Extremism Researchers Confront The Unseen Toll Of Their Work
Sorry guys, but I don’t understand. As a society, we are fighting extremism by... censoring it, not addressing their points. Manifestos of killers are always hidden, the reasons why they killed never addressed, and we go as far as banning all authors whose work describes why the extremist became extremist (see Jordan Peterson’s book banned in NZ), thereby ensuring the population never understands the terrorist. Why?<p>“We don’t discuss with extremists” is a fairly strong assertion. It comes from an “us vs them” attitude.<p>For example, men who start being upset with women being promoted about 2,7x fewer experience and men who get upset being managed by women who grossly misrepresent their competency and drives their department to irrelevancy, start researching feminism. They regularly found that most feminist science is bollocks. Studies about rape are manipulated to show rates as high as 650x higher than more decent sources, for example by only using voluntary responses from a non-random group, by conflating rape and the presence of alcohol (so a dinner with one’s boyfriend including wine entered the category that the study reported as “rape... or sex without consent”), by conflating rape and not-woman-initiated-sex, or other techniques to overinflate victimization. Same techniques apply to wage gap (conflate gross gap with same-work gap, conflate full-time-with-overtime vs full-time, conflate the quality of work of people who are passionnate and&#x2F;or are forced to earn more, vs the quality of work of people who don’t commit to their job), I’ve seen in also in the legal and social domain. A study that concludes that women are victims has like 60% chances of not having been seriously peer-reviewed and 99% chances of having a major, fatal flaw that discredits it.<p>Ok, so can we denounce a bad scientific paper? Can we denounce repeated news articles that are repeatedly false?<p>No, because “it’s fake news”. I was once literally told (by a magistrate friend of mine), “Everyone knows women are oppressed, so if that’s not want your counter-analysis concludes, you are the one who’s wrong”. And we go as far as firing them, which didn’t happen to me because I resigned before they discovered that I had The Doubt.<p>So we have large swathes of people, who were pointing out something entirely correct, who are excluded from society “because we don’t discuss with terrorists”.<p>Some of them commit bombings. Their frequency increases, mostly as a result of the increasing rate of divorce in the 80’s, which means boys are only surrounded by women (mother, teacher, psychologist) who claim literally false science, and who publicly hate men and everything masculine.<p>How are we, as a society, going to sort that out, if there is no place where this can get discussed? Are we voluntarily going to say, “ok, bombings will repeat, because it is very important that nobody knows the motives of bombers, and nobody resolves those problems, and nobody even will resolve the false science that is outright plain false”? Is that seriously the path we are taking?<p>But more important is the pathways: Learning about the absurd mistakes of feminist science is leading most users into neighbour areas (yes, studies on racism), and is procuring a steady stream of new recruits for what you call “extreme movements”. Wouldn’t it be better to tap the leak while it’s still time?