Sunday, November 15, 2015

Lysenkoism Is the New Black

Trofim Lysenko was easily the worst epigeneticist of his day. Lysenko declaimed, rather than proved through scientific method, that if you cut off the tails of puppies at birth eventually dogs would be born without tails.

A hilariously stupid notion. As any breeder of Boxers could tell you.

But Lysenko had one fan and that fan made all the difference.

Joesph Stalin said, "yes, it does indeed work this way. This is good Marxist-Leninist Science."

Lysenko's incredibly ridiculous and epically wrong religious belief system, (you couldn't call it Science). Was taught as confirmed scientific fact in the Soviet Union for the next thirty years. It was in text books and everything.

You see reality had to give way to the end goal of Communism. The New Soviet Man.

Stalin did not back Lysenko out of ignorance.  Stalin was not stupid.  Force someone to say that a lie is the truth...Force them to defend the lie in public.  And they will become invested in that lie.  They will make themselves believe it.

That is the entire point and purpose of Lysenkoism.

Eventually Stalin died and the Russians suddenly smartened up and claimed the whole business had never happened in the first place.

Lysenkoism became a by-word for politically dictated science and facts. An almost laughable figure consigned to the past.

Or is he?

The author, James St. James, defines “cissexism” as “pretty much unchecked cis privilege or an otherwise shoddy awareness of the social monopoly on binary gender.” The first one on his no-no list?

 “Believing That XX and XY Actually Mean Something.”

 Yep. St. James explains that although the pairs can offer “a general idea of future conditions a person may or may not develop that are directly due to those chromosomal pairings,” 

“XY does not indicate a biological man and XX does not indicate a biological woman.” 

Yes it fucking well does you scientifically illiterate uneducated moron!

Keep in mind that he is not just saying that chromosomes don’t determine gender identity . . . he’s taking it way further and saying that they do not have anything to do with biological sex, either. 

After all, sometimes people are born intersex or with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome — which means it’s totally ignorant to acknowledge that chromosomes do determine biological sex the vast, vast majority of the time.

“Think about it: If one instance of a mathematical proof is shown to be wrong, then the entire proof has to be tossed on account of it being deemed inaccurate,” he writes. 

No. 

One instance of non-compliance with the model is called an, "aberration." Like the fact that you have a college degree and people think that this means you have been educated, when this clearly and obviously is not the case.  

For this reason, St. James explains, there are a lot of fetuses out there who have had to deal with our society’s rampant cissexism before even being born — and if you have ever asked a pregnant woman “Is it a boy or a girl?” then you are a part of the problem. 

The thing you have to understand about Social Justice Scientists is that they are simply too mentally unstable to comprehend Aristotelian Logic.  Most have been on Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors since before puberty.  It has literally and permanently changed the chemical structure of their brains. 

What this means is that cold hard feel badz simply aren't real to them.  You can ignore all kinds of reality when you are an FDA approved drug addict.

Also these scientists invariably have liberal arts degrees. 

The true purpose of the Social Justice Science is much darker.  It is make SJWs believe in their own lies.

Of course SJWs always lie.  But now they must believe in them as well.


4 comments:

RL (#0052) said...

I googled James St. James. Where do these crazy people come from?

Cataline Sergius said...

Normally I'd say their Moms.

Or as they would call them, their Maternal Parental-like Good Feelz Units.

SciVo said...

Still wishing for that SMOD.

1. Biology is not math.
2. Ubiquity is good enough for a rule.
3. The train is fine.

SciVo said...

For an example of #2, see Authentic Happiness by Seligman. You can't find universal virtues, since there's always some obscure tribe that scorns fill-in-the-blank; but you can certainly find ubiquitous virtues, and they're worth noting.