Debating A Hoaxed Journal Editor

Debating A Hoaxed Journal Editor

What is the test? What is the idea? The test is to show that you people are ridiculous. I’m giving Roberto Refinetti a hard time here because he is the editor of the journal “Sexuality and Culture.” He agreed to talk to me after his journal was hoaxed by these people. *Laughter* Dog Park They submitted absurd papers to twenty academic journals. One paper included gibberish about rape culture in dog parks. Another was a section of Mein Kampf re-written with feminist buzzwords. Editors of 7 journals published them, proving, say the hoaxers, that: Making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently political fashionable can get them validated at the highest levels of academic grievance studies. Six of the journal editors wouldn’t talk to me, but Refinetti did. Let’s look into things and see if we should continue doing what we’re doing. Maybe you shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing because it’s gibberish, and they’ve proved it. Yeah. They didn’t prove, that’s the problem. They sent the articles to 20 different journals without asking them if you could study them, which is a basic requirement in research these days. But if they’d asked the journals They couldn’t have done the test. But you’re deceiving people without much of a reason. I think the hoaxers had good reason. Their hoax woke us up to the fact that some academic journals publish nonsense. The paper Refinetti’s journal accepted titled, “Going in through the back door”, claimed you could reduce Straight male homo hysteria and transphobia through receptive, penetrative sex toy use. Correct. Sounds like, “Oh, it’s not your everyday article.” And it’s not. This is a specialized journal that deals with sexuality and culture. Will decrease transphobia and increase feminist values. Mm hmm. Yeah. What is the problem with that? I don’t see a problem. Again, it’s a statement that could be correct. It’s nothing really absurd or unusual. But then why publish it? Oh, okay. Yeah, that’s an issue in publication. That’s the specialization. We’ve been doing that for maybe 100 years. Seems silly. Yeah. Okay. So what is silly? Ahmm. Is the respiration mechanism in an ant not silly? The way an ant breathes? Yeah, the way an ant breathes. But that’s facts. It either breathes this way or that way. This is speculation. Is it a speculation? If it were just a statement this thesis not tested, we wouldn’t do anything with it. [Printing Press] Journals say they determine the quality of research they publish by submitting it to expert reviewers. Reviewer one: This paper is rich
and exciting. I’m just overwhelmed, which is a sign of a marvelous paper. He’s an idiot! They made up data that he wished, or he or she wished he had but he didn’t. So he sees, “Wow, these people did a study that I wanted to do, and they got the results that I thought should be there. This is great.” The fields we are concerned about put social grievances ahead of objective truth. So as a simple summery we call the problem grievance studies. Because grievance studies journals are so filled with jargon phrases like these … even nonsense like the dog rape paper can pass muster. If papers were written in plain English, people might see that some of these ideas are false, or meaningless. Inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupt masculinities. Yes. What!? That’s one thing they like these days to disrupt masculinities. I don’t like that concept. That gets you published, that gets you promoted. Only in those departments that support that. Well, psychology, your department, leans that way, right? In some departments, in some areas. Doesn’t this show journals have a problem? Is there such a bias here that instead of knowledge, we’re just putting political correctness? In some areas that is the case, but again, that’s my feeling. And I wouldn’t do anything until I can actually document it. Is a hoax helping document that? No, it doesn’t. I think it kind of does. I wouldn’t have realized how silly some of these journals are without this. I think something sounds silly, you watch, look carefully and you’ll see it’s not as silly as you thought it was. The hoaxers say that in fields that end in the word ‘studies’ A culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed. Like those that make whiteness and masculinity problematic. In some places that is correct. Is that a problem? How big of a problem is it? Is it worse than hunger? Is it worse than people shooting each other? Why do we need your journal? Very good point. Sexuality and culture. Yes. Yes. You know, let’s question our assumptions because maybe we’re making
assumptions that we shouldn’t be making When homosexuality was considered a mental illness. People pushed and this, and the psychiatrists got together and said It’s a perfectly fine thing to choose and not to call it mental illness. So that’s the type of thing that, you know, a journal like sexuality and culture does is discuss. [Bells] Discussion is good, but in journals today, only some discussion is allowed. Some feminists assert, the dildo was an oppressive tool of the patriarchy. This just sounds political. Political jargon. Yes. But in itself just a sentence, right? It’s just describing some women think that using the dildo is a man idea. But that is a correct statement. But is it suggests — a bias. REFINETTI: Oh, in the wording.
STOSSEL: It’s not science, it’s just political jargon. Correct correct. There is some jargon that is used. I don’t like much. And in certain areas you just learn to live with it. In your field, the jargon just goes one way, men are the problem. Yes. And actually I do have a problem with that. You publish it. It doesn’t mean I agree with what they found out. Shouldn’t there be a little more diversity in your field? That’s a general thing that we hear in university campuses, right? That most people are on the left. A National Association of Scholars report found that in liberal arts colleges democrats outnumber republicans 10:1 I think it’s very reasonable — because what happens? What is the job of learning? Is questioning assumptions that are not traditional. So not being traditional, not being conservative, is part of the job of learning. Being more open to new ideas, which is, you know, what being a liberal is. But this is your left leaning definition. It’s conservatives that proposed changes like school vouchers, privatizing air traffic control, all kinds of new programs while liberals want more of the same. Oh, that’s an interesting point. Then the hypothesis is shut down. See, that’s how things work. You show the idea, you discuss the idea and get it. Any right leaning article is rejected. No no, and I think that’s the major – Can you point to a couple in your journal? That are right leaning? Well. Ah. I wouldn’t say right leaning because we don’t like either the extreme left or extreme right. He has published papers that challenge feminist orthodoxy, like this one saying the “me too” movement may go too far. There’s a push for the women’s side these days, which very understandably in a reaction because for many for a long time there was a push on the men’s side. A researcher who had another opinion wouldn’t get hired or published. Correct. If you don’t match what most people believe, you’re considered wrong. But isn’t that how humans handle knowledge? No, say the hoaxers, to learn all sides should be heard. If they wanted to make their point that there are people who are in the extreme left, yes, there are people in the extreme left, but a hoax in a publication in a journal is not going to solve the problem. It’s like, robbing a bank because you have to feed your children. It’s fine, but it’s not fine. The bank gets robbed, they update their security systems. What have you done? I don’t think at this point we have a real good solution. I don’t think they do. I’m grateful that Refinetti was willing to have a conversation. But I cheer the hoaxers for revealing that much of what passes for scholarship at colleges today is bunk.

100 thoughts on “Debating A Hoaxed Journal Editor

  1. And the boneheads who endorse this nonsense, in academia teach our kids…?. Little wonder there are so many snowflakes.

  2. Everyone should watch this video, it's long but it's worth it. It explains a lot about where society is today, and it was done in 1983.

  3. Try that at work… boss says is this a problem… you can say… how big of a problem is it? Is it bigger the hunger?

  4. "Men could become more feminist and less transphobic by using sex toys in their butts"
    "What is wrong with that? I dont see a problem with that"

    Its like hes just going to oppose stossel no matter what. "We published it after a known hoax, but im going to defend it anyway." This we call a useful idiot

    "In certain fields, you just learn to live with it." he sounds like sadiq khan telling london that radical islamic terror attacks are just a part of life now. Moron

  5. Just another rodeo clown …….
    this guy was sweating it he look like he didn't believe the bullshit he was spewing😐

  6. The point of the hoaxers is that you can make up ridiculous nonsense and get it published in some "fields" of study as long as you use their politically accepted attitudes and buzz words.

  7. this just proves and proves at the very least that the quality of the education in our colleges…there paper was approved because it fit a specific agenda…so getting unbiased information and let us decide on our own is no longer common…not only in college but by mainstream media.

  8. Did the editor really look him in the eye and tell him that: using dildos on straight men, by shoving them up their ass, would make them less homophobic and transphobic?

  9. "Ah, you remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness"…it likely still is but with high quality publishers that just go ahead and print any old lies it's easy to see how our culture has been misled but academics with a pro LGBT agenda .

  10. the only issue I have with this video comes at the very end, where the claim that much of what passes for scholarship at colleges today is bunk. It's a little extreme to take one of the more ridiculous fields and applying it as a blanket statement to colleges in general. I would say this specific field is bunk, but in other more serious studies such as physics, mathematics, or medicine, there is at least a bit more effort to try to remove bad studies.

  11. I think he has a point though, he makes a statement about what we accept to be true tends to follow the already accepted narrative. For example Darwin was called 'silly'/crazy and exiled for his ideas of evolution

  12. Fuck off YouTube all I got before scrolling down to the comments was “remember to keep comments respectful and to follow our Community Guidelines”. YouTube is even butt hurt by John’s truth

  13. Im not supporting them but it is a free country and they can publish what they want. No ones putting a gun to their heads to read it.

  14. his knowledge on the history of psychologists and homosexuality is wrong.

    They caved into militant, disruptive homosexual people who harassed their conferences, etc.

  15. Yes it is worse than hunger. Because hunger gets people to work. Misinformation and lieing induses fighting

  16. Did he say in reference to homosexuality that "It's a perfectly fine thing to CHOOSE and not call it 'mental illness.'"? 5:22

  17. Is it a bigger problem than people shooting each other? Yes. Emotionally healthy people don't shoot each other.

  18. Refenitti is just in this for the lulz, through out this entire interview he looks like he is going to burst out laughing, especially at the sex toy one. This guy knows it's nonsense but he wants to see how far he could take it and he probably went on this show to throw fuel on the fire xD

  19. What a tool. He tries to hide his political activism behind scientific claims that are completely ungrounded. Part of the reason why more and more people start to reject reason and science …

  20. What morons, and these people get paid to be so brilliant… Bet they could be EASILY convinced that milk from a boar is better than a cow.
    After all first it's ok to chose to be queer, next is animals and it's obvious the editors were so ready to umm go there…

  21. These people are weak. Their ideas nonsense. Their value to society meaninglessness. A skilled laborer, doctor, nurse, or hard scientist are infinitely more valuable than these bags of wind-"talkers"

  22. Homosexuality is a mental illness and all this other Insanity going on today that 99% of people if they would come out of there fog of brainwashing would not agree with still most of these people that agree with this stupid nonsense I've been brainwashed that's the problem that's what happened to our country or culture our world our faith you're killing innocent people you're sentencing them to Eternal damnation with this ridiculous Insanity we should have never let it in in the first place personal peace and affluence is what destroyed our country and idiots like this

  23. Learning should be knowledge of objective truth and being able to have healthy process of thought. Not questioning all of reality, sure you need curiosity but that's not the end goal

  24. I've always have a bad feeling about your way to cut. Do you provide the raw-videos of the interviews? Otherwise nice video

  25. This man's behavior is equivalent of a child caught red-handed doing something wrong but REFUSES to take personal responsibility.

    This is an academic. Think about that for one moment. A man of status, wealth and intelligence is behaving as a child. Fact.

    We live in times of deciet.

  26. Huge props to talking with the guy. He's not entirely wrong but not entirely right either, but he's a smart enough guy, I like him enough. I thought he was going to get clobbered before it started.

  27. Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont did this kind of thing back in 1997 but of course their hoax paper was not as crazy as these ones. It's been 22 years, and it only went and is still going downhill…

  28. Just learn to live with it? Just live with reinforcing baseless, manufactured hate? People are trying to justify hating someone because of their race and sex but we should just let it go.

  29. Their criteria is someone says, "these guys did the study I wanted to do, then got the results I thought should be there." And it gets published.
    I can see why this guy is squirming in his chair for over 9 minutes.

  30. There are smarter leftists than Refinetti, but sadly what makes them smarter is merely knowing not to debate anyone on the right

  31. I think the chief editorial guy is not guilty of anything – its jist a medium to publish. The real hoaxsters are the people who write articles and cites the ridiculus papers knowing that is an anything but truth.

  32. They conducted a double blind test if I'm not mistaking the term, that's the most accurate test possible, this fuckers desperately trying to cover his ass

  33. I credit the guy with courage for facing his humiliation, but that's about all. He has no idea how much harm he and others like him have done to academia. I don't know if he even realizes how destructive and harmful his lack of standards is. He shouldn't be in a position to review anyone elses work.

  34. the publisher agrees there is some junk jargon use, I don't like it. The problem is you mr. publisher [Refinetti] Y O U allow it to be PUBLISH as Truth. The other problem is People believe it and are flim flamed, suckered, defrauded by Refinetti publish company, use it as true fact when it a big fat lie.

  35. the publisher agrees there is some junk jargon use, I don't like it. The problem is you mr. publisher [Refinetti] Y O U allow it to be PUBLISH as Truth. The other problem is People believe it and are flim flamed, suckered, defrauded by Refinetti publish company, use it as true fact when it a big fat lie.

  36. I agree the methods of the hoaxers was unethical according to research standards but no one can deny that there was a need to expose false academic journals.

  37. This person is coming out of his skin with discomfort. I guess he had the courage to meet, so not a total waste of flesh. But his body language suggests that he knows he is full of garbage and can't stand living with himself.

  38. This was not a productive discussion really but I gotta admire that guy's bravery for even showing up. I bet he got some shit for it.

  39. If u live by common sense and can differentiate what it means to have common sense and not have it ur halfway there 🙂

    Humans will never speak with anyone other than ourselves.

    We can speculate all we want what an animal does or y they do it and the language they use but we will never truly know.

    So common sense dictates that no matter how much bullshit gets thrown in ur direction, with common sense u will survive the onslaught of OPINIONS VS. FACTS!!!

  40. Here is a man, who has been brought to the
    precipice of his psycho babble. When he is
    confronted with the lunacy of his positions,
    he is visibly jumping up and down, as if he
    is in a very hot seat. The word guilt comes
    to mind. Profusely professing, I didn't mean
    it like this, I didn't mean it like that. Here is
    a man who didn't mean to become a psycho babbler.

    Towards the end he was looking for the exit,
    so he could rush home and rape his dog!!

  41. I loved that guy, his "defence" of his "journel" was basically agreeing with Stossel in a rather humorous manner. Probably will get fired, as you can't step out of line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *