Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Howards Slow Toilet, May 26, 2015.
Got a time stamp on the owning? I can't sit through an hour hoping for something interesting.
It's pretty much continuous from beginning to end.
Yeah, I'm pretty much amazed her stupidity runs so deep that she don't have enough pride to just walk out. Instead she will sit there silent, showing she just got owned, or just say "I don't want to talk about that" when something doesn't fit her delusional beliefs.
She's all meek and timid when her brain is scrambling to come up w/ bullshit, then ups the volume when she's shoehorning in a memorized sound bite.
Hopefully her parents didn't go $100k+ into debt for an education that was obviously wasted on her.
A perfect analysis. People like her who have been raised in this echo chamber of liberal nonsense from birth to adulthood are only capable of speaking in sound bites, slogans and platitudes because that's all the further the conversation ever has to go when you grow up your entire life with no one to challenge your party approved propaganda and presumptions. Some moron comes up with an utterly laughable statistic like one in every four woman on campus will be sexually assaulted and it's taken at face value becoming gospel without the slightest bit of critical examination.
Liberal has nothing to do w/ her damage. There plenty of read and regurgitate conservatives who would get relentlessly owned the same way when stepping out of their cocoon. Stupid is not exclusive to left or right.
Here's an extremely on point article that comes to us courtesy of the NYT, of all places. It helps to explain why there is so much more fraud associated with those "scientific studies" whose focus is fixed on issues central to the tenets of political correctness:
What’s Behind Big Science Frauds?
By ADAM MARCUS and IVAN ORANSKY
MAY 22, 2015
IN December, Science published a paper claiming that people could change their minds about same-sex marriage after talking for just 20 minutes with a gay person. It seemed too good to be true — and it was.
On Wednesday, the journal distanced itself from the study, after its accuracy was disputed, and one of the authors could not back up the findings. News organizations, which had reported on the study, scrambled to correct the record.
Retractions can be good things, since even scientists often fail to acknowledge their mistakes, preferring instead to allow erroneous findings simply to wither away in the back alleys of unreproducible literature. But they don’t surprise those of us who are familiar with how science works; we’re surprised only that retractions aren’t even more frequent.
Remember that study showing vaccines were linked to autism? The time scientists claimed to have cloned human embryonic stem cells? Or that simple, easy way that was supposed to revolutionize the creation of such stem cells?
Those were all frauds published in the world’s top scientific journals — The Lancet, Science and Nature. The vaccine scare has been associated with a surge in cases of measles, some of them deadly.
Every day, on average, a scientific paper is retracted because of misconduct. Two percent of scientists admit to tinkering with their data in some kind of improper way. That number might appear small, but remember: Researchers publish some 2 million articles a year, often with taxpayer funding. In each of the last few years, the Office of Research Integrity, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, has sanctioned a dozen or so scientists for misconduct ranging from plagiarism to fabrication of results.
Not surprisingly, the problem appears to get worse as the stakes get higher. The now-discredited paper on gay marriage — by Michael J. LaCour, a graduate student at U.C.L.A., and Donald P. Green, a political scientist at Columbia, who requested a retraction after his co-author failed to produce the raw data — had all the elements: headline-grabbing research, in a top journal, on a hot topic.
But dishonest scholars aren’t the only guilty ones. Science fetishizes the published paper as the ultimate marker of individual productivity. And it doubles down on that bias with a concept called “impact factor” — how likely the studies in a given journal are to be referenced by subsequent articles. The more “downstream” citations, the theory goes, the more impactful the original article.
Except for this: Journals with higher impact factors retract papers more often than those with lower impact factors. It’s not clear why. It could be that these prominent periodicals have more, and more careful, readers, who notice mistakes. But there’s another explanation: Scientists view high-profile journals as the pinnacle of success — and they’ll cut corners, or worse, for a shot at glory.
And while those top journals like to say that their peer reviewers are the most authoritative experts around, they seem to keep missing critical flaws that readers pick up days or even hours after publication — perhaps because journals rush peer reviewers so that authors will want to publish their supposedly groundbreaking work with them.
Most science and health reporters rely on the top journals for news leads. They tend to move in a pack, descending on a small handful of news items each week. When the papers in those journals have the fillip of a hot topic, like sex or race, the frenzy is even greater. And yet many reporters fail to do the necessary due diligence before publishing their work. The drive for scoops is even greater in journalism than it is in science.
Economists like to say there are no bad people, just bad incentives. The incentives to publish today are corrupting the scientific literature and the media that covers it. Until those incentives change, we’ll all get fooled again.
Certainly examples exist on both sides of the aisle. But from my perspective, the problem is far more endemic to the political left. In places that are traditionally leftist and statist - like the faculty lounges of our colleges and universities, or the newsrooms of our major metropolitan newspapers - there's a reason why 90 to 95 percent of the staff all self identify as being members of the same political party. Dissent is unwelcome in these echo chambers, even though they pride themselves as being places where freedom of expression and intellectual curiosity is supposed to be revered and celebrated. It can make one doubt their poorly supported, preconceived notions. Suppressing differing points of view is critical to maintaining the charade. It's easy to suppress the points of view of members of the opposition party - you just level charges of racism at them anytime they open their mouths. It's far more difficult and more uncomfortable to manage when the questions are originating from within.
One might counter by suggesting that talk radio largely exists within the purview of the political right and they would certainly be correct. At the same time, however, in my experiences sampling the programs of such talk radio stalwarts as Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder and even Sean Hannity to some extent, I'm struck by the tremendous frequency with which these gentlemen will invite well educated and highly placed guests on their show to champion the liberal point of view. It happens constantly. Meanwhile, if someone like Bill Maher has a conservative on his panel, they are invariably surrounded by three dyed-in-the-wool leftists. And the very next conservative I see on Lawrence O'Donnell or Rachel Maddow's show will likely be the first.