Liberals Set-Up And FOOLED By Man-Spreading HOAX Study: PENISES Cause Climate Change

Liberals Set-Up And FOOLED By Man-Spreading HOAX Study: PENISES Cause Climate Change

This is hysterical! Two PhD hoaxers have written a paper that claims the penis is not really a male genital organ, but a social construct. OMG. And liberals embraced the theory enthusiastically. Can we convince liberals the brain is not an organ, merely a social construct? Way too easy. Everyone… all at once, begin head pounding!

And they also claim that penises are responsible for climate change. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or both. SMH. Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics, are the geniuses behind this. I’d really like to buy these two guys a beer. We are definitely not worthy.

From Breitbart:

Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.

Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.

They were hoping to emulate probably the most famous academic hoax in recent years: the Sokal Hoax – named after NYU and UCL physics professor Alan Sokal – who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text to accept a paper titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.

This is possibly the funniest thing I have heard… EVER. The paper is just full of impressive-sounding, but meaningless pseudo-academic jargon, that appeals to the pseudo-intellectuals of the left. They throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:

We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.

More…

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Not only that, but they made the paper TOTALLY incomprehensible, which left the liberals nodding sagely and wallowing in academic bull feces. Some of it was written with the help of the Postmodern Generator – “a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokal’s method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern ‘paper’ every time the page is reloaded.” The paper was peer-reviewed by two dolts and approved for publication. The rest is infamous history.

This is just the kind of drivel snobs on the left love and adore. They think it proves their point. The only thing it proves is how stupid and insane they truly are. I simply love this.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is an editor and writer for Right Wing News. She owns and blogs at NoisyRoom.net. She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon's site, New Zeal - trevorloudon.com. She also does research at KeyWiki.org. You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend