Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Interview with the grievance studies hoaxers" video.

  1.  @faselfasel2864  I'm pretty sure that calling things their proper names is key to progress. You can't treat the patient effectively until you properly diagnose the malady. Definition of words is fundamental to the academic enterprise, and equivocation is the age's besetting sin.
    6
  2. The signal and processing delay of the VOIP protocols causes the apparent interruptions, disrupts the timing of our subconscious anti-collision protocols. It appears that they are talking over one another for a long time, but they actually, at least at first, are stopping as soon as they hear the other. The solution is either interview in person, or interview over land line phone. A 4 person Skype conversation always will have this problem. It is a technical problem, in other words, not a rudeness problem.
    2
  3.  @kleptomaniagta5362  Give them their own playground "universities", they'll never know the difference, obviously.
    2
  4. To demonstrate that the grievance studies fields were nonsense, these 3 scholars interviewed by JP submitted deliberate nonsense papers, which the "peer review" process of the so-called academic discipline, approved and published. There is some discussion here of the fact that those fake academic fields are full of people with no pertinent scientific knowledge or methodological training to discern what's true from what's fallacy. And those fake experts are cited by government policy makers and journalists as though they were real scholars. Think of these three as an academic "Project Veritas", with a strong infusion of satire. Of course, the pseudoacademic community is lashing out at these whistleblowers, threatening their careers and lives. As for a detailed translation of their academic critique and analysis of their targets into simpler words, if that's what you want, it would take 10 times as many words as they used. That is the point of technical terminology in any real academic field, it's compact.
    1
  5.  @ryonalionthunder  The quote was not an attempt at a tautology, it was an empirical observation.
    1
  6.  @ryonalionthunder  "it implies that believing in a god would prevent one from believing in anything. " That is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Assume that eating peanuts causes measles. It does not follow that abstaining from peanuts prevents measles.
    1