The Debate Club discussion
: ̗̀➛ Games and General Topics
>
Deep Thoughts
Lol in academia if a paper is not explicitly conservative then it is considered left wing lolAgain the video discusses the finer points. But you can find the paper still on researchgate
correlation but not causationaltho in this case maybe it is causation XD
Yeah the paper essentially posits that left wing values (essentially liberalism) causes extra stress which leads to mental illness.
MidnightButterfly wrote: "XD all academia can be then said to be politically influenced"agreed, most papers are politically influenced, you need to go to a nonpartisan source
Austin wrote: "Yeah the paper essentially posits that left wing values (essentially liberalism) causes extra stress which leads to mental illness."well, no, liberalism is limited state. thats all it essentially means.
dont misdefine liberalism >:(
rainy ୨ৎ {warner's version} wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "XD all academia can be then said to be politically influenced"agreed, most papers are politically influenced, you need to go to a nonpartisan source"
how do you know whats nonpartisan
Well the paper being peer reviewed means it has passed reviewers to mean that the data is valid
Austin wrote: "Well the paper being peer reviewed means it has passed reviewers to mean that the data is valid"what's the source? sorry i didn't click the youtube video, i don't trust internet links lol
Austin wrote: "Well the paper being peer reviewed means it has passed reviewers to mean that the data is valid"okay but i can find a peer reviewed paper saying anything
peer review means 2 scientists have found the same thing indepently
MidnightButterfly wrote: "rainy ୨ৎ {warner's version} wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "XD all academia can be then said to be politically influenced"agreed, most papers are politically influenced, you need to go to a non..."
honestly, ig you just have to look more into the source you're getting your information from and see if they've aligned themselves politically with anyone before or if they're biased
message 213:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
I haven't seen the article or video yet, but why do you think that is? Genuine question, just wondering
Well peer reviewed is the gold standard for scientific data. If you dispense with peer review then there is very little you can trust
Austin wrote: "Well peer reviewed is the gold standard for scientific data. If you dispense with peer review then there is very little you can trust"depends on who you got to review your paper 🤷♀️
message 216:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
depends on who you got to review your paper 🤷♀️"
Yeah
Well why the skepticism? Like should we apply this to everything? The climate papers for example?
message 218:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
Of course, whether the paper or whatever if from a conservative or liberal, I want to know if it's a trustworthy source. I think we should make a topic about finding credible information sources
Austin wrote: "Well why the skepticism? Like should we apply this to everything? The climate papers for example?"yeah actually, you can't just trust anything that's posted online just because it claims to be "peer reviewed". you need to go to a reliable source (not a youtube video) to fact check
the information in a paper largely depends on who's writing it/fact checking it. if a conservative person writes a paper, their peer review subjects are also probably conservative. same for liberal papers
message 220:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
yeah actually, you can't just trust anything that's posted online just because it ..."
Exactly
general rule of thumb is three reliable sources to back up your claim, and if you can't find at least three other nonpartisan, trustworthy sources to back up your argument, then it's probably not the best information
I think that only politically neutral people should be hired to write news and articles for big chanells of news. this way we would not be victims of the misinformation caused by the dispute between Republicans and democrats
Im glad to have this discussion. This is what i wanted to discuss with the can we trust experts topic
message 224:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
Mod
There was a peer reviewed paper that came out that said there was a correlation between being woke and having a mental illness and high anxiety. As well as generally more cons..."
if you look at it a certain way it somewhat makes sense, since left-wing ideology is built heavily off of human rights and right-wing ideology is built heavily off of old, developed ideas. but kind of outright saying that left-wing people are more likely to have a mental illness and right-wing people are more likely to be considered beautiful is somewhat misleading, since it says that there is a healthy ideology and an unhealthy ideology whereas it's just people's values influencing the way they live/the things they are most upset about.
message 226:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
There was a peer reviewed paper that came out that said there was a correlation between being woke and having a mental illness and high anxiety. As well as gene..."
That's what I was thinking but I didn't know how to phrase it lol, yeah
Barnette wrote: "Here's a new topic I made about finding reliable sources and fact-checking: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."thank youuuu
message 228:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
thank youuuu"
Ye :D
Mod
definitely! so many news networks twist stories so much, or only provide a heavily one-sided view of the facts. nowadays, except for a couple exceptions, it's always each network being either super pro-republican or super pro-democratic and none of the reporters thinking critically and instead just polarizing the landscape.
Well the beauty thing also makes sense if you think about it. The left were tge ones who permote alternate lifestyles like body positivity. There is also the left wing push to make female characters look masculine in video games. That and you could say conservatives look traditionally beautiful
Austin wrote: "Well the beauty thing also makes sense if you think about it. The left were tge ones who permote alternate lifestyles like body positivity. There is also the left wing push to make female character..."again, beauty is subjective and what you may consider attractive may not be to someone else
message 232:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
Yeah
message 233:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Mod
Sure, maybe they're beautiful by traditional values, but this is 2025.
Barnette wrote: "Most blonde-haired-blue-eyed people aren't attractive to me. I find masculine women attractive. Beauty is subjective. Sure, maybe they're beautiful by traditional values, but this is 2025."
yeah same, i find the whole Kardashian look kinda unsettling, but it's probably very attractive to someone else
Well sure mate preference is in the eye of the beholder but there is a lot of science to suggest that there is math behind beauty. Symmetry body proportions ect. Essentially there is mathematically the most beautiful man and woman you can make and then cultures add or subtract to that.
Austin wrote: "This was fascinating:There was a peer reviewed paper that came out that said there was a correlation between being woke and having a mental illness and high anxiety. As well as generally more cons..."
I have a point but it ay be offensive, but i think this is wrong.
Austin wrote: "Well sure mate preference is in the eye of the beholder but there is a lot of science to suggest that there is math behind beauty. Symmetry body proportions ect. Essentially there is mathematically..."Scientifically, i am extremely ugly. My nose is wide and long, my eyes are small, and my lips are small. Yet (not being vain im sorry if it sounds that way) I dont think i'm ugly, and i've been told by a lot of people my age, older, younger, male female, etc that i'm pretty. Attractiveness isn't really a science.
Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Austin wrote: "Well sure mate preference is in the eye of the beholder but there is a lot of science to suggest that there is math behind beauty. Symmetry body proportions ect. Essentially there is..."preach 👏👏 there is no science behind beauty, and your political standings have nothing to do with your physical features
Mod
yes you can mathematically make very stereotypically beautiful people but i wouldn't say that would make them actually beautiful, because genuinely people's beauty standards differ so much. so i guess you can make them "beautiful" but not actually beautiful to real people
Well like i said before conservatives tend to not modify their bodies with plaatic srugery etc but people on the left are more likely to.
MidnightButterfly wrote: "Well like i said before conservatives tend to not modify their bodies with plaatic srugery etc but people on the left are more likely to."The majority of people I have heard talking about wanting to get plastic surgery in the future (at my school) have been republicans.
Im discouting the youth who havent actually gone ahead with it lol
MidnightButterfly wrote: "Im discouting the youth who havent actually gone ahead with it lol"Still, plastic surgery, Botox, and stuff like that I almost only see from the right. The left tends to get more facial and body piercings though.
clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "Im discouting the youth who havent actually gone ahead with it lol"Still, plastic surgery, Botox, and stuff like that I almost only see from the right. The left tends to..."
Yeah like tattoos and all
Even then it goes both ways i meanEither the cinservatives are "natural" meaning that it appeals to those who like that
Or they make themselves sterotypically attarctive
Whereas the left its more about rejecting physical attratcivness norms like tattoos in various places, piercings etc
MidnightButterfly wrote: "Even then it goes both ways i meanEither the cinservatives are "natural" meaning that it appeals to those who like that
Or they make themselves sterotypically attarctive
Whereas the left its mor..."
That's quite literally what I said, saying that the right doesn't get plastic surgery is wrong because they tend to get more, tattoos and piercings tend to be more left
Okay maybe saying bodily modifications and exampling plastic surgery was wrong i was in my head picturing tats and peircings lol
i don't think where you stand politically affects whether or not you get tattoos or piercings. some people just get them because they're cool
Well peircings certainly are affected by politics. Ive seen very few conservative women with piercings. And the only christians i see with tattoos are versus tattooed on them
There was a study done where they found out that composites of people or photos of people mixed together into a nonexistent person on average are mire attractive than real people. Because the composites are more symmetrical. So the average person is better looking than average lol
but maybe its cuz conservatives tend to not do bodily modifications (im talking things like lip fillers and all, not trans modifications) and are more "natural" (except makeup lmao)