Comic: Everything wrong with STEM

I made this.

I’m tired of the lies.

Fight me with your shitty string theories and un-predictive climate models.

Best is the 9/10 MIT tries to pass off ancient science as ‘radical innovation’.
You, American taxpayer, are paying for their ego trips. Here’s some wi-fi pin art.

It’s getting like modern art.
If you disapprove of the misuse of funds, you just don’t understand it because you’re stupid, right?

Creative people know most of what they make e.g. author first drafts, sucks. It completely sucks. You have to embrace the suck. Unless you’re being state subsidized to suck.

The problem with intelligence signalling

Someone can come along and ask for your proof.

[Assuming they can’t easily google it.]

Browse tfw to intelligent and you’ll quickly realize about half the posts have a good point the idiot reading rejects out of hand. They don’t notice shades of grey. It’s like the I Fucking Love Science people who always assume the popular consensus on a topic’s labelling (there is no pseudoscience, there are only disproven former theories) are objective, timeless fact. See: how most astrology is actually astronomy, and astronomy ripped it off.

If they bothered to google it, the whole world runs on cycle.
Plot twist: we’re part of that natural world.

This applies to internet subcults.

e.g. The literal Man Card, I win argument.

21st century American men are smarter than all women ever, it’s science!

Note: an intelligent person would still notice they’re valuing themselves based on a measurement in comparison to women as the standard. A still-smarter person would note they’re measuring themselves and class is a bigger factor, as is race.

to quote a random internet comment

as you do

“Science isn’t a consensus, if it was, a person with a lot of money could hire people with degrees and get them to say anything they want.”

The problem with credentials. They become priests with a different scroll.
They talk of rent controls, what of education controls? Renting is always useful.

Yeah, like white supremacy.

Right, Tyson?


Hatefacts to trigger

I use ‘fact’ with caution. One study doesn’t make a fact, but it’s something.
“Here are about 700 hatefacts (politically incorrect but true statements) on Islam, race, gender relations, ethnocentrism, diversity, and more. These facts and other commentary were originally posted on the @LibrarianofHate twitter account. This is by far the largest listing of politically incorrect facts to date, but it’s only a small sampling of everything out there. After all this research, I don’t believe hatefacts are meaningful or convincing, since they only have value as part of a larger narrative that makes sense of the world, but perhaps someone will find this list worthwhile. If you find an error, typo, or just want to call me an evil nazi KKK member, you’re out of luck.”

e.g. “All available studies find that non-European immigrants to Britain cost about $10 billion/year. Source:

The gender section mostly attacks women but otherwise pretty fair where it covers both (aka the scientific standard).
“40% of women with more than 20 sex partners have an STD. Source:
How does that not apply to men unless they’re all lesbians?
Oh wait, I looked up the link and it’s the guy that ONLY studies women (on heterosexual sex?!) and then acts like it’s scientific. Yeah, check the links first before using, guys. Severe quality issue in places. The obvious question would be, which sluts (men) are infecting these sluts? And the sample is at least ten years old.
“All the charts and data in this report refer to sexually active women; girls and women who have never been sexually active are excluded.” ….So it doesn’t even study all women, of that age, in that country. #facepalm
But this other one doesn’t study male happiness in marriage either…
Reassessing the Link between Women’s Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Quality

Do they not care about men too? Or is it just hostility with a poor methodology?
It’s men doing the studies…. why aren’t they studying men? What kind of data are they hiding?
Like the promiscuity divorce risk….

Not one has the balls to look at it.

And they call themselves redpill.

Where’s the data, dude?

You can’t just ignore half the dataset. I’m so disappointed. I have nothing to talk about if there’s only half, on a topic predicated on the need to compare BOTH. Still, some of the immigration links are useful. They have decent methods.

The Left’s lies about sex and gender

This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

Inspired by this new form of child grooming: that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.

The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people. 

e.g.  la baguette, une baguette

Even then, this refers to masculine or feminine pronouns.

It comes from ‘genus’, a biological taxonomic classification, causing some confusion with sex.


To make medical documents more polite, gender slowly replaced sex (noun) in many parts of the West, especially America. It also prevented those idiots who write in things like ‘yes, please’.

Hence in America, you see a new definition added, which is the same as sex.

Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).

Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.

Compare with the English definition of the English word.

This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.

Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.

Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.

It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.

We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).

Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.

Let’s keep this above board, shall we? Gold standard.

Under ‘gender’:

“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.

What does it means then, technically? As a variable?
Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory:
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology:
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.

Under ‘sex’, for clarification:

“Either of the categories of male and female or the sum total of biological attributes” – the psychological definition of sex.

Let’s summarize.

Psychology: sex = male or female. Physiological. Based on anatomy and biology (chromosomes).
Psychology: gender = masculine or feminine. Psychological. Based on cognition (motivation) and behaviour.

I’m more willing to trust the psychologists on matters psychological, aren’t you?

As the APA admits despite the pressure to cave to sociology in ‘gender’, sex is strictly biological.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. These are the psychological definitions of psychological constructs.

Onto the murky unfalsifiable (unscientific) world of sociology.

Under ‘gender’. When I searched, no less than eight pages came up, most nothing to do with the word. It’s like they’re trying to hide something…
It doesn’t actually have a clean, given definition of gender, which isn’t alarming at all considering how often they use it for rentseeking. This is the closest thing it has.

The definition, if it exists, lives behind a paywall.

Under ‘sex’, this is the closest.

Apparently, in sociology, sex actually means sexuality. Kinsey, it seems, was a sociologist.

Fine, I’ll give them one more chance.


The closest I can find to either, among the fog of gender bias, gender oppression and the like, is this.
An opinion piece.

Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.

Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy:

Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.

Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences.
Wait for it…

Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.

There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.

It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.

Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….

I think the medical field would dispute. This is an irrational definition.
That’s like saying, chickens have legs, you have legs, you are a chicken.

If you stay on the SJW haven of wikipedia:

Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.

The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.

go on moss popcorn

Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.

It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.

However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.

You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.

The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:

However, examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century).

Why would they do this? Why would they lie?

The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.

All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.

Try to take solace in the echo chambers because one day their wifi will die

Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.

Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?

*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*

When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family. 

It’s been a pleasure shitposting with you.

Links: The Evolution of Politics (naturalistic fallacy abounds btw)

Cooperative politics = Left wing
Prehistory = the time we genocided a bunch of other intelligent primates and ate them.
Not a single mention of r/K or mating strategy. Think they’re starting to get scared? Of the truth. From that point of focus on, they’re doomed.

Ideas don’t scale. A tribe may survive based on genetic similarity, there is an extraneous variable causing the observed correlation. A whole continent based on the same principles would fail. See the EU for how that’s going.

“cohesive, smoothly-functioning social groups were central to the success of our species”

during times of famine, war and natural disasters for humans like the Ice Age i.e. when times were hard and lives were short (resource restriction). That speaks nothing of the ease conditions we have today and conflates the State of Nature with 21st century civilization (no, just don’t). A common good requires genes in common.

““In our view, this “gene-centric” focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution.”

Genes are measurable, we can look at them you daft prick, until you can categorically measure the other stuff, it will remain the focus and I needn’t listen to anything else those people have to say. There aren’t ‘missing pieces’, what sophistry. One of the issues with evobio, we have too many explanations. They are lying. To put my money where my mouth is;

  • “Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias);” novel mutations, genetic
  • “how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity);” how do you develop muscles? the body heals after stressors and this varies by the organ in organism, duh, basic incremental improvements over generations
  • “how organisms modify environments (niche construction);” it’s called mastery and caused by adaptation/reaction
  • “and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance).” Loaded question, inheritance isn’t limited exclusively to the coding information packets we call genes. For example, cultural information is inherited.

This person tops it off with an outright lie covering for Kumbaya politics. “Whatever the multiplicity of mechanisms underlying evolution may be [DS: classic academic code for We Want More Grant Money], it’s clear that they often result in organisms whose behavior is decidedly cooperative and generous.” How is it clear? How often? Where? The Burden of Proof rests with you. Humans are still waging war. Other primates wage war. The diametric opposite of those things.
“Boehm argues that “egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy, a curious type that is based on anti-hierarchical feelings.” That isn’t an argument, that’s an opinion, but okay.
…”egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy“, everyone

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

It isn’t as if words have agreed upon meanings, is it?
FYI voting was about societal contributions in the form of tax, expressly how those were spent. Up until very recently, if you didn’t pay tax, into the pot, you couldn’t vote. Men simply managed the estates, including taxes. Women and all discounted men got the vote when the economy allowed them to live independently (20s era wealth) and manage their own taxes.

Video: Laughable predictions about human appearance in 1000 years

It’s based on global warming.

drinking archer ok then pout bitchy done

I want a future full of Archers. Make it happen, science.

Look at the stellar journalism as Ashitha Nagesh of The Metro encourages species-wide genocide for…. practically no reason. It’s called sun block, bitch. Also: Species-wide genocide sounds like a band name.

To get this out of the way;

Milk thing – agriculture, you can train the body to tolerate.

Height – nutrition thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

Extended lifespan – medicine, especially heart medications.

Moore’s Law cannot be falsified. Computational advancements do not occur on a linear scale.

No mention of choice in any of this? Sounds like a dystopia.

I hate these nanobot examples. That isn’t how space works. Conservation of mass. Also, these advancements presume the economy won’t tank……. so…… you know……

Language constriction is true.

Wait wait wait, this video makes out race (as they see it, skin) is evolved. Which means it’s biological right? It’s real? Shh, allow the doublethink to sink in…. and no benefits of fairer tones are mentioned (like Vitamin D and bone health).

Taller thinner bodies have a lot of health problems. No. Humans are pretty much maxed out without GE at this point.

Opposite example: What if the climate returns to pre-Ice Age? Should the Brave New World only consist of short, fat white people? That seems offensive for some reason, doesn’t it?

X-men? Really? Unique abilities? Really?

I’m a tetrachromat with a funky eye colour and I find this ridiculous.

Isn’t artificial selection eugenics? Shhh…. let the doublethink wash over you….

WTF is a ‘desirable’ trait anyway?

YET – Human BioDiversity is called superior…….. rendering this entire argument futile.

Hawking is wrong. Space doesn’t like us. How many living things aside from us do you see in space? Space is hostile.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

The brain scanner? The brain scanner. You had to mention the stupidest thought experiment in all of neuroscience. 1. It is no longer a brain. Your brain aka You is dead. Materialists agree. 2. Something is always lost in scanning, think of a TV reception. 3. Do you want to be in a jar? No limbs, no movement. This would be a fate more limited than that. You first.

~ picks up brain jar and casually drops it in acid~ Woops. I guess that would never happen, huh? On a timeline of forever.

What if the brain cannot be condensed to information? What if it is ineffable? That’s right – you die. Get over it. We have machines that pass Turing Test now. We don’t consider them human. It would be like the Matrix except the machines are people too. That’s messed up. The world would eventually be over-run with drives of data, some of which get corrupted or lost or wiped for a more valuable person to have. Humans would need to exist to maintain these, and the power over the hardware would be God-like. What are the odds someone in the future plain won’t like you?

Afrocentrism, magic powers and “people of color”

Wonder where the term POC comes from?

A niche conspiracy theory from Afrocentrism.

TLDR: Black people naturally have magical powers because of their skin colour, they are the (semi-divine? superior) “People of Color” (POC is a dogwhistle) and the White Man hates them and hunts them and ruins their life etc… because he wishes to suppress their magic powers. POCs should destroy the White Man and white people and finally claim their magical abilities no I am not joking and this is taught in schools to black kids.

The alleged properties of melanin, mostly unsupported, irrelevant, or distortions of the scientific literature, are then used to justify Afrocentric assertions. One of the most common is that humans evolved as blacks in Africa, and that whites are mutants (albinos, or melanin recessives) (Welsing 1989; King 1991).

whites probably are mutants, but from Neanderthals
mutation is good though, evolutionally speaking, we’re evolved

…The high rates of murder, of imprisonment, and of drug use, as well as the high rates of unemployment among black males, are cited as evidence for the conspiracy. ….

sherlock bbc cracking up lol laughing so hard

Agency? Anyone???
Yeah we mind-control their superior brains into killing one another, ignore the MAO genetics.

…From this he develops an “equation”: CNS + EMS = HB (human being) – that is, whites are not fully human. Others, such as Richard King (1991), express the same idea by their repeated use of the term hueman instead of “human,” with the connotation that only people with color are truly human. The idea that people to be discriminated against are not fully human has always been used by racists as a justification for their actions. It is sad to see it being used by people who have suffered so much from racism themselves.

…The consequences of a wide acceptance of this notion by AfricanAmerican schoolchildren could be quite damaging. Children could reject appeals from teachers to study hard for years in order to be prepared to become scientists. Black children could respond that in order to be a scientist all they need do is “Let my melanin pick up the vibes.”…

This justifies tribal voodoo doesn’t it. Remote viewing is probably BS, unlike psionic study which can be objective with computer testing. It’s one step away from spirit guides.

She alleges that Greek oracles were black and that their melanin enabled them, as it does present-day blacks, to foresee the future.

The group with the lowest time preference? Are you kidding me?
The Greek oracles were beauties from noble families, they were pale like ghosts from being indoors all the time, it was part of their thing: “All agree, however, that young girls were selected and carefully trained so that they could transmit the high inspiration of the god without in any way marring its purity and meaning. Later it was found prudent to use married women — who were required to live apart from their husbands before and during their oracular duties. In fact, even those who consulted the Pythia were expected to practice chastity, and also to undergo purification, offer sacrifice, approach the holy precincts with reverence and trust and, when waiting in the vestibule, to remain silent, thinking pure thoughts.” ~ source Yes, that sounds like a black girl – timid, virginal and obedient. Oracles were pagan, European pagans. Fuck these people appropriating European culture.

These people just make it up as they go along. Anything good, they claim they did it. Was Einstein black too?
Afrocentrists are like the neo-Nazis who are pathetic enough to think doing nothing with their lives but complain about their skin still makes them superior – nope, you still have to try. You have to accomplish on an individual level. Afrocentrists can’t admit that until Whitey came along and built taps, sewerage systems and gave them medicine less likely to poison them, they were living like savages and a few places still do. They weren’t building compound microscopes and eyeglasses like Europe. There is photographic Victorian evidence if you go and look, various books from the time document it. A lack of intellectual curiosity doesn’t make a person evil, we can’t blame them for being backward by comparison, but it isn’t something to encourage, nor to steal the accomplishments of others, betters, for your own self-aggrandizement (including people within your race you are not related to, e.g. I like Goethe, I am not German; I like Shakespeare, I can claim him as kin, extended family).

As the theoreticians behind the Portland Baseline Essays, they can increase scientific illiteracy among those poor urban children who are most in need of better science teaching. These children do not need pseudoscience traveling under the guise of multiculturalism.

If they’re dumb enough to believe it in the age of the internet in their palm, they were never going to be a scientist.

[Ancient Egyptians weren’t black, the royal family was actually ghostly pale, and the pyramids weren’t built by slaves but paid employees, partially paid in alcohol.]

n.b. Psi can mean anything an author wants it to. It’s kinda like The Force in that sense. Psi can be studied scientifically, with Random Number Generators and various objective equipment, but it’s very rarely applied to the same scientific standards it should be. Extraordinary claims do NOT require extraordinary proof – all claims should be held to the same normal, objective standards, without raising the goalposts for hypotheses inconvenient for the Scientific Establishment. Everyone should play by the same rules and require the same burden of proof – that is science and its process. A skeptic doesn’t ignore a subject because it is unpopular, those are scientism devotees.