Stossel: Debating a Hoaxed Journal Editor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 мар 2019
- The editor of a journal that fell for a hoax defends his field.
---------
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
Seven academic journals recently published papers that were actually hoaxes designed to show the absurdity found in such academic fields as gender studies, race studies, and queer studies. The hoaxers intentionally submitted papers that were ridiculous. One included gibberish about rape culture in dog parks. Another was a section of Hitler's Mein Kampf re-written with feminist buzzwords.
Six journal editors would not talk to Stossel, but one-Roberto Refinetti, editor in chief of Sexuality and Culture-agreed to an interview.
He condemns what the hoaxers did: "You're deceiving people without much of a reason."
He complains, "If you're going to do your research with people, you have to propose your research, submit to a body called an Institutional Review Board."
One of the hoaxers, Peter Boghossian, was found guilty by his employer (Portland State University) of violating its rules requiring him to get approval for the experiment. Of course, since the Institutional Review Board would have insisted that the researchers inform the journals that they were being tested, the test wouldn't have worked.
Stossel says he thinks the hoaxers had good reason not to go to the review board first. "Their hoax woke us up to the fact that some academic journals publish nonsense," he says.
Refinetti's journal, for instance, published the hoax paper titled, "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use."
The paper touted "encouraging male anal eroticism with sex toys" because it would help make men more feminist.
Sexuality and Culture published that paper after its reviewers praised it glowingly. One called it "an incredibly rich and exciting contribution...timely, and worthy of publication."
Refinetti defends his journal, saying that it publishes mind-expanding questions.
"What is the problem with [the subject of the paper]? I don't see a problem....It's nothing really absurd or unusual," Refinetti says.
He also says: "Let's question our assumptions, because maybe we're making assumptions that we shouldn't be making....When homosexuality was considered a mental illness. People pushed, the psychiatrists got together, and said...'it's a perfectly fine thing to choose and not to call it mental illness.' So that's the type of thing that a journal in sexuality and culture does, is discuss."
Discussion is good, Stossel agrees. But in journals today, it seems that only certain conclusions are permitted. The hoaxers complain that in many university fields: "A culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed, like those that make whiteness and masculinity problematic."
"I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in some places that is correct," Refinetti agrees.
"Is that a problem?" asks Stossel.
Refinetti replies: "How big of a problem is it? Is it worse than hunger? Is it worse than people shooting each other?"
But a lack of diversity of ideas does make it harder to find truth-and more likely for ridiculous ideas to thrive. Today's colleges have an extreme lack of diversity: A National Association of Scholars report found that professors at top liberal arts colleges are 10 times more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
Refinetti says that's not surprising.
"I think it's very reasonable-because what is the job of learning?...Being more open to new ideas, which is what being a liberal is," he says.
Stossel pushes back: "This is your left-leaning definition; it's conservatives that proposed changes like school vouchers...privatizing air traffic control."
"That's an interesting point," Refinetti responds. "Then the hypothesis is shut down. See, that's how things work. You show the idea, you discuss the idea, and get it."
Refinetti says his journal publishes multiple viewpoints. It has published articles that question feminist orthodoxy.
Stossel says he's grateful that Refinetti was willing to have a conversation, but he still cheers the hoaxers for revealing that much of what passes for scholarship at colleges is bunk.
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
As much as I despise folks like him....at least he had the strength of character to sit in front of the camera & face Stossel.
I was thinking the same, lots of people just hide and don't face any questioning those are the one that I'm mostly skeptical to.
I would bet he earned a fair number of enemies for some of the things he said in this interview, as well. He said nothing that would shock you or me, but leftists blamed Chelsea Clinton for the Christchurch massacre - to say zero dissent from leftist orthodoxy is allowed is a massive understatement.
He still didnt admit anything. that might happen later
He seem honest at least. Six other are just hypocrites I guess.
That's not always a strength.
This guy sounds like he desperately wants to agree with Stossel and still have a job at the same time.
LagiNaLangAko23. Same, i feel sorry for the guy
So true, so pitifully saddening!
Exactly
Yea, he found free money that only required absolute lack of critical thinking.
I like him, reminds me of the dean from community.
Only one of the seven had the courage and open mindedness to actually meet with a real journalist.
You gotta respect this editor. In some Fields some jargons are used and it's stupid but you just have to live with it.
This dude clearly has had a wife for at least 10 years.
I thought he was gay tbh lmao
That accent is because he's Brazilian but that's a 🔥 joke Schultz
He has a million wives because all the people working in the field are women.
I respect his decision to be interviewed, but I don't respect him at all.
more like 10 weeks lol
I think this guy is trying too hard to defend his field but he is failing at that.
I mean the argument doesn't follow, because a specialized journal published bullshit doesn't mean the whole field is bullshit or has no standards. There are instances of STEM journals publishing gibberish yet no one questions the standards of these fields. Hoaxes only prove that the journals' editors make questionable decisions
I don't think so. The editor is aware and has done some self examination. The editor cites doubt as a guiding principle but it was not applied in this case. He is honest by saying he doesn't have an answer at this time to improve the examination of claims. On the plus side the h oaxers have given editors an insight into the weeknesses that could be exploited.
@@nathans4305 again, you can only apply this to the quality of the journals
@@DaveMartinCanuck yeah if anything it's just a call to higher the editorial standards of humanities journals, not to scrap and dismiss humanities as a field
@@nathans4305 what is the share of journals that published hoaxes comparatively to the whole humanities journal publishing field?
Stossel always comes with no BS.
“When a bank gets robbed they update their security system.” Great point.
I thought Roberto was better than I expected.
He aknowledge some of these dangerous trends which is amazing compared to what I would normally expect.
I heard they found his body in a ditch the day after this was aired. Lol
@@kevinodom2918 ¡Ay Dios mio! ¡No, mi Roberto! 😭😭😭
Stop giving this fucking idiot credit, you fucking idiot.
I dropped my PhD studies like a hot potato once I realized it was mostly flimflam. Genuine scholarship is rare.
This is what I’ve been thinking for a long time. Maybe I’m wrong but I feel like most grad students won’t produce any new/meaningful work. Maybe I’m wrong... I can’t say for sure because I don’t know for certain
I truly think James, Peter, and Helen are heroes for doing this project. And Sokal before them.
Yeah I think only Econs and Med are worth doing in very limited circumstances
Almost all the arts (perhaps outside of limited public policy) at a DPHIL/Phd level are useless
They didn't ask me if they could humiliate me and destroy my entire field of work. Therefore they didn't. Also good god this man can't stop blinking.
Maybe he gets dry eyes as a side effect of his medication ;)
It's a common physical reaction when you can't face what's happening to you.
The blinking is a nonverbal of course and it means he is being deceptive. He can't be trusted.
Blinking is an indication of interrupted or stopped thinking. It means his mind is bouncing from thought to thought like an ADHD hummingbird on cocaine.
He answered a lot of questions with questions. That's hardly a way to defend your position.
I'd like to see the full unedited version, but good work!
When someone decides to face Stossel in a sitdown that raises my respect for the person
Consensus does not equate to correctness. Correlation does not equate to causation. False dichotomies run amok..
Did you also notice he used the false dichotomy of "hunger is more important?"
Sounds to me like Stossel was interviewing someone who lived in a idea-bubble for far too long and started to personally question his said ideas after having sat down with someone presenting a different viewpoint in a positive and welcoming light.
Also upload the entire uncut interview please. It seems like it is cut in a way too prove your point. But maybe I'm wrong. Only way to find out: upload the whole interview.
Also, keep up the good work. The academic legitimacy of these weird kinds of studies should be scrutinized.
I agree with that, we both need the short version for the people with a short attention span / little time, but also the full interview.
They both come off as idiots. I don't think a full interview would be anything but insufferable to be honest.
I stand very strongly with you!!
@@jimdandytheboss How did stossel come off as an idiot?
Yes full interview as well please, nice interesting edit mind, not a hatchet job or anything.
At least he agreed to be interviewed
Lot of respect to the Cheif Editor for committing to this interview. I think the approach could be a bit better in this interview. One really important question was not asked: "Do you feel free to judge the submitted articles objectively?". I think this guy is just pushed into the corner - it's obvious that he doesn't agree with the stuff that's being published in his journal.
The interviewer seemed to me to look only at the current problem rather than go beyond and explore the causes.
Great point. Getting deeper is still something that could be done
I do wonder why he repeatedly stated ‘we need to question assumptions’ but at no point queried questioning the data.
"And what is the problem with that?" Seriously?
Stossel is the best way to start the morning. Thanks for the great content as usual and thanks to Mr. Refinetti for coming and doing the interview!
I respect him for giving the interview, and it has become obvious to me during the video that he does not agree with many of the conclusions of his own field, but he has to keep publishing to feed the beast that political correctness has become. He obviously values academic intentions over politics, but it seems that he has been caught up in the tide.
I do think the hoaxes were necessary to point out the hysteria in academia, but this guy isn't the one we should be blaming for the hysteria or laughing at for falling for the hoax. He just published what the other academics wanted him to publish without looking into it too much.
I’d prefer to see the full interview, myself.
If these academics and their journals were really the rigorous authoritative scholars they want everyone to believe that they are, then they would not have been so easily duped. These hoax papers were validated by them because they told them what they already believed and what they wished to be true. If that's all it takes, then they are not academics, they are activists.
They bottle shocked this industry with their version of a blind test. At a minimum they exposed these institution's complacency and laziness. The establishment needs to have its core shaken, especially in academia, being they present themselves as our foundation for so many things.
The editor is trying to justify the existence of his journal which is little more than a pay to play/publish scam!
And takes resources away from serious academic pursuits.
Bret Weinstein calls it "idea laundering."
The bat from Anastasia became a journalist. Who knew?
If I could I’d post photos of the bs power points from my women’s studies class (that I had no choice but to take)
Here's a guy who went to a feminism seminar, just to report what it was like, being as fsir minded as he could: ruclips.net/video/o2pIehGSoC0/видео.html
Maybe not news for you, but I found it very entertaining and interesting. He had to bite his tongue after a while to avoid possibly being kicked out. In the end he felt sorry for them all, as the overall effect was to fill them with fear that the world (patriarchy/men) is out to get them because they're women. I'd be curious to hear how these vids compared with your experience.
Personally I've followed my instinct to stay far away from these sort of things. If we can judge a tree by its fruits, that's an orchard I'd rather avoid, haha!
Rob Osborne I needed a humanities course and this was the only one that popped up
Robert Caswell it was an interesting video and very accurate about the curriculum
You had a choice.
Wow this guy wasn’t as crazy as I thought.
I'm pretty sure he only cares about running a successful business, he doesn't seem to believe a lot of it.
He’s pretty crazy... when you defend you’re bad practices by asking “is it worse than world hunger?”, you’re probably not stable
Crazy like a fox.
It seems like the guy being interviewed was pushing the idea of "we should question everything not just accept things as they are" WHICH IS FINE, BUTTTTT once something gets to your journal shouldn't your job be questioning validity, and into verifying the results of a study? Instead the problem is they proved these journals don't check sources, don't check studies, don't verify ANYTHING they just publish what is supported by the loudest voices. If that's the case then you should not be a academic journal. THOSE IMPLY VETTING AND VERIFYING. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!!!
Yet another recipient of American tax dollars..... my tax dollars, squandered. Absolutely shameful...
Wait, did he just deflect with, “what is silly?”
Hi John, I appreciate the work you’ve been doing exposing the tendency for corruption wherever it may be. Adding to that, in the interest of bolstering truth and transparency on this channel, I’d appreciate videos of full length interviews instead of sound bites and chopped up bits of the conversation.
Good for him for doing the interview... Too bad he had no sufficient answers.
I liked this episode because both presented thier arguments. Its very rare to hear both sides of any story and being so calm and respectful.
It is my sincere hope that this interview wakes up the interviewee. It seems he kinda got, but I'm most likely wrong.
I would like to see the whole interview, unedited?
This guy blows it very early on in this interview when he refrences that a person read the study, it was probably a study that they were interested in doing themselves, and the paper that was published achieved the results that they themselves would've expected --- *THAT, my friend, is confirmation bias!!* That's pretty much the direct opposite of *SCIENCE!!!*
And yes, kudos for this guy facing Stossel, but he has no reasonable defense.
Bingo.
Also, he later admits that people don't get hired if they have right-wing ideas. Sure, give the guy kudos for at least coming on, but the people acting like he's actually reasonable and giving kudos for that (a la "I don't agree with him but at least he's reasonable") are obviously very wrong.
My goodness. This is highly edited. I'd love to see the full interview w/o editing.
Stossell "The hoax proves your journal publishes nonsense"
Journal Editor "I have a hamster in my pocket therefore your argument is invalid"
Everyone knows all valid arguments are equal to seven. B/c golf balls don't have hair.
Seems like the hamster would be up his ass 😂
@@MegaCurtisimo True. And hairy balls don't flex much beaver cars without the blue lion' wax money. Therefore, Donald Trump is to blame for all of this somehow. It's all there for anyone to see.
Should have gone with the Chewbaca defense
Whether your on one side or the other, this guy, Refinetti has shown incredible humanity by knowingly accepting an interview that I am sure all of his colleagues highly advised against. You may fervently disagree with him, but you must give him respect for his candor and willingness to have a conversation. We must celebrate anyone who is willing to come to the table to discuss ideas
This was hilarious!
Journal editor: the sky is red
Stossel: actually, the sky is blue
Journal editor: well, yes it's blue
Lather, rinse, repeat...repeat...repeat...
The dire state of the public education system has to be the biggest scandal of our times!
Not the rise of strong men leaders, or anti democratic sentiments? Wow, the reality you create is unfathomable.
This man has a definite worldview. It reflects in his treatment of academia as an 'anything goes' experiment
good on this guy for having the nads to sit there and at least try to answer Stossel's questions.
Good job! Thank you for highlighting this. Good on this editor willing to go on camera otherwise we couldn’t see how deep the rabbit hole. What this means they have standards, any idea or proposition will do.
Can you release the full interview unedited? Would like to see it though it's really hard listening to that guy
Editors career = 🚽 .....I can hear the flush from Wisconsin.
"Let's question our assumptions, because maybe we're making assumptions that we shouldn't be making."
That is EXACTLY what your job is.
I get the feeling that this man IS actually trying to do that, and that is why he was willing to do the interview. The other 6 "journals"? Not so much.
I love how the Refinetti tries to justify the dominance of the political left as somehow a natural consequence of scholarly pursuit even though the phenomenon only arose in the last 50 or so years.
"We need to have a ten-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans because Democrats are more open-minded." (Based on the fact that they all come to the exact same conclusions as each other in all these journals?)
@@tonyaprim3047 - " '... Democrats are more open-minded.' (Based on the fact that they all come to the exact same conclusions as each other in all these journals?) "
He later admits that people don't get hired if they have right-wing ideas. The guy is very dishonest. Even if he believes some of the things he says, there's no excuse for a lot of it; at best, he's lying to himself as well as everyone else.
Kind of makes you want to question someone who says, "Studies have found..."
Hahaha, I thought homosexuality is not a choice, lol... now I see a psychologist on tape saying that other psychologists gathered and decided that it is, indeed, a perfectly fine choice... rofl 5:20
If someone(or some group) can get you to say something you KNOW is a lie then they own you lock, stock and barrel. I thnk Orwell said something similar about double-think where you hold two contradictatory ideas at once just because you were told to.
Kudos to the journal rep for agreeing to have the convo. Shows some integrity. I can see both sides. I respect the academic ideal, represented by these journals, that the point of research is to explore anything. What may seem outlandish at first may be important in context. BUT, I also understand, and agree with, the critics who say that this whole ideal seems to be contradicted by the political correctness at play, and the fact that the inquiry, and conclusions, only ever seem to go one way.
I'll at least give Roberto credit for having the balls to talk to John. He's far more willing to back up his points and be willing to accept criticism than the rest of these cowardly journals. Roberto is willing to stand up for his colleagues; the rest were not and for that, they should be ashamed.
At least the editor had the intestinal fortitude to meet with Stossel.
@6:50 The job of learning? The job of the school is to teach the student the tools of critical thinking. Not promote an agenda.
@3:00 "They did a study and got the results I wanted" That comment tells me they are flawed. The whole process of scientific study is to develop the hypothesis; and collect data without bias to your conclusion. You have to be open minded to the fact you'll prove the hypothesis wrong. Otherwise, you'll collect the data that supports your hypothesis.
Agree. I am a GenXer and during my college days, we were taught that our findings could either support or refute our hypothesis and that there was nothing wrong when the evidence proved that our hypothesis was wrong. Maybe today's generation is being taught that their hypothesis should always be supported by their findings.
@@whatevergoesforme5129 Findings? Nope, Feelings.
@Ken MacDonald NOPE. Give them the tools to think critically. That's not an agenda. The understanding of American values and what ever else they want to learn about comes after they know how to learn.
Stossel: Do you have any right leaning contributors to your journal?
Professor man: "I wouldn't say right leaning because we don't like the extreme left or right" How can you wear a suit and say something that ridiculous
Part of me respects him for showing up. Another part of me thinks this was a stupid move. And both parts can tell he knows he has been made a fool of and has no choice but to be disingenuous.
Way to go Mr. Stossel. I love your you tube clips. Keep up the good work.
I would like to hear his answer when plainly asked "Why should ANYONE read your publication, give you funding, or take this field remotely seriously when you would approve unverified studies for publishing?"
It shows Stissel just looking at the guy "What the fuck is the matter with you?" is written all over his face. Too funny.
I'm waiting for this guy to tear off his face and revealed that he's actually Sacha Baron Cohen
The big problem with this particular paper is how little scrutiny it received in comparison to the idea of conversion therapy in general (i.e. if the supposed subjects were not straight males).
It would be great to see a less intensively cut version of the interview with Refinetti, or indeed the whole interview uncut. I would be very interested to hear everything someone in such a position would have to say about this scandal.
Fascinating
How is this ‘questioning traditional values’ when traditional values are completely misrepresented?
"If you don't match what most people believe, you are consider wrong."
Sure, but that's not not how science and research publications work. This is the one (most important IMO) area where beliefs and democracy don't and shouldn't belong. Because it's how we find out what is true!
It’s like if Larry Flynt decided to disguise Hustler as an academic journal.
Dude is in denial...
4:05 well I guess as long as it's not as bad as murder, all is forgiven! lol
Scary.
At 6:38 in this video Stossel talks about a National Association of Scholars study that shows Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1 at Liberal Arts colleges. Roberto Refinetti's response is that this is "very reasonable" because the "job of learning" according to Refinetti is to "question assumptions that are not traditional" and that the job of learning is to "not be Conservative." Which is idiotic to say the least. It has become traditional knowledge that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, does that make the now debunked theory that the Earth is flat now an acceptable view again because it's no longer the traditional view? No. What is seen as "traditional" varies with time, culture and knowledge.
The irony of this though is that Refinetti goes on to admit Stossel has a good point about how the left are the ones fighting for the status quo, or what are traditional views today. If Conservative views are considered the "traditional" view, why are so many Conservative students and speakers dealing with suppression, up to and even through violence?
Earth is not round. More like a beach ball being squeezed at the poles.
Kudos to the editor for not being too embarrassed to join the interview.
But this is symptomatic isn't it? Political Correctness is a requisite to getting published, in academoc journals, that speak of issues that the left thinks it can use to achieve its ends.That obviously includes climate.
'Validated at the highest level of academic grievance studies...' grievance studies...high level...lul.
Many years ago there was a speaker hired to talk at a physicians convention. I'm not sure if it was for a joke or something nefarious. The guy put a bunch of big words together that were nonsensical and got a standing ovation.
Interesting interview I would like to see the full interview
PLEASE READ...CONTAINS INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACADEMIC PUBLICATION PROCESS.
3:02 - 1) THEY MADE UP DATA that he or she wished they had but didn't. So when he says, "Wow, these people did a study that I wanted to do and 2) THEY GOT THE RESULTS THAT I THOUGHT SHOULD BE THERE, this is great!"
And therein lies the problem. 1) One of the things that I struggled with early on in my PhD program was the fact that I was involved with a paper that got published which I later found out relied on heavily fabricated data (as in, the lead researcher made up 40% of the entire dataset, which was 60% of the data used to validate the hypotheses). When I brought this matter to the attention of my PhD coordinator, she explained to me that, "I was going to have to learn what I could live with in order to get published". Put simply, this is the way the game works...people cheat. I can either come to terms with it and embrace it or I could accept that my career opportunities would be severely limited going forward. Yeah, needless to say, I don't work at Harvard now. The kicker is, the person who fabricated his data now works at a prestigious doctoral-granting university as a professor of ethics in the department of management science (he's a professor of business ethics!).
2) Most academicians in the social sciences have preconceived biases as to what "should" and "shouldn't" be found (true). Though it began as a well-intended way to validate the theory, methodology, data analysis techniques, and findings of academic research, the peer review process is now nothing more than a gate-keeping process to push popular ideas and silence dissent. As the hoax researchers demonstrated, you can advance the most ridiculous theses, using the most absurd methodology, and reviewers will welcome your submission with open arms; so long as it advances the preferred narrative. That said, you could submit research relying on decades of validated theory, using the most rigorous MTMM methodology, and the most sound statistical techniques, but if it goes against the shared beliefs of the reviewers, it will never see publication. Keep in mind, all forms of social science research have limitations, but they are never so catastrophic and irredeemable as when the results run counter to the accepted narrative.
This guy gives off the vibe of someone who is fully aware of the flaws in his field, and fully aware that to try and fix them would be to blacklist himself in the professional academic sphere.
Dang this guy was actually a respectable gentleman. I'm surprised. I hope he does what he can to improve his area of study based on what he says he believes and desires.
Abolish all social studies and humanities.
Respect for having the courage to actualy do an interview. And he actually defended his position pretty well.
If anything I'm disappointed in Stossel's criticism. The so called "experts" in the field of gender studies can't differentiate between bullshit and their own field of "science." But instead the conversation was steered towards allowing for an open platform to discuss off colour ideas.
I agree with the idea that these ideas *should* be published. My issue was never about that. My issue was that the legitimacy of these claims is based almost entirely on the fact that they are published in these journals in the first place. It's utter crap, and people are able to say "nuh uh, it's peer reviewed real science." If we have a policy of letting anything be published, then the fact that it *is* published lends it no credibility whatsoever. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I found Roberto to be honest and conciliatory than I expected. Good discussion.
He's like a crook who got caught but is following the number one rule " No Matter What Don't Give Up the Con" Double down and stick to the hustle
Mre. Refinetti represents the best kind of person. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative as long as you can sit down and talk with people that have different ideas.
Props to your guy he is actually an academic intellectual willing to debate and say they have problems
He actually sat down and didn't really blatantly evade. Reasonable guy that should be commended.
I got the impression that the editor would like to make changes to his journal, but most likely would be fired if he made it a single solitary move to that end.
I see why no one else agreed to an interview. They didn't want to look like a fool.
Full interview please!
We need more journalists/reporters like John Stossel.
Stossel is still a beast. The very definition of "Journalist".
He has no problem with someone coming through his back door.
"A hoax in a journal is not going to solve a problem." True, but it will EXPOSE the problem that needs to be solved, and recognizing a problem is the first step in solving it.
I think he misunderstands what a peer review is. His collection of peer reviewers are not supposed to be publishing based on feels. They are supposed to review and double-check the science and validity of the claims. That's literally their job so that non-factual content *doesn't* get out there. He is coming from the angle that the people *wanted* to get the paper out there when the reality is that the experiment was to see if they would catch it.
I respect this guy tremendously. He got busted, but he sat down, had a discussion and he didn’t simply make excuses.
Over 90% of these leftest papers are never even reviewed or referenced in any other work. Meaning?? No one reads them.
At least Mr. Rafinetti had the courage to come on the show and face his mistakes. I don't agree with his journal. But he has courage and integrity. He displays a high level of reason.
When he started talking about the ant breathing I thought I was having a stroke
Kudos to Mr. Refinetti for agreeing to the interview and defending what is supposed to be the peer review process for scholarly research and papers. While I cheer the hoaxers for exposing the journals and grievance studies community, Mr. Refinetti demonstrated he’s a reasonable person who is open to debate. Learning the articles were actually green-lighted by committees of grievance studies professors explains why they were approved.
Stossel out there asking questions the MSM won't.
I had a professor who said that academic papers should use purposefully obscurant language because scholarship shouldn't be available to the masses. I hated him.
Dear Lord, imagine the people who refused to talk to Stossel. What a freak show they must be. 😬
He goes, “I don’t see a problem” with that facial expression of Robert De Nero from Meet The Parents while blinking his eye at the speed of light: A body language expert will call that a lie
The “use to be that way” … how do you balance a conversation if the ratio is 10:1?
I hate that I cannot trust anything outside of what I have personally experienced.