To "expose the reality of 'grievance studies,'" three scholars submitted 20 "hoax" papers to a variety of journals. Seven were accepted. The authors say their goal was to expose an "undeniable problem in academic research on important issues relevant to s

[–] PhuksMulder 0 points (+0|-0)

How does that make you feel about Christine Blasey Ford. How often must a story morph before your preconceived notions and confirmation bias decide to abandon it?

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 1 points (+1|-0)

How is that relevant here?

[–] PhuksMulder 0 points (+0|-0)

It's not. How is any of that relevant anywhere? I find it relevant personally b/c nonsense is nonsense. Some people will tout it as truth. That's inevitable.

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 1 points (+1|-0)

I don't know if it's because I've been drinking.

But...

wot?

[–] Kannibal [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

considering that there were a thousand tips that the FBI was told not to investigate . . .

And it makes sense that Donald "Grab Her by the Pussy" Trump would see someone of the alleged molester character of Kavanaugh as being perfectly suitable as being fit as a judge.

vs the days when America was great, when Republicans protected the honor of women, etc.

[–] PhuksMulder 0 points (+0|-0)

lol #4 I see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

To "expose the reality of 'grievance studies,'" three scholars submitted 20 "hoax" papers to a variety of journals. Seven were accepted. The authors say their goal was to expose an "undeniable problem in academic research on important issues relevant to s

6 comments

/s/FoodForThought