There's no good article about the academic hoax carried out by Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. not a one.


I mean this above might be the closest we get, but it's a bit shit. I think especially this part where The Atlantic doesn't do the research on it's own, grasping at straws to defend the three:

>Others have simply cited the conservative instrumentalization of Sokal Squared as a reason to ignore it. “Academics,” Alison Phipps wrote on Twitter, “please stand by colleagues in Gender Studies/Critical Race Studies/Fat Studies & other areas targeted by this journal article hoax. This is a coordinated attack from the right.”

>That too is intellectually dishonest. For one, Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian describe themselves as left-leaning liberals. For another, it is nonsensical to insist that nonsense scholarship doesn’t matter because you don’t like the motives of the people who exposed it, or because some other forms of scholarship may also contain nonsense.

The left-leaning liberal claim became pretty dubious the second I was searching for their names about the hoax that wasn't hosted by a right-wing site. I mean, the association is pretty weird considering they also have a irrational fear of postmodernism spread throughout their works.

[Propaganda warning ahead]

The entire Aero magazine website that they post on is full of articles that carry the "postmodern is dangerious" narrative throughout, and some interesting articles including one about the regressive left, and fighting the left [???]

They also did a video: Is Intersectionality a Religion? with Turning Point USA:

The Aero Magazine website gives several shoutouts to Jordan Peterson and between that, the odd choice of topics for liberals to go on about, and seeds in libertarian, does it all connect together that's it's basically a grift. Of course! It's just a grift using ideas to sell propaganda! and nothing is more cynical than using a nuclear option to get a chance to wreck anything you don't like.

Several places picked up their own op-ed post which has an agenda, and surprisingly, it doesn't highlight the issues of capitalism or the concept of a culture-defined marketplace with these sore thumbs sticking out:

>But how was this possible? We succeeded not so much because we tricked the journals, but because our papers fit in with what they consider scholarship.

>Our paper suggesting we put privileged white and male students on the floor in chains takes only a small step forward from the existing literature we used to support it. For example, we were encouraged by the peer reviewers for that paper to follow Barbara Applebaum’s work to ensure we didn’t show too much compassion to those mistreated students, which would “recenter" the needs of the privileged.

>The peer reviewers encouraged us to frame it in terms of Megan Boler’s “pedagogy of discomfort,” which recommends that overcoming privilege requires being made uncomfortable and left to sit with that discomfort.

>Today, fringe theories. Tomorrow, buzzwords.

All of that sounds like a solid analysis on how the commodification of academia ends up lowering standards, but the conclusion isn't a better way of thinking so that people can get out of the insanity, but purely just to sow distrust and demonize any sort of activism, because people are left with propagandist ideas of how these terms are and how they're used:

>Concepts like “toxic masculinity,” “white fragility,” “cultural appropriation,” and “microaggressions” are now familiar to many of us. Most people, however, don’t realize that these concepts originated within academic journals just like those that accepted our papers. Those journals laundered them through a broken system, leading them to be picked up by journalists, activists, HR departments, and policy makers as though they’re some kind of established truth.

With the founding of society geared towards the status quo, a lot of marginalized voices don't have a role in many mass productions, and any voice we end up trying to reach out, runs the risk of being watered down within the framework of capitalism. It is with this that reactionaries are in a last ditch effort to kick the ladder out from under by sowing discord.

See, the academic hoax is a multi-layered drift. It's against liberalism, but still wants to uphold a hierarchy and superiority of sorts. It just has the energy of Sam Hyde crashing a Ted Talk, the cynical-ism of South Park ripping on Al Gore, and the grossness of Ian Miles or Boogie2988 still stanning for gamergate mindsets in 2018.

And even if you don't get what you want from radiating these energies, you at least still have created sheep to cattle.

There’s no good article about the academic hoax carried out by Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian.
Alice Clearwater