Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 4)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we once again have our favorite feminist blog tackling the subject of zoos. I probably say this every time with this website, but this is a new low for them. No really, this is a poorer article than the time they literally advocated for genocide.
_______________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/the-zoo-teaches-children-to-hate
_______________________________________________________________

Oh for fuck sake. Is there any establishment in the world that doesn't oppress people in the eyes of radical feminists? Maybe I would be more understanding if the contents of the argument were actually relevant, but this introduction is just pure unrelated shite. Just what the fuck are you going on about? Ad hoc fallacies relate to scientific literature rather than zoological institutions. I don't understand what effect peer reviewing these businesses would have considering zoos and scientific literature are in no way similar. A zoo is primarily a place of leisure, not an academic journal. You do realise that the vast majority of visitors to zoos are not scientists but just average families, so why would they care about the validity in the underlying scientific literature?

I'm honestly so confused about what the central point is in this argument. Patriarchal gender normativity. What the absolute fuck is that? I wasn't aware that zoos are operated by the patriarchy, but now you've made an unqualified sweeping statement it makes that fact plain obvious. Jesus fucking Christ, this is some flat earth level shit of tin hat conspiracy nonsense. It's just random and irrelevant words being shoehorned into an argument to try and rationalise this insane way of thinking.

'If anything can be called natural.' How about a tree? To me a tree is quite comprehensively natural. Yet another example of burying your head in the sand when factual evidence dares to interfere with your narrative.

Why do we need to be learning about the human condition from zoos? I want to see the fucking tigers, not have a long-winded discussion about the patriarchy. In shocking news it could be said that most families might also have the same attitude, hence why they take their children to the zoo to have fun, and not lecture the kids in feminist libraries. Then comes the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Truly a momentous occasion; an actual source on Medusa Magazine. Just a shame this source is on house cats, which are famous for never appearing in zoos. Remember love, the condition of captivity profoundly affects the behaviour of animals, rendering your source absolutely useless. In other words you're comparing apples to oranges, as well as making incredibly tenuous generalisations.

The act of bothering to find sources soon disappears, which is a shame because the ridiculous generalisations don't. Certainly the environment can have an effect on stress levels and anxiety, which is why welfare is such an important issue to zoos, but sexual violence is a new one on me. It's probably you just trying to fit as many buzzwords in as possible, as there is no evidence of this happening. Even if this were the case it's definitely the patriarchies fault that animals are raping each other, because of course rape never happens in the natural world. However this is nowhere near the biggest assumption. Apparently ALL zoo animals are abused. Not only is that complete bollocks, but it also comes as no surprise that most zoos don't educate their guests how their captive animals are all allegedly abused. How about you stop blaming zoos for your unfounded and malicious allegations, as well as innocent kids who just want to have the chance to see amazing living things. The zoo is a wondrous place to visit, and has inspired many to love animals, so stop shitting on everyone's fun by blindly claiming you're oppressed.

Sorry, when do zoos ever traffic a narrative about the human condition? Yes they do provide relatable examples in their educational information, because that makes the experience accessible to a wider audience, and certainly not because all these patriarchal institutions get boners over comparative psychology. Imagine the horror of being forced to sit through an educational feature on factual scientific information. I know it's not quite the solid intellectual insights written in this article, but surely even you can forgive these employees for educating visitors with factually correct information. Do you know why they focused on mother and father penguins? Because that's how sexual relationships work in penguin society. And no, there are no trans penguins because they're unaware of what gender is. I can't believe I have to spell this out to you, and yet you have the cheek to criticise zookeepers for relating their talks around human societal behaviour. Maybe these people that have studied these animals for most of their lives might actually know more than your self entitled ass, but I imagine that hasn't got into your ignorant shitstain of a brain yet.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the patriarchy is oppressing these penguins into having monogamous cisgendered relationships? Feminists can't change anything dear, yet alone nature. I'm sorry if they didn't give a degree level lecture to children of five years of age, but they did at least provide key scientific facts that describe the trend, which is a skill you've yet to learn. There's many exceptions this ten minute overview would have missed out, but that's not because they're actively trying to oppress penguin minorities. I genuinely can't believe I'm now having to defend zookeepers from allegations they're oppressing penguins. Stop trying to conform penguins to your narrow minded worldview. If you proclaim something as harmful then you must provide evidence, otherwise it's just counterproductive bollocks spurted from the fucked up mind on an ignorant moron. Why is it so hard for you to accept that penguins have two sexes? And why is it even harder for you to accept that sex isn't a fucking spectrum? You're in denial. Even so, why the fuck would a zoo talk about sexuality to fucking kids? Just get your pseudo-scientific nonsense out of zoology.

Fucking hell, even the fucking ticket attendants are under the spell of the patriarchy. How dare these monstrous ticket attendants make assumptions and attempt to interact with customers. I just wish someone would tell this fucking idiot that she's not the center of the fucking universe, and actually just a minority trying to spew her hateful rhetoric on innocent people. You want to be catered for, then fuck off to a poetry reading in your echo chamber of idiocy. Stop trying to enforce your nonsense on families trying to have fun. The zoo does not have to bend down to your every whim you self entitled fuckwit.

I just don't understand. What the fuck has the behaviour of stereotypical fathers at zoos got to do with teaching children to hate? It's funny as I could have sworn you were just criticising assumptions. You remember your tirade about ad hoc fallacies? Well you should have sourced this paragraph as evidence. I just don't know how you can make this mental leap between fathers having a normal family day out, therefore meaning they must be contributing to the patriarchy. How dare this singular man tell a well known fact to a kid, which doesn't at all nullify your whole point about dads knowing fuck all. Turns out they know more than you, but then again so does my left ass cheek. I would of thought that was damn good parenting, and far more love than the majority of fathers would ever give their kids, so good on him for not being sucked into your bullshit narrative. Lions are not humans. Have a sense of perspective and stop shoehorning them into your fucked up views on human society. I repeat, what fucking world are you living in? I'm sorry if these men don't give the kids a David Attenborough style lesson with this false pretense that the world should just be this lovely utopia. Obviously women, who are not scummy men, would never partake in this disgusting behaviour.

Here's yet more of ignoring objective facts because a certain narrative just has to be correct. It's all the fault of that damn patriarchy, that's oppressing nature for millions of years with that hetero-normative bullshit. And since when the fuck did zoos ever suppress the queer and the uncommon? Those gay penguins you were so keen to bring up didn't end up in a penguin internment camp. In my funny little world I thought zoos embraced the uncommon, in fact that's one of their many appealing features. It's becoming increasingly clear that you haven't got a fucking clue on what you're talking about.

Can you imagine the state of this feminist zoo? To be honest it sounds just like a normal zoo, except you get lectured about irrelevant shite instead of having fun. It's here we find the writer wants zoos to selectively ignore the biological species model in favor of a spectrum. These feminist zoos will be the only place a penguin can't be called a penguin because it might identify itself as a toad. Now that wouldn't be misleading and plain idiotic would it? It's not as if the concept of gender is of human origin. Actually it's got to the stage where I wouldn't be at all surprised if this website started calling for human zoos.

Not only does this idiot force her narrative onto other people, but also the animal kingdom as well. What the fuck did animals ever do to warrant forced indoctrination into this radical feminist cult? There's still no serious analysis on just how zoos showcase the human condition, but I suppose it's the role of this article to showcase the mental retardation of one individual. Seriously, what a fantastic job you did at answering the question. We've got a lot of bullshit falsely equating zoos with the patriarchy, but that's it. It's almost as if this whole article is one big 'just so' argument. If you really do love the subject of biology then the best advice I can give you is to never post another article ever again. This piece of idiocy has not only made the subject of biology a laughing stock, but may put science as a whole back into the dark ages.

Morons of the Internet: The New York Times

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

Usually this segment is just me ranting about some whinging feminist, but now I'm actually going to be arguing against an esteemed professor on the ins and outs of free speech. Well not that esteemed; they're a professor of psychology, but still someone who should know how to make a coherent argument.
______________________________________________________________________________
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html?ref=oembed
______________________________________________________________________________

I can tell you as a student at a notoriously left wing university that I absolutely agree with this idea that the conglomeration of speech and violence is hurting academic institutions, and I absolutely sympathise with the people that are critical of their anti-free speech methods. The point this writer is making is that speech which is deemed violent shouldn't be protected by the idea of free speech, which doesn't at all sound problematic. I'm sure some would argue that this article should be designated as violent, so what gives you the right to spurt this nonsense on the internet? All you've done is prove that speech can be really fucking stupid, and not in any way violent. If this was a serious discussion then the word 'when' should be cropped out that title completely. I have no issue with the science used to underpin this argument, however I do have an issue with how it's applied.

The central argument here is that so called hate speech can have harmful physiological effects on the body, ergo hateful speech must therefore be a form of violence. That's certainly an interesting generalisation considering that hate speech is going to be interpreted differently by different groups of people. You claim to have provided empirical guidance on what can be called hate speech, except you just haven't. At best you've just provided a list of studies that are weakly integrated into the central argument. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? God help us if it's you. It's all very well saying we can find objective figures from measuring these telomeres that you were so keen to cite, but this is an arduous task that would mean measuring every audience member's telomeres after every single word, and then thoroughly analysing this data. It's just not a pragmatic solution. Say my telomeres were shortening at an increased rate whilst reading this. Would that be grounds to brand this article as 'hate speech' and then subsequently getting it banned?

I understand that some hateful speech is bad for your health if you're routinely subjected to it FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, however this does not in any way constitute your call to ban speakers you don't align with. Funnily enough these scientific principles go out the window when describing Milo Yiannopolous, who is somebody you have a clear disdain for. No telomere or cytokine measuring here, just a personal opinion that at no point is backed up by any scientific evidence. Students are not forced to listen to this man speak. If they don't want to hear what he has to say then they don't need to fucking show up. Getting offended by a man's words is a personal choice, and not something biologically innate, so this argument does not excuse wanting to ban the man from speaking, especially as the evidence you provide relates to prolonged stress rather than a talk that may last two hours if you're lucky.

Why is it suddenly such a crime to want to challenge students? Challenging long held ideologies is the whole point of studying at a university. Personal belief systems, and that of the speaker, should be challenged at every available opportunity, so banning this man from participating in this debate is incredibly counterproductive. To then say there is nothing to be gained from this debate is even more idiotic. If you have ever actually attended a Milo Yiannopolous event you would be aware his speeches are followed up with open questions from the audience. You might not think that's a purposeful debate, but to start didactically proclaiming debates you don't like as 'pointless' is an incredibly ignorant attitude. Maybe, and this might be a radical idea, it's the overreaction of students that choose to be offended that are to blame, and not the speakers. As I said earlier speech has different effects on different people as we all have different nervous systems, so why should the benefits gained by the masses be sabotaged by a minority of whinging idiots?

Let's play a game. Without looking at the title of this video can you deduce if this is clear hate speech from Milo Yiannopolous' campaign of abuse, or just merely offensive material by the prestigious Charles Murray? Oh dear, it seems these subjective parameters you defined are absolute bullshit. The reactions from students to both these individuals are to simply silence any form of debate despite your pleas that these are two drastically differing forms of speech. Maybe it's time to admit that this is an argument revolving around a personal narrative rather than objective facts. It turns out this article is not relative to telomere lengths, but actually relates to the 'Individual Psychology Professor Test'. Unfortunately this test only distinguishes whether some moronic psychology professor like a particular speaker, which unlike scientific methods can't be falsified. It's almost as if this measurement isn't valid.

Once again science has taken a backseat in the conclusion to make way for the real central premise of this article; restricting free speech. That's all this article is, a narrative based piece masquerading as a serious piece of scientific literature. Just because you don't like certain people doesn't mean you can shoehorn scientific arguments into morally ambiguous matters where they don't belong. If you don't like what I'm saying in this article that's absolutely fine by me. I don't care if you think this is hate speech, but how dare you think you can censor individuals for not aligning with your narrow minded views. Fuck off and stop being so self centered.

Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 3)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we return to those idiots at Medusa Magazine. If you think you've seen the worst of them so far then get ready for this one. Let's see how they tackle the controversial subjects of abortions and race. Seriously, it's worse than you could ever possibly imagine.
_______________________________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/beyond-pro-choice-the-solution-to-white-supremacy-is-white-abortion
_______________________________________________________________________________

Jesus, I hate those white families. Why can't we all live in a proper progressive society where black families are the norm? Say like Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal. Still, I bet that's because of those white families at it again. Actually to be fair banning homosexuality is far more progressive than instigating a cull on white fetuses. This whole paragraph is just a reductive argument from a historical perspective. Why should the sins of previous generations be repaid by forcefully killing white children in this day and age? You're creating the very problem you want to eradicate. Even more importantly I hope you realise that by instigating this genocide you won't rewrite the history of slavery, rather you will just become another evil pawn served up as a lesson to warn future generations. Maybe you too will have angry feminist bloggers whinging about your contributions to the world in 200 years time. That's of course assuming anyone takes you up on this barbaric plot.

Since when the fuck were the Native Americans egalitarian? In my funny little world I thought they operated under Chiefdom, which is quite the antithesis of egalitarianism. And don't think that this idea of egalitarianism traveled to the south either. The Mayans looted other city states and executed their warriors for social status. But yeah, Native Americans were definitely all about egalitarianism.

I just don't know where the argument is here. It's just random nonsense that vaguely resembles rudimentary identity politics. I know we're in a discussion over eugenics and genocide, but I still expected someone who advocated those things to be at least partially competent. I'm even more surprised by the hypocrisy of simultaneously condemning and supporting a racial genocide. Essentially this argument boils down to the realisation that eugenics is terrible, but that's because we haven't tried it a certain way.

Even I as a Brit have a better comprehension of the American constitution than this idiot. Just because something is constitutional doesn't make it an inherently evil thing. At one point in time these white men may well have advocated for slavery, which funnily enough was amended from the constitution, so there is a way around it. Today however these white men have given you the right to post this on the internet without fear of persecution. Okay maybe this article wasn't the best evidence as to why freedom of speech is a good thing, but even when faced with shit like this freedom of speech is still amazing. I still just don't understand how you can make the mental leap between the signing of a constitution hundreds of years ago to the struggles of African Americans today. Unlike what you claim all citizens of America profit from this constitution, irrespective of their race. If you have any qualms with this statement I suggest you give me some examples instead of some vague and slanderous bullshit. The rest of that paragraph is more identity politics gone sour. It's worrying to think that people do genuinely have this thought process, and that process can be seen as progressive.

Yeah, I might need some evidence to believe your claim that the choice element of abortions is dependent on race. If there's so many roadblocks then it should be really fucking easy to name at least one, but you can't even manage that. You say this system of white supremacy has been proven to not act impartially towards all women, yet funnily enough there is no evidence to suggest this either. In fact the statistics show that a disproportionately high number of black women are having abortions. If you're going to instigate genocide you might at least need some fucking solid evidence that isn't based on flat out lies. That 'if' by the way is doing a lot of work in that last sentence. And how the fuck are abortions ableist? How the fuck do you get to these conclusions? Stop shoehorning keywords into arguments where they don't belong.

Jesus, it's like listening to the love child of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. In fact funnily enough I may have seen these words before. All you need to do is substitute the word 'white' for 'untermensch' and you have a frighteningly similar scenario to a certain infamous historical genocide. I like how white women giving birth to white kids is now a choice, like you can pick and mix skin colour whenever you decide to have a baby. You are aware that half of the mother's genes go into the baby? Not only are we going for genocide, but designer babies as well. Does this writer know the meaning of the word 'ethical'?

I just love how it's white people at fault for the disproportionate single motherhood rate in the black community. Any possible wrongdoing in the world just has to be caused by white people according to this idiot. How about instead of trying to kill people off we should instead become decent human beings? But no, we can't be expecting black fathers to stop being criminals, that's an insane request. No, kill all white people instead; much more rational.

I've also spotted a massive flaw in your argument, apart from say the murdering and all that. Why would you want white women to become the guardians of black children? Surely these are the people you're trying to kill because there's a risk of contaminating the racially pure African Americans with toxic white culture. And in any case, if you decide to kill a whole race, you can't then ask them for aid. Are you now suggesting that people of colour have the magical ability to transform into lighter skinned individuals to help restock those aiding white folk? I can tell you as someone who knows a thing or two about differentiation within species that this ability to change race aint gonna fix itself in a population in just one generation, or ever for that matter.

The final conclusions makes absolutely zero fucking sense, as you claim that white supremacy is crushed. Well why the fuck do you want to murder white children then? The thing is you provide no evidence that this white supremacy scourge is actually harmful, only that we should cure this apparent problem by murdering people. Murdering people for no reason. This is Americanised feminism at its best. Tell me, how would this system work in Malawi? Is that country suffering from white supremacy? 

What the actual fuck is this article? I've never been a fan of third wave feminism, but now some of them are advocating genocide. That's more fucked up than my meager words can describe. Instead of promoting women's rights we're now wanting to murder a whole race based on the actions of those who lived centuries ago. Maybe instead of just helping people of colour white women could also go the extra distance and start burning books by white authors, and then smashing up any white owned businesses. If you're really keen on this idea why don't you round up all the white babies, put them in a camp, and then gas them all? Just a little suggestion, because apparently claiming you want to kill all white people is perfectly fine now. It's absolutely not racist at all. The only person that should ever have been aborted is this writer.

The Conflict of LGBT Culture and Science

As a biologist I'm increasingly finding my field often being demonised and mocked for simple acts of curiosity. When the field of biology is seen to overstep these pre-determined liberal boundaries there's always a concentrated outcry from the same areas of society. What I'm not suggesting is that all members of these communities are anti-science, but I am going to be providing evidence of worrying trends that linger in the cesspits of left wing echo chambers. To exemplify my thoughts I'm going to focus on a recent example where Cypriot scientists published a paper stating that lesbianism evolved due to male preferences. I would understand if the controversy surrounding this paper was centered around scientific debate, but that was not the subject of the outcry, rather how this hypothesis couldn't possibly be true due to it being published by privileged heterosexual men abusing their needs over that of oppressed lesbians. In general it was an outcry of feelings over anything else. The question I wish to pose is what the fuck this feelings based criticism has got to do with the objective truths of science? How arrogant do you have to be to decide that your narrative is always superior to scientific reasoning? This pathetic backlash has forced me to play devil's advocate. I'm being forced to defend my fellow scientists, even though I could happily criticise this substandard academic paper for days upon end.

To give a brief overview of the actual study you need to understand the fundamentals of sexual selection. Essentially with any sexual conflict there will be one sex limited by the number of mates and another by the number of offspring. The sex that is limited by the number of mates put less resources into sexual reproduction, that's human males, and so often sexual selection will not be favourable towards these individuals, with the other sex selecting human males for certain traits. That was quite poorly explained, but all you need to know is that there are a number of mechanisms involved in sexual selection, one of which this study aims to expand on. It's at this point the study gets a bit convoluted, with vague assumptions sprouting up all over the place, and some strange explanations that have no place in an evolutionary paper. My personal favourite was this:

'As men cannot always guard their partners, and because, they cannot always impose heavy costs on them if they cheat - they are limited for instance, in using physical punishment, due to the risk of retaliation from women's parents - they are always vulnerable to cuckoldry.'

None of that was even sourced, which I suppose isn't surprising, because it's unqualified nonsense. Anyway, the central argument of this paper is that lesbianism increases the reproductive fitness of human males. In essence it's a rare example of a sexual conflict where the fitness penalties are imposed on the female, which is something that is universally observed throughout the natural world. As men are more likely to reproduce with these individuals that have an affinity for women this 'lesbian allele' becomes fixed in the population. That's all fine. Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with this idea. There's far too many assumptions for me to agree with this hypothesis, namely that lesbianism is the result of purely genetic variation, but it's not totally implausible. The real problems start with their methodology. It's a simple survey. There is a saying in science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this paper simply does not provide this extraordinary evidence. Trashing this paper however is not the purpose of my response, rather it's the backlash of the LGBT community which frustrated me far more than this paper ever did.

This initial outburst from the LGBT community predictably picked up on by the mainstream media, resulting in some of the worst reporting on science I'd seen in years. The amount of bias and the number of attempts to shift this story towards a narrative was absolutely shocking. Here's The Independent for example, who thought tweets were an acceptable form of counter-evidence. Seriously that is the only sources they provide in the whole piece.

It's evident that newspapers such as The Independent don't acknowledge the stark contrast between a theory and a hypothesis. This suggested hypothesis was just a scientist trying to find a solution to an unknown conundrum backed up by his own research. Does that make it an objective truth? No, but it does allow other studies to build on these findings to potentially find an explanation for lesbianism. That does not give individuals an excuse to misrepresent and demonise these findings based on nothing but their feelings.

There's a very good reason why lesbians weren't included in an evolutionary study, and that's because they have zero reproductive fitness. In other words they don't pass on their genes to the next generation, and so are irrelevant in a study that tries to find an explanation in regards to the changes in allele frequency over time by means of male choice. The actual study itself seemed to forget about these allele frequencies, but if you had actually bothered to read the study you would have found a hypothesis that hinges of heterosexual choice. So what purpose would surveying lesbians achieve?

The real infuriating thing about these tweets is the unbelievable straw man arguments. Please quote me the part of this study that claims homosexuality isn't a choice. Putting words in another person's mouth is not a good way to structure a counterargument. It doesn't matter who you are attracted to personally because this is an evolutionary based study. Not only are your sexual preferences anecdotal in this scenario but it's also irrelevant, as if you remember this is a study on changing allele frequencies over generations. I'm sorry if the LGBT community feel this is encroaching on their echo chambers, but without this kind of research the mechanisms behind homosexuality will be forever unknown. You can't claim to be in support of science if you simultaneously censor the bits you don't like.

The Independent however was only mildly infuriating compared to my next example. This is by far the worst article on this subject I could find. It's by a news source called 'Advocate', and it may just be some of the most slanderous and moronic bullshit I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I don't know why Advocate decided this article should be written in a false tone of superiority, but it makes them sound like condescending dicks. They decide to mock the scientist in question for his supposedly absurd claims despite not providing any counter evidence themselves. It's certainly a scientist that should be mocked and not some low rent journalistic source with a false sense of superiority. This source has the audacity to flat out reject this man's study despite clearly not reading a single word of it. There's no scientific insight on display here, just some idiots who've had their feelings hurt. Please tell me why this study doesn't follow the principles of evolutionary theory. It's then another thing to criticise another article that dared to refute the paper when you yourselves have provided absolutely fuck all evidence. He certainly did not at any stage claim lesbians didn't have their own free will, or 'biology'. You're just putting words in the man's mouth. If you had actually read the fucking paper you wouldn't have made such a stupid comment. Let me just quote the last line of the paper for you:

'Future research needs to replicate and extend these findings in order to better understand the evolutionary origins of same-sex attraction.'

Again, this is a hypothesis; a suggested idea. Unless you have any counter evidence stop making pointless ad hominem arguments to make yourselves look better. That's just being counterproductive.
 

This tone of mockery can just fuck off. It's like being spoken to by a fucking condescending child. I've said this already but interviewing lesbian women would be completely pointless. Not only are lesbian couple irrelevant to the hypothesis, but they're also largely irrelevant to the process of how allele frequency changes over time. If this sort of study is so easy then why don't you try and get your own version peer reviewed? I can assure you a feelings over facts narrative doesn't fly in the academic sphere.

The sheer ignorance of this writer culminates during this final segment. Suddenly this study isn't necessary because it doesn't align with their narrative. Tell me, was Darwin's ideas of natural selection necessary? Evolution didn't need to be placed under the microscope due to conflicts with common beliefs at the time, so it's a damn good job he did publish his findings. Funnily enough you'll find many controversial scientific studies written throughout time that didn't need to be placed under the microscope. This doesn't change the facts that all scientific studies are necessary. Science is a search for an objective truth, not a subjective autocratic system that revolves around some random low rent journalist's approval.

What's the issue with trying to find the mechanisms of lesbian relationships from an alternate perspective to yours? I don't recall the planet being at stake when Newton discovered the existence of gravity, but it was a pretty fucking influential discovery in any case. Surely if lesbianism has the potential to put the population of the planet at stake we should at least be suggesting the mechanisms behind it. But no, I'm sure watching Carol, a fucking fictional film, will give you the objective truths on how lesbianism evolved in the past. Having said that Carol is a brilliant film. I'd recommend reading the article as well however, as it may stop you from sounding like an uninformed idiot.

Pink News not surprisingly also weighed in on this debacle. I'm not going to complain about their coverage as I thought they came across as broadly sympathetic of the scientist in question, and actually went down the radical route of having an unbiased discussion by allowing him to give his personal defense of the study. However it's the comments section that really proves my point. If any evidence was needed that this anti-science behaviour is prevalent in a community then this comments section was just that.

Oh dear, that first comment. Jesus christ. Just because of the repeated use of a single word this study is apparently now invalid. Somehow I doubt that word has any bearing on the actual scientific principles of the paper. Are these two papers also invalid now? If you had actually bothered to read the paper you would discover that this couldn't possibly be a circle jerk because that would imply this hypothesis is already well established. Funnily enough it's not.

I actually thought the second comment was a fairly intelligent response that raised a good point. That was until I read the last sentence. I'm sorry if you think this single study is an attempt for men in general to get the world to revolve around them, but that is just an unqualified and libelous claim. I like how you think these scientists represent masculinity as a whole, and as for that last statement, well that's just naive. It's definitely just men that instigate wars.

The rest of the comments section was essentially triggered morons covering their ears and shouting 'misogyny' every time someone dared to challenge this echo chamber of lies. Any time an argument was raised in response to these challenges it was either inflammatory or descended worryingly quickly into eugenics. This isn't scientific debate, this is childish behaviour aiming to silence any form of debate.

Funnily enough this academic paper did not set the scientific community alight, and it will most likely end up with the huge heap of rejected ideas throughout history. However this does not excuse the pathetic reaction that groups of individuals routinely have on papers deemed 'controversial'. In this rant I've focused on the LGBT community, but this is a trend happening in all corners of the political sphere. This damaging anti-science attitude is a very real issue. It's a rejection of scientific debate in the face of academic studies that don't align to a particular narrative. Objective facts don't care if you want to play the victim, and the work of these Cypriot scientists like many others were driven through curiosity, and not a desire to oppress a group of people who cry wolf at the drop of a hat. The imbeciles that cry oppression in this case hadn't even bothered to understand the source material, but still have this hive mind mentality to demonise any scientists who dared to disagree with their attempts to bury their heads in the sand. I've often heard people say that we're heading towards a post fact society that values intrinsic morals over facts, and it's examples of this kind of attitude that make me worry for the future of scientific disciplines.

Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 2)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we're back for more shit from possibly the worst website in the world. This time they're writing irresponsible articles for self diagnosis, and as always it's in the name of social justice.
_____________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/why-self-diagnoses-are-valid
_____________________________________________________________

Let's quickly get this out the way: Unless you're a medical professional then trusting nothing but a self diagnosis is an incredibly stupid idea. Yeah you may have read some articles on the internet that claim to know everything, but even if you have convinced yourself you should probably seek professional help from people who know what they're talking about, especially if the symptoms in question are serious. The repercussions of serious medical conditions being misdiagnosed and consequently mistreated can ruin people's lives, and possibly even end them. I understand that this article is focusing on diagnosing mental conditions, but these illnesses should still be dealt with responsibly by medical professionals. People should absolutely be treated with skepticism if they've just made up illnesses out of their own sheer ignorance. Especially people that barely have the knowledge to write coherent articles.

In the style of this article I will also say that I'm a white cisgendered man. Can you imagine anything worse? Thankfully for me the objective field of medicine doesn't give a fuck about my background so it's entirely irrelevant to even mention your ethnicity or sexual orientation in this discussion. Just this little remark alone is enough to warn me that this is going to be an argument based on feelings rather than facts. I suppose that's a bit like the topic of self diagnosis.

The article itself begins with some deep shit. I am curious as to how often this innate fear of men raising their fists has arisen in the past. Unless you're part of a black power rally or like a bit of fisting then I can't imagine a scenario where that would affect your everyday life. Your brother may well have hit you as a child, which I'm assuming was just playfighting like the majority of kids do, but that doesn't instantly mean you have a certain condition. Symptoms vary with each patient, which is why a medical professional is a far more accurate source. You may not be trying to be unique or special, but you are being misled by a philosophy that doesn't value correct medical examinations.

Just because people can't afford treatment doesn't instantly validate a pseudoscience. Funnily enough you're financial status does not have an effect on your ability to accurately diagnose medical conditions. It's all well and good if you did do research into your ailments, but that line of argument is based on the assumption that these individuals can interpret scientific literature to accurately diagnose themselves, which is a rarity, and only a skill really applied at degree level. This is the reason why doctors need degrees. Possibly an even bigger assumption you're making is that everyone does this research, or has the available resources to in the first place. You clearly haven't researched this topic, you're just rambling about feelings, so how can you put your faith in others to source accurate and relevant information? However it doesn't actually matter that this point is based on huge assumptions because it doesn't validate your argument in any way.

Again, having a fear of doctors does not instantly validate your assumptions. It's then another thing to make the astounding generalisation that the majority of doctors are racist and sexist males. How dare these doctors that diagnose people to make them better not have the same moral ideas as some embittered feminist that spurts shit on the internet. Yeah it's definitely you, and not doctors, that embody a paragon of virtue. What a fucking scumbag you are to make that sort of slanderous accusation without even providing any evidence. Seriously, fuck you.

And actually, yes I do want to go to be given the all clear by doctors. What a fucking relief that would be if I had convinced myself I had cancer and the doctor gave me the all clear. What fucking world are you living in where it's suddenly a disappointment to not be diagnosed with serious medical conditions?

Yes you do have a good idea of your current condition, that's why you verbally tell the doctor so they can make an accurate diagnosis. Again, if you're unable to speak that does not instantly validate a pseudoscience. Even if you can't speak to doctors there are still going to be symptoms that the body can express for you without opening your mouth. A suddenly changing mole for instance is a good indicator of cancer, which a doctor would use to construct an accurate diagnosis. Just because a doctor doesn't come to the same conclusions as you doesn't instantly make them incorrect. I'm fucking sick of this self centered and flat out ignorant attitude that you know your medical conditions better than a doctor. This irresponsible and arrogant attitude has had lethal consequences in the past. You ever wonder why Steve Jobs isn't around anymore? It's because he pulled shit like this.

You do realise that diagnosing medical conditions doesn't eradicate them right? Even if you do identify symptoms better than the doctor they still need to be treated effectively, otherwise you end up being a whinging feminist on the internet. Clearly this article shows a lack of understanding on the scientific aspects in this argument, which can be exemplified with the absolute bollocks this writer knows about autism. More men are diagnosed with autism, but where's the evidence that women are failing to be diagnosed? There are many tests that are designed to diagnose autism, and these are used by both sexes, as funnily enough the traits that doctors use for diagnosing autism are not mutually exclusive to the male psyche.

Of course doctors make errors, they're human. They do however make a hell of a lot less mistakes than your uniformed mind because they're medical professionals. This is why they will often refer you to tests to prove their diagnosis, because unlike your argument doctors rely on testing the validity of predictions, and not guesswork. Again, THIS POINT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT ANY MORE VALID. It's a bit like advocating that skydivers shouldn't need parachutes because in the past they have sometimes failed to open. And that point about capitalism can fuck off. Do you genuinely think the majority of doctors care more about their bank accounts than the wellbeing of their patients? Somehow I don't imagine it's the system of capitalism that's at fault for thinking your more entitled to diagnose your ailments than doctors.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. Are you seriously saying that it's more beneficial to validate inaccurate statements than objective facts? Only someone who wrote an article this stupid could make this kind of moronic argument. Do you have any idea how dangerous a misdiagnosis can be? In this paragraph you are literally advocating that people should just give diagnosing serious conditions a try. And hey, if you die that's okay, because it may have worked for someone else. Surely if helping the most amount of people is the argument then why not suggest they get their asses down to a doctor's surgery. Rejecting an unprofessional diagnosis certainly does not perpetuate the idea that mental illnesses aren't valid. Surely it would be accepting the words of unqualified morons that would invalidate mental health issues.

What a fucking awful article. It provides no evidence as to why a self diagnosis is valid, only providing weak arguments based on feelings alone. At absolutely no point is there proof of any form that this field clearly promoted by imbeciles is in any way valid. This woman is living in complete denial. This article only proves that there is a ton of stupid shit on the internet, so trusting everything you read is a good way to get yourself into some serious trouble. In a nutshell that's precisely why self diagnosis is so harmful to be supporting. But the worst crime committed is this tone of glorifying mental conditions. It's not a badge of honor when you think you have cancer or depression. Treatment is then another matter which this article just completely forgets about. It's not like treating illnesses is important is it? No, it's solely the diagnosing that's important. Who are you going to ignorantly  lecture on the internet if you can't take the moral high ground when discussing mental illnesses? What a scummy attitude. What a scummy article.