General Julian Edelman Makes DeSean Jackson an Offer

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Heystro

Active Member
May 1, 2020
56
82
The hyprocisy is unreal. Cool jester by Julian Edelman. I used to love sports, especially the NFL to escape from political bullshit. But here we are. Doubt I watch anymore.
 

Jesus X

Herman Lerpiss
Sep 7, 2015
21,005
23,948
Do you think DeSean also cries about having to learn about the Holocaust
probably not last time I saw him he had one of those gorgeous instagram thots and a Maserati life isn't fair I think he would be genuinely sad if it affected his money most of these celebrities only care about the money when it all boil down to it. I expect some fake PR apology from his representatives.
 
Last edited:

Jesus X

Herman Lerpiss
Sep 7, 2015
21,005
23,948
The hyprocisy is unreal. Cool jester by Julian Edelman. I used to love sports, especially the NFL to escape from political bullshit. But here we are. Doubt I watch anymore.
I think you meant gesture unless you really meant jester which would make it more entertaining.
 

kneeblock

Don't it always seem to go
Apr 18, 2015
10,301
19,120
That's not at all what that proved. If you let nonsense through your vetting process it proves that your vetting process is nonsense.
This is what Lindsay would like people to believe, but the reality is it's not what grievance studies was set up to do and isn't what it proved.

Unlike other famous hoaxes which sought to make points about scientific validity or misrepresentation of data, this particular hoax was mostly about demonstrating that in spite of bad faith authorial intent you can get a paper accepted in fields of knowledge based on subjective experience. This isn't really a shocker and it should also be noted that they were only accepted by a handful of low ranking journals out of the few dozen they submitted to. Personally I'm glad they did it because it revived some decent debates and of course was a quality troll, but my issue with Lindsay and his collaborators is their intellectual history of the excesses of post-modernism and identity based arguments isn't as tidy as they pretend. It's been done much better by so many others with takeaways much more fruitful than their gotcha conclusion.
 

kneeblock

Don't it always seem to go
Apr 18, 2015
10,301
19,120
A black football guy posted a fake Hitler quote about how the real juice were Africans and Juice were evil.Then a juice football guy was like that’s mean, let’s go to museums together and eat lunch. Then a juice internet guy made an AMAZING thread about it.
Sounds like the only thing I could care less about than this is Canadian politics.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
35,453
33,946
Unlike other famous hoaxes which sought to make points about scientific validity or misrepresentation of data, this particular hoax was mostly about demonstrating that in spite of bad faith authorial intent you can get a paper accepted in fields of knowledge based on subjective experience.
Yeah, so that's not supposed to be able to happen under any circumstances.
 

Lars Soros

Leader of The Syrup Boyz
Oct 17, 2015
21,309
30,652
This is what Lindsay would like people to believe, but the reality is it's not what grievance studies was set up to do and isn't what it proved.

Unlike other famous hoaxes which sought to make points about scientific validity or misrepresentation of data, this particular hoax was mostly about demonstrating that in spite of bad faith authorial intent you can get a paper accepted in fields of knowledge based on subjective experience. This isn't really a shocker and it should also be noted that they were only accepted by a handful of low ranking journals out of the few dozen they submitted to. Personally I'm glad they did it because it revived some decent debates and of course was a quality troll, but my issue with Lindsay and his collaborators is their intellectual history of the excesses of post-modernism and identity based arguments isn't as tidy as they pretend. It's been done much better by so many others with takeaways much more fruitful than their gotcha conclusion.
Face it

no one outside your little ivory tower bubble takes you guys seriously.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
35,453
33,946
Why don't you think so?
Well, if I hand in a study in which I claim that dog saliva cures Covid the first thing they'd do is look at who I am. Seeing as I don't work in the field it's unlikely to be published under any circumstances so that's the first kind of glaring problem that they didn't really look into who was giving them these studies. The second problem I'm going to run into is that the science behind my study isnt going to hold up to any sort of review because frankly, it hasn't been done. The only way anyone publishes my dog saliva covid cure study is I'd they love the idea of it so much that they just green light it to the world.
 

kneeblock

Don't it always seem to go
Apr 18, 2015
10,301
19,120
Well, if I hand in a study in which I claim that dog saliva cures Covid the first thing they'd do is look at who I am. Seeing as I don't work in the field it's unlikely to be published under any circumstances so that's the first kind of glaring problem that they didn't really look into who was giving them these studies. The second problem I'm going to run into is that the science behind my study isnt going to hold up to any sort of review because frankly, it hasn't been done. The only way anyone publishes my dog saliva covid cure study is I'd they love the idea of it so much that they just green light it to the world.
You wouldn't be submitting an article on medical cures to an English literature journal. This is I think part of the challenge with the grievance studies hoax. Not all scholarship is about practical application to the world. Most theoretical physics isn't. A lot of exotic economic theory isn't. Much of critical theory or philosophy isn't. The aim of that type of scholarship is usually that we can think through some phenomena so that we can understand our place in the world a bit better or complicate common assumptions.

Rather than pretending at objectivity, there are whole fields of study that center their identity or position to build scholarship for the aforementioned purposes. There are obvious limits to this, which Lindsay and Co. did bring out to some extent, but it really depends on what types of questions you're asking. If you want to know if dog saliva cures COVID this approach wouldn't work and if a journal accepted that, it would say more about the journal than any systemic problem. Lindsay and his collaborators didn't submit papers claiming this. They submitted dumb articles on things like rape in dog parks. Now to you and I, the idea of a dog raping another dog in a dog park seems ridiculous, but I believe the paper was arguing from the standpoint of observers who had experienced sexual assault what their reaction might be to seeing a doberman clamber aboard little Mittens while they were just taking her for a walk. We can argue that this take is kind of retarded but a journal referee or editor isn't assessing the merits of the finding, just the logic of the arguments, whether the methods identified are being used properly and whether it fits into pre-existing scholarship. Add to this the fact that journal referees are unpaid free laborers who just do what they do "for the good of scholarship" and you get a lot of grad students and journeymen doing the reviews, especially in lower ranked journals.

What I thought would have been fruitful is if Lindsay had devoted more space to this economy and what it incentivizes, but instead he chose to grind an ideological axe and make a point that essentially boils down to "those dang minorities complain too much." Similar, more carefully constructed, studies have spoken more about the way the industry of academia is organized and how the ideologies that prosper on the page are a reflection of material considerations. Even the triumph of what we today call identity politics in scholarship is a reflection of lip service to certain forces that are neither radical nor very interesting, but mostly pretty neoliberal.

Grievance studies didn't do much to establish that because it went for low hanging fruit geared toward a popular audience so they could get their own elevated standing (and hopefully a commercially successful bestseller) in the public sphere as opposed to really trying to make much of a point. They took the battle to Twitter, podcasts and a popular audience rather than debate it first alongside similar critiques in the system they wanted to change. They're clout chasers mostly, just like the people they demonize.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
35,453
33,946
You wouldn't be submitting an article on medical cures to an English literature journal. This is I think part of the challenge with the grievance studies hoax. Not all scholarship is about practical application to the world. Most theoretical physics isn't. A lot of exotic economic theory isn't. Much of critical theory or philosophy isn't. The aim of that type of scholarship is usually that we can think through some phenomena so that we can understand our place in the world a bit better or complicate common assumptions.
Okay, so you're incorrect in your statement about theoretical physics and economic theory. Not having a place currently to apply them, doesn't undermine the purpse for which their studied. In fact, the last sentence of this paragraph undermines everything that comes before it.

Rather than pretending at objectivity, there are whole fields of study that center their identity or position to build scholarship for the aforementioned purposes. There are obvious limits to this, which Lindsay and Co. did bring out to some extent, but it really depends on what types of questions you're asking. If you want to know if dog saliva cures COVID this approach wouldn't work and if a journal accepted that, it would say more about the journal than any systemic problem. Lindsay and his collaborators didn't submit papers claiming this. They submitted dumb articles on things like rape in dog parks. Now to you and I, the idea of a dog raping another dog in a dog park seems ridiculous, but I believe the paper was arguing from the standpoint of observers who had experienced sexual assault what their reaction might be to seeing a doberman clamber aboard little Mittens while they were just taking her for a walk. We can argue that this take is kind of retarded but a journal referee or editor isn't assessing the merits of the finding, just the logic of the arguments, whether the methods identified are being used properly and whether it fits into pre-existing scholarship. Add to this the fact that journal referees are unpaid free laborers who just do what they do "for the good of scholarship" and you get a lot of grad students and journeymen doing the reviews, especially in lower ranked journals.

What I thought would have been fruitful is if Lindsay had devoted more space to this economy and what it incentivizes, but instead he chose to grind an ideological axe and make a point that essentially boils down to "those dang minorities complain too much." Similar, more carefully constructed, studies have spoken more about the way the industry of academia is organized and how the ideologies that prosper on the page are a reflection of material considerations. Even the triumph of what we today call identity politics in scholarship is a reflection of lip service to certain forces that are neither radical nor very interesting, but mostly pretty neoliberal.

Grievance studies didn't do much to establish that because it went for low hanging fruit geared toward a popular audience so they could get their own elevated standing (and hopefully a commercially successful bestseller) in the public sphere as opposed to really trying to make much of a point. They took the battle to Twitter, podcasts and a popular audience rather than debate it first alongside similar critiques in the system they wanted to change. They're clout chasers mostly, just like the people they demonize.
Okay, so after reading through the rest of this post, it's very obvious you haven't at all familiarized yourself with what Lindsay and co. did. Personally, I see a lot of fault with the way they went about thing, but it's apparent that you're taking the word of people you know, or people in your field that he's a charlatan rather than investigating for yourself. I'd strongly recommend you take 3 hours and listen to the podcast.