Create a new version of paste:

[–]to /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Can you tell me which rule I broke, at the very least? I read them and made sure to follow them to the best of my ability, so I am confused by my being banned without any kind of warning. Possible misclick by a moderator?

PermalinkReply
[–]from mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
There was no misclick, science denialism is against the rules here.

PermalinkDeleteReportBlock UserMark UnreadReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Can you show me where and how I engaged in “science denialism”?

I said precisely that I can understand why men would feel discriminated against, which isn’t the same as saying that the science they believe is discriminating against them is invalid.

I then pointed towards an ideological undercurrent in a text, again without saying the science was invalid.

PermalinkReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Also, I believe it would’ve been appropriate for me to receive a warning of some kind, particularly given that I am civil, polite and co-operative at all times.

PermalinkReply
[–]from mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Also, the use of intersectional feminist/Marxist language of oppression and patriarchy makes the ideological undercurrents quite clear.

Being "civil" isn't a major factor for decisions here, it's about honestly engaging with the science.

PermalinkDeleteReportBlock UserMark UnreadReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Identifying the ideological undercurrents present in a scientific work is not the same as science denialism.

PermalinkReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
“This work is biased by factors X Y and Z” isn’t the same as saying “this work is invalid and science is not real”.

Appreciating and evaluating the bias inherent to all realms of human activity is a scientific process. It isn’t fair to label it as denialism, particularly when I never denied anything. I said exactly what I meant and I did not voice one word of denial.

PermalinkReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
Can I hazard a guess that you’re very left-leaning in your own politics? Because I see no other reason for you to respond so harshly to a genuine, thoughtful and well-intentioned critique, and I cannot fathom deciding that my identifying the bias of a work is “denialism” under any other set of circumstances. Please take a moment to consider how your own ideology might have influenced your decision-making process.

PermalinkReply
[–]from mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
“This work is biased by factors X Y and Z” isn’t the same as saying “this work is invalid and science is not real”.

Inventing a bias to avoid accepting the results as stated is definitely a part of science denialism.

Can I hazard a guess that you’re very left-leaning in your own politics?

Maybe this is the error you're making - politics shouldn't play a role in looking at scientific evidence. If something contradicts your worldview then you should engage with it, rather than finding ways to dismiss it as being "biased".

And no, lifelong conservative.

Because I see no other reason for you to respond so harshly to a genuine, thoughtful and well-intentioned critique, and I cannot fathom deciding that my identifying the bias of a work is “denialism” under any other set of circumstances.

There was nothing thoughtful about a lazy dismissal of science as being biased though. And honestly, the kneejerk association of standard scientific concepts to "feminism and Marxism" sounds like some of the conspiratorial nonsense from fringe corners of reddit, not the kind of response a respectable science commentator would make.

PermalinkDeleteReportBlock UserMark UnreadReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
I never said that I didn’t accept the results as stated. I never said that I dismiss them, either.

The post was about the political controversy stirred up by the article. I commented on its validity, explaining with reference to the text how that controversy might be validated. That was my intent and it is exactly what I said.

The denial you think happened in my head wasn’t present in any of my comments. It isn’t fair to ban me for what I might have been thinking. I did not write a single word of denial. I voiced an idea that could be used in denialism, but that isn’t the same thing; any critique of a field’s methodology may lend itself to denialism.

I do not understand how my offense was severe enough to warrant an instant, permanent ban without warning. You might still be convinced that I’m a denialist, and sure I can’t falsify that, but my comment was so carefully worded and intentionally open-ended that it does not seem proportional to respond to it with the highest possible punishment.

PermalinkReply
[–]to mrsamsa[M] via /r/psychology sent 2 months ago
And there’s nothing fringe or conspiratorial about associating a discussion of patriarchy, prejudice, oppression with leftist politics. That’s where those ideas come from.

PermalinkReply
[–]from SillyConclusion0 via /r/psychology sent 1 month ago
Can this ban be reviewed by somebody impartial? I was instantly, permanently banned for criticising a scientific publication, for "denialism". The moderator failed to provide evidence of any denial being stated by me, and I did not voice a single word of denial in my comment. Criticism is not denial and is integral to science, and it's absurd that I was given the harshest possible punishment for trying to engage in a scientific dialogue. The moderator failed to argue his case in PM, then muted me.

Prohibiting criticism is corrupt and dogmatic, not scientific.