, for one am extremely angry about their deliberate manipulation of our children…..and it starts in the elementary grades. It really does!! we can not change this quick enough and it should be an absolute priority….it is the ROOT of every problem in America….IRONICALLY ENOUGH!! lol…..
disasterous? so what was Obama world stage lunacy…Apocalyptic ?
TREASONOUS
The Real President Donald John Trump doesn’t smoke
Including that slab is ugly your family is too
Syed….Nice try pinhead, but you are not of the intelligence level of the authors………..Plus Trump did the USA proud……..