Read on Twitter
1/ This week woke academics dedicated themselves to arguing that 2+2=5 (they're still going, see screenshots)
As that played out, a Medical Doctor had his life ripped apart and his job taken by a different group of woke academics.
These two things are connected.
A Thread/
As that played out, a Medical Doctor had his life ripped apart and his job taken by a different group of woke academics.
These two things are connected.
A Thread/
2/
What is at stake here is is objectivity.
THAT is what this is really all about: Can we express or know facts about the world without being clouded by our own personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations People missed this point, but the woke say it themselves:
What is at stake here is is objectivity.
THAT is what this is really all about: Can we express or know facts about the world without being clouded by our own personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations People missed this point, but the woke say it themselves:
3/
They think objectivity is impossible because:
1.They think our biases pervade everything, and these biases are the product of dominant ideologies having control over the thinking of society: we're programmed by society to believe things and we can't even see it's happening.
They think objectivity is impossible because:
1.They think our biases pervade everything, and these biases are the product of dominant ideologies having control over the thinking of society: we're programmed by society to believe things and we can't even see it's happening.
4/
2.
They think Knowledge is a social construction. They think powerful people create systems and institutions which that tell people certain things are "true" when really those systems are rigged to only declare ideas that benefit those in power "true."
Henry Giroux explains:
2.
They think Knowledge is a social construction. They think powerful people create systems and institutions which that tell people certain things are "true" when really those systems are rigged to only declare ideas that benefit those in power "true."
Henry Giroux explains:
5/
Put those together and you get a worldview that believes that knowledge, being a cultural product produced and used by elites in society, always encodes the values of the people that produced it. They think the ideology of the person who comes up with an idea is always...
Put those together and you get a worldview that believes that knowledge, being a cultural product produced and used by elites in society, always encodes the values of the people that produced it. They think the ideology of the person who comes up with an idea is always...
6/...built into the idea no matter what.
The woke even think math has white culture built into it because the rules, number system, and symbols picked, are selected with white culture in mind, to benefit white culture. So math has cultural and political biases and isn't neutral:
The woke even think math has white culture built into it because the rules, number system, and symbols picked, are selected with white culture in mind, to benefit white culture. So math has cultural and political biases and isn't neutral:
7/
If you have to re-read that its ok. It's tricky. Once you see how it works it's easy: The woke think everyone's hopelessly biased, and everyone's trying to bend the rules for truth production in their favor so they can get power and be in charge of what others think.
If you have to re-read that its ok. It's tricky. Once you see how it works it's easy: The woke think everyone's hopelessly biased, and everyone's trying to bend the rules for truth production in their favor so they can get power and be in charge of what others think.
8/ You see this when they talk about gender. They will say men can give birth and men can have a periods, because in their heads objectivity doesn't exist and the categories of male and female don't exist in reality, and are made up by the patriarchy to control peoples bodies:
9/ They even think that you interpret every experience you have through a lens you got from your culture, therefore you can't even think about how biased you are without using cultural ideas that are biased. So even if within a certain system that there was an objective truth...
10/ it would only by objectively true in that system, it isn't really objectively true. IE they'd say if you define 2+2=4 the way western math does then it's always true that 2+2=4...IN WESTERN MATH. It would still be relative to western culture, it wouldn't be fully objective.
11/
So what do people who think like that do? Well they do stuff like this....
So what do people who think like that do? Well they do stuff like this....
12/
This is Norman Wang, he is a doctor, and until recently was at the Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and had been director of its electrophysiology fellowship program. He had perfect credentials....
This is Norman Wang, he is a doctor, and until recently was at the Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and had been director of its electrophysiology fellowship program. He had perfect credentials....
13/
Not only did he have perfect credentials, but he published new papers regularly, and those papers were often used by his colleagues and in fact in at least two journals in 2018-2019 his papers were the papers downloaded the most. An achievement he was very happy with...
Not only did he have perfect credentials, but he published new papers regularly, and those papers were often used by his colleagues and in fact in at least two journals in 2018-2019 his papers were the papers downloaded the most. An achievement he was very happy with...
14/
Recently he published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association about diversity in cardiology.
the second paper he had published on the topic. The first one was published last year without incident (pic 1), but the one published this year got retracted (pic 2):
Recently he published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association about diversity in cardiology.
the second paper he had published on the topic. The first one was published last year without incident (pic 1), but the one published this year got retracted (pic 2):
15/ What happened?
Well in the paper Dr. Wang agreed with the Supreme Court that Affirmative Actions should end in 2028. Then he said that Cardiologists ought to be selected based on Merit not racial identity. The reaction was swift, sever, and dishonest.
Well in the paper Dr. Wang agreed with the Supreme Court that Affirmative Actions should end in 2028. Then he said that Cardiologists ought to be selected based on Merit not racial identity. The reaction was swift, sever, and dishonest.
16/ The reaction began on August 2 when
@traependergrast got extremely upset about the paper and angrily tweeted about it to her 14k followers. She complained that Dr. Wang (agreeing with a Supreme Court decision) wanted to end affirmative action. But she did something else too
@traependergrast got extremely upset about the paper and angrily tweeted about it to her 14k followers. She complained that Dr. Wang (agreeing with a Supreme Court decision) wanted to end affirmative action. But she did something else too
17/
She said Dr. Wang thinks Minority student's aren'tt fit to be Doctors. In fact Dr. Wang said people should be judged without regard to their race.
She hi-lighted Dr. Wang saying minorities are given some leniency and claimed he meant they were unfit to be doctors.
She lied
She said Dr. Wang thinks Minority student's aren'tt fit to be Doctors. In fact Dr. Wang said people should be judged without regard to their race.
She hi-lighted Dr. Wang saying minorities are given some leniency and claimed he meant they were unfit to be doctors.
She lied
18/ Its a complete and total lie based on a dishonest twisting of what Dr. Wang said.
@SharonneHayes picked up on @traependergrast tweet and decided to spread the lie around and told her colleagues to "rise up" against the paper. This is SHOCKINGLY bad behaviour. I'll explain:
@SharonneHayes picked up on @traependergrast tweet and decided to spread the lie around and told her colleagues to "rise up" against the paper. This is SHOCKINGLY bad behaviour. I'll explain:
19/
Tricia Pendergrast, who originally attacked the paper IS NOT A DOCTOR, She's a med student, and less then 2 hours after Tricia tweeted @SharonneHayes ayes asked her colleagues to go on the attack. Why is that horrible? Because the paper is 34 pages long with 108 references...
Tricia Pendergrast, who originally attacked the paper IS NOT A DOCTOR, She's a med student, and less then 2 hours after Tricia tweeted @SharonneHayes ayes asked her colleagues to go on the attack. Why is that horrible? Because the paper is 34 pages long with 108 references...
20/
So there is an 0% chance that @SharonneHayes had a chance to read that paper and check the references for accuracy before asking her colleagues to attack. There is no way she could do a proper academic job that quickly.
Dr. Hayes works at @MayoClinic she HAD to know better
So there is an 0% chance that @SharonneHayes had a chance to read that paper and check the references for accuracy before asking her colleagues to attack. There is no way she could do a proper academic job that quickly.
Dr. Hayes works at @MayoClinic she HAD to know better
21/
@DrNasrien (Nasrien Ibriham) tried to join the pile on by saying Dr. Wang had "Mansplained" to her. But she messed up because her proof is a picture THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY TWEETS FROM DR. WANG. It's just a picture of her own tweets replying to Dr. Wang and 7 others...
@DrNasrien (Nasrien Ibriham) tried to join the pile on by saying Dr. Wang had "Mansplained" to her. But she messed up because her proof is a picture THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY TWEETS FROM DR. WANG. It's just a picture of her own tweets replying to Dr. Wang and 7 others...
22/
@DrNasrien is a doctor, how does she not know how evidence works?
This is unreal. 3 people make accusations: 1 is clearly lying, 1 obviously did not read the paper, and 1 provided her own tweets as evidence of what someone else said.
Amazing.
but it gets dumber...
@DrNasrien is a doctor, how does she not know how evidence works?
This is unreal. 3 people make accusations: 1 is clearly lying, 1 obviously did not read the paper, and 1 provided her own tweets as evidence of what someone else said.
Amazing.
but it gets dumber...
23/ @DrMarthaGulati and @JarmanAF called Dr. Wang racist for not capitalizing the 'b' in 'black' in his paper.
However, neither of these women capitalized the b in black either! Stunning hypocrisy.
Also, how are you doctors and you're to dumb to realize WE CAN SEE YOUR TWEETS
However, neither of these women capitalized the b in black either! Stunning hypocrisy.
Also, how are you doctors and you're to dumb to realize WE CAN SEE YOUR TWEETS
24/ @HeartBobH (robert Harrington)Former president of the American Heart Association said the paper didn't meet their core values, and called it pure opinion and not a research paper.
That's a lie! Dr. Wang cited 108 sources, Almost all are academic sources. (pics 3 and 4)
That's a lie! Dr. Wang cited 108 sources, Almost all are academic sources. (pics 3 and 4)
25/ @RoxanaDaneshjou (Roxana Daneshjou) first claims Dr. Wang said minorities are treated with Leniency when in fact they face structural racism.
Dr. Wang never claims there's no Structural racism. "Leniency" refers to admissions standards in regard to test score requirements
Dr. Wang never claims there's no Structural racism. "Leniency" refers to admissions standards in regard to test score requirements
26/ So she conflates two seperate issues. Then she says Dr. Wang Provides no evidence for his claim Black and Hispanic students have more Leniency with respect to admissions than Asians Students
Dr. Wang footnotes two papers and includes a graph which footnotes a third paper
Dr. Wang footnotes two papers and includes a graph which footnotes a third paper
27/
Finally, the Journal of the American Health Association retracted his paper....in 3 days.
So this is not like publishing in your local newspaper. Typically a paper takes MONTHS to get published, and a re-review would take weeks if not months. This decision took in 3 days...
Finally, the Journal of the American Health Association retracted his paper....in 3 days.
So this is not like publishing in your local newspaper. Typically a paper takes MONTHS to get published, and a re-review would take weeks if not months. This decision took in 3 days...
28/
So there is about a 0% chance that this paper was reviewed again fully before retraction...this was a political decision to satisfy an online mob.
Shameful
It's a blot on Dr. Wang record. However, notice the announcement said the author doesn't agree to the retraction...
So there is about a 0% chance that this paper was reviewed again fully before retraction...this was a political decision to satisfy an online mob.
Shameful
It's a blot on Dr. Wang record. However, notice the announcement said the author doesn't agree to the retraction...
29/
Typically if a mistake in a paper is found and the paper needs to be retracted the author will agree to the retraction. This saves face and often is reputation helping.
Dr. Wang would not agree to the retraction.
Good for him. He's standing his ground. As he should.
Typically if a mistake in a paper is found and the paper needs to be retracted the author will agree to the retraction. This saves face and often is reputation helping.
Dr. Wang would not agree to the retraction.
Good for him. He's standing his ground. As he should.
30/ I want you to see what happened here: these people formed a mob to go after a guy for saying what they did not like. they had a view, and he dared to say "no, you are wrong" and he dared to provide evidence.
Honestly, I have no idea if he is correct. He might be wrong...
Honestly, I have no idea if he is correct. He might be wrong...
31/ That is not the point, the point is that he deserves better then to be mugged by an online mob of people using lies distortion and gossip to overturn the decision of the peer-reviewers who published is papers.
Oh....one more thing:
Oh....one more thing:
32/
He lost his position at the Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He had been director of its electrophysiology fellowship program.
Disgusting. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/university-of-pittsburgh-medical-center-punishes-doctor-who-questioned-affirmative-action/
He lost his position at the Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He had been director of its electrophysiology fellowship program.
Disgusting. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/university-of-pittsburgh-medical-center-punishes-doctor-who-questioned-affirmative-action/
33/
Every person who reads this should contact the Journal of the American Heart Association @JAHA_AHA and University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre @UPMCnews to let them know this is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you have a medical degree. we either hang together or we'll hang separately
Every person who reads this should contact the Journal of the American Heart Association @JAHA_AHA and University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre @UPMCnews to let them know this is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you have a medical degree. we either hang together or we'll hang separately
34/
Lastly, I haven't tagged him yet but I will now
Hey @norman_c_wang
don't you dare hang your head, cause you did nothing wrong. I have your back, and....
If I have my way...the cavalry is coming.
Lastly, I haven't tagged him yet but I will now
Hey @norman_c_wang
don't you dare hang your head, cause you did nothing wrong. I have your back, and....
If I have my way...the cavalry is coming.
35/
PS/
Be respectful. We need to say something, but let's not give anyone a reason to accuse us of bullying. Let's take care, be kind, and argue persuasively and carefully to whomever we speak to.
No threats, No vulgarity.
thanks guys :)
fin/
PS/
Be respectful. We need to say something, but let's not give anyone a reason to accuse us of bullying. Let's take care, be kind, and argue persuasively and carefully to whomever we speak to.
No threats, No vulgarity.
thanks guys :)
fin/
36/
She has no right to be upset. She attacked Dr. Wang with no proof. Besides even if her accusation were true, it would have no effect on the content of Dr. Wang's paper.
They LOVE to bully and gossip....but they do NOT like to be exposed. https://twitter.com/DrNasrien/status/1291703435759255554?s=19
She has no right to be upset. She attacked Dr. Wang with no proof. Besides even if her accusation were true, it would have no effect on the content of Dr. Wang's paper.
They LOVE to bully and gossip....but they do NOT like to be exposed. https://twitter.com/DrNasrien/status/1291703435759255554?s=19
