T Nation

White Privilege


We’ll have to agree to disagree lol

:laughing: :laughing:

I agree

I think there’s plenty of unrest in academia. From K-beyond. I know a few teachers that I talk to on a fairly regular basis.


Well no I am more than willing to listen to why you think its fake news.

We first have to agree on a definition for what fake news is and then see if it applies to what those individuals did.

My definition was: Misrepresenting/twisting facts to present a narrative that is untruthful. And I used the example of the Native Americans if you remember.

I assumed the ensuing conversation was tacit agreement of the definition.

Based on that definition I put forth you can not say it was fake news: You are saying its fake because the content was fabricated. It would only be fake news by that definition if they had intended to maintain the authenticity of their works. Since they did not do that it does not fit the definition.

Can we agree that based on the definition I put forth it is not fake news.

But you don’t think it is getting to point where it needs to be addressed? Like I said I am more than willing to share the information I have seen over the last couple years. Information that suggests we are on a trajectory that does not bode well for those who reap the benefits of freedom of speech, thought and academic inquiry.


We can’t actually. They both twisted the ‘facts’ and misrepresented both who they were and the authenticity of their work. I really am struggling to see how you won’t label this fake news, even based on your own definition. Agree to disagree territory is definitely among us.

I think there’s scores of things that need to be addressed with academia. Issues with teachers, curriculum, funding, waste, bullying, a lifelong societal push to force people into higher education creating generations of debt ridden people who will buckle under the next recession.

Do I think issues with journals posting shit is something that needs to be addressed? Absolutely. 100%. Do I think it needs to get a reality check and get in fuckin line? Absolutely.

I have seen more than enough, given the obvious less than you, to know an extreme logical jump will be required to reach this point. Especially given you will be forced to throw guesswork at the wall with absolutely no chance of an apples/apples comparison.


I don’t think we are in “agree to disagree” territory.

Do you not see a difference between the example with the Native Americans I gave up above and this?

They are not misrepresenting data. The data they collected is the fact that these journals published these garbage articles. Thats their data set. Not the actual content of the articles not who they pretended to be. Content which they had planned on making known was a hoax. Do you see the significance of that distinction?

You are holding onto the literal definition of fake and not really delving into it a little more critically. I can’t argue with you. You are right the data in their articles was fabricated. If that is what fake news is. I agree with you. But that is not what fake news is to me. And it does not mean what they did doesn’t substantiate at least slightly what I mentioned I thought they were trying to demonstrate. Which is the ridiculousness of those departments in the humanities and social sciences. Maybe its not the strongest argument for it. But it is interesting none the less.

Again I think you are holding these people to a much higher standard and being overly critical.

And to accuse them of being pieces of shit which you did right here:

Is a bit extreme.

But if you think its as simple as the content of the article being fabricated and therefore its fake news and everything they have to say is irrelevant then we definitely won’t agree. Unless your willing to hear the case that its not as simple as that which I think I outlined above.


Of course. But there isn’t an exclusive catch on fake news to reporters exaggerating claims for headlines. Sometimes it’s someone actually creating and publishing fake news. Like, actual fake news.

Like I said.

I think anyone that intentionally spreads fake news in a world where fake news is consistently and constantly used to create and further a divide among Americans is a PoS. You don’t have to agree.

It’s not irrelevant. It’s just tainted. And even if it wasn’t tainted, it wouldn’t be anywhere near the top of the laundry list of things academia needs to fix.

But again, let’s enjoy our time in agree to disagree territory. We’re definitely there.


Fair enough.

I think you are being overly critical and I suspect its possibly ideological disagreement.

You associate the argument they are presenting with the GOP.

As I’ve said so many times huge distinction between what they did and fake news.

The whole purpose of this was to criticize those fields I mentioned. They are the ones responsible for pushing this post-modernism ideology that is arguably the reason for the current state of division we see culturally today.

So actually they want to stop the division. So maybe you guys have more in common than you initially thought.

I appreciate the discourse. I should probably get back to being productive with things not on the interwebz.


That’s not a move to be guilty of.


Haha of course not. Although I certainly regretted the decision with a few of the guys I brought on board. I told my one buddy who loved to smoke ganja no smoking on the job. First day on the job I go to visit him. Door to the store is locked he is only taking money through the metal drawer. Open the door I get blasted by the oder of pot. His other pot head buddy is there. They had been taking bong hits in the office.

The boss didn’t care though. For 7.25 an hour it was hard to find people who could even read.


I’m holding them to the same standards they hold the journals to.


Privilege exists in many forms. If the government has any duty it’s to see that it isn’t too much of a barrier to success as well as a shortcut to unmerited success, at least with regard to the public. Jared kushner, for example, is where he is because of a privileged background and not because of merit. If he were in the private sector then so be it but he isn’t.


I would say you are not.

You don’t know what their standards are. They never mentioned that.

What they did was not a scientific study or any thing of that sort. They trolled those journals. They were pretty clear about what they were doing and why they did it. It did bring up several interesting points though.

  1. Some of these journals publish ridiculous stuff crazy off the wall stuff.
  2. These journals came out of the communities that are exerting a disproportionate amount of control on college campuses, attempting to change common parlance and slowly encroach on free speech.

Of course this stunt doesn’t really prove anything. But I found it interesting.

How can you regulate such a thing and to what extent do you regulate?

How do you think the government should go about performing this duty?


Still no policy offered here.


Good post. But you see, no one here can even offer a possible policy for enforcing meritocracy anongst millions of people of dozens and dozens of ethnicities residing in one country!


Well to be fair, I don’t think anyone here was suggesting that’s even possible.


Nope, it was a sting. Muckraking journalism used to be a much more common thing. I’m sad to see it declining in popularity.

It’s the same as those lefty radio show hosts calling Republicans pretending to be one of the Koch brothers. The Republicans said “sure you can donate to the PAC, thanks!” So if those radio hosts play that back they can honestly claim that “candidate X is willing to take money from the Koch brothers”. That’s not fake news.

Just like the O’Keefe videos. That Acorn worker was more than happy to help a pimp setup a brothel full of underage human-trafficked girls. Was O’keefe lying about being a pimp to get that story? Shit I hope so. That isn’t fake news.


One poster suggested using laws (force) to have people to live together. But… when asked if people would be punished if they left such a situation (moved), he said there is no law for that.

What he doesn’t realize is that migration causes an area to be ethnically near homogenous all over again! A certain townspeople live somewhere. Another ethnic group moves in from sheer numbers and financial strength ( gentrification) OR because of government aid. The initial townspeople leave, and the town becomes dominated by the new group. I’ve witnessed this over and over again!

So he offered a situation that can be forced, but with no penalty for leaving it! That makes no sense whatsoever. He also couldn’t see why I think he’s tyrranical for proposing that people be forced to live in undesirable situations for whatever reason they have, irrational or rational.


I would like to add not all of the articles they published were 100 % false.

A lot of them. I am not sure how many are actually legitimate. They collected real data for.

But pfury didn’t watch the podcast. Didn’t look up any of things I suggested he look up. Makes it hard to have a discussion.


Scientific journals are literally used as a news source. I’m sure they were able to reach out to everyone that read it while it was being propped up as real and let them know it was fake from the start :roll_eyes:

I’d consider this to be in bad faith for sure, but not fake news. Unless one of those donors suddenly started posting ‘confirmed donation coming in from Koch brothers’

Apologies, I must have missed that one in the thread

Because you don’t need context on whether or not they intentionally spread fake information to a scientific journal when the entire Crux of their operation was about them submitting fake information to scientific journals


I don’t see how forcing people to live in multicultural/multiethnic communities does anything to remedy this issue regarding privilege.

What was their thoughts on how that could alleviate issues surrounding privilege?


Getting it published in a peer-reviewed academic journal was the crux of the operation. Anyone can submit whatever kind of paper they want. The point of peer-review is to weed out silly ideas like dog rape or someone regurgitating Mein Kampf.