Recently, some pranksters published a paper in the social sciences Cogent,
an academic journal. Their monograph called The conceptual penis as a
social construction & # 8220;.
What is that?
Priape, who invented both the coal furnace and the internal combustion
engine
The catchy title fact kind of sense; if there is indeed a conceptual form
of the penis (a resident in the realm of thought, as opposed to the real
thing that resides in underwear), it would be fair to describe the
imaginary shlong as a social construction.
After that, the article is nonsense. In fact, it was by design. They
created a lot of the text using a postmodernism generator that spits out a
new academic paper sounding each time you refresh the page. (. All students
running on time, take note) Then they read it carefully on & # 8212; I had
to admire the patience of these pranksters & # 8212; and all that obscured
by chance makes sense.
It starts with typical gender studies worthy gnashing of teeth drivel:
The scientific evidence and meta-scientific androcentrique the penis is the
male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely
non-controversial part. It is true that almost all people gendered men who
were also men at birth have a genital organ, which, among other purposes,
carries the channel for the transfer of semen during copulation. This body
is generally identified as the penis, and for many "men", he plays the role
of their reproductive organ. There are, however, many examples of people
who dicks, including reproduction were injured, fail to force a mate, are
not interested in producing offspring, are medically infertile, or identify
as asexual . While these examples may be even "men", it is clearly
fallacious to identify their penises reproductive organs. In addition,
there are many women who have penises.
Imagine & # 8212; when you were a baby, the first time you took a look
under your bed, if you saw something real. When you have the birds and bees
talk, you learned what you could do with more take a leak. Or so you
thought!
As these scholars have shown that the ISN wiener & # 8217; t necessarily a
reproductive organ after all, and s some sorta not real to begin with.
Indeed, these pedants have a great send-up of how scholars use lefty
obscurantist language to do something definable rigidly and showing the
highest form of truth seem like a soft abstraction and spongy that do
nothing.
After the erection of a description of the error that the phallus is
something real, the thrust is to prove the point with the & # 8221
conceptual penis; concept. Subsequently, he slips into a discussion of
machismo bravado & # 8221;, coupling with the feminist concept (you guessed
it) "toxic hyper-masculinity." As for the angle of global warming, I'll let
the opening paragraph of Article 2.2 drive into the meat of the argument:
Nowhere else, the consequences of machismo hypermasculine Space Beach
identifying isomorphic with the conceptual penis more problematic than the
issue of climate change. Climate change is driven by nothing more than
whether some adverse theme hyper-masculinity that can be better understood
by the dominant approach to raptor ecology climate identifiable with the
conceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the very warned-about
2 ° C climate change threshold, and because of the dynamics of patriarchal
power that hold the current capitalist structures, particularly regarding
the fossil fuel industry, the connection between the hypermasculine
domination of scientific, political and economic discourse and irreparable
damage to our ecosystem is clear.
A few paragraphs of penetrating prose follow, indicating that & # 8212; & #
Yes in 8212 because your bite causes global warming. You already know that
you're personally responsible for all the world's problems; Now we can
conclude your conceptual tail is confirmed as the cause.
So what does that really mean?
They didn t really prove tallywhackers (conceptual or other) cause global
warming, of course. What they proved was that postmodernism is mental
masturbation types that George Wallace described as pointy head
intellectuals who can t park their bikes right & # 8221;. As their website
says the blurb:
Cogent Social Sciences is a multidisciplinary open access log providing
high quality review by peers in the social sciences: sociology of law,
politics, geography and sport communication studies. Connect your research
with a global audience for readership and maximum impact.
In this case, one or more university types have given the & # 8221
conceptual penis; Article review by high quality peers, and they thought he
was a pretty important contribution to human knowledge to publish it.
The fact that the references were false didn t bother them (which they've
discovered so to do some checking), but they do require some scholarly
citations before he was to press. The provocative language didn t deter.
The principle is quite ridiculous didn t get them to reject the paper
either, of course.
And what the hell is postmodernism?
This n t the first time someone mystified the school like this. As
Breitbart's writeup says:
They hoped to imitate probably the most famous hoax university in recent
years: the Sokal Hoax & # 8212; name and NYU physics professor Alan Sokal
UCL & # 8212; who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text
to accept a document entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity."
Paper Sokal & # 8212; including pages of impressive-sounding but
meaningless pseudo-academic jargon & # 8212; was written in part to
demonstrate that human sciences journals publish anything about as long as
it looks like "the appropriate leftist thought", and partly to send the
absurdity of so many social science post -modernist.
Alan Sokal is an honest liberal who believed that postmodernism was a
distraction from real problems. As he, you can t talk about pollution if
you can t agree that air exists. So he wrote a paper essentially indicating
that (if I'm correctly the argument) the constants of physics could adapt
if necessary to the pursuit of social justice. This, of course, is
nonsense, but they published anyway. Rather than learning a lesson about
the virtues of relevance (and clarity of writing), the academic community
as a piglet squealed when they PUNKED. Seriously, I & # 8217, to buy the
guy a beer.
I first encountered this kind of shit in an English class. Much of the
required reading rave included references to people like Lukacs comrade
leaders of the Frankfurt School (then I do not know who they were) and
post-modern drips like Derrida, Lacan, Foucault. The worst part was trying
to wade through a bunch of leftist jargon, mostly based in Greek, in which
I had no experience. I tried very hard, but the texts brushed every effort
to enter. In fact, my assigned readings made the & # 8221 conceptual penis;
Article seems like Hemingway. It was one of the last two classes that I had
to complete in order to graduate, so it was frustrating. Since deciphering
their floating abstractions was the last obstacle between me and a degree,
I think I & # 8217, to buy Professor Sokal two beers. I'll buy two towers
for & # 8221 conceptual penis; jokers too.
Somehow I passed and graduated, but for the life of me, I could not t
understand what the hell things asked me to read actually meant. Now I know
a little better. The whole point of postmodernism (and its bastard child,
deconstruction) is basically that nothing is real and nothing makes sense.
Thus they write in the attempt to prove these points. It is all about
saying anything using a big pile of words.
That's what happens when mediocre minds are educated well beyond their
comprehension. The & # 8221 conceptual penis; the article was a joke on
them, but the joke is really on the public to pay the big salaries of these
teachers to play games pretentious words.
Read more: 10 potential attacks that can defeat cultural Marxism in academia
No comments:
Post a Comment