• 1 year - 115 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 3 Goods vs 4 No Goods
• Thread: 143 Goods vs 168 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   1e52
   

   Dorothy Roberts describes herself as a sociologist in basically every single official profile of her that appears on the internet, from book descriptions to Ted Talks to talks hosted at universities. Why does she primarily consider herself a sociologist, and why would a low-tier econ undergrad on SJMR decide otherwise?

   Why do you need me to identify journals for you? Why are you asking about "race and health" which is not the subject we're discussing? We're talking about genomics which is tangentially related to health, yes, but what is your purpose in shifting the subject? Sociology articles about race and health generally do not involve questions about genomics, in fact they almost never do. The article I posted from Shiao and the articles I discussed by Cohen, Hughey, Ray did not appear in journals related to health. So why do you keep trying to change the subject? Oh right, it's because you've acknowledged that you're unable to mention a single sociology article dealing with controversies about race as a genomic category that has received more than 379 or 98 cites. You can't name a single sociologist who has more prominently discussed this specific subject than Shiao or Roberts.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   1e52
   

   Here's Dorothy Roberts: Why Sociology Matters to Race and Biosocial Science, Annual Review of Sociology
   https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903

   Also, you haven't answered yet whether you consider Shiao to lack an undergrad's understanding of social constructionism, or why a leading sociology journal would publish his article if that were true.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   d691
   

   Show that you’ve heard the substantive answers to even one of your questions about social construction and evolved your position accordingly. Because so far you seem in/capable of that. You just repeat the same st00pud argument over and over, and only seem to know one Soc article. Have you ever had your I Q tested?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   c4e7
   

   So none. On every level, you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s why we’re getting desperate, psychotic tangents.

   Get help.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   1e52
   

   No, you're asking me to name journals that are only tangentially related to the subject we're discussing. I've linked directly to multiple sociology articles on this subject, and none of them appeared in journals related to health.

   You're explicitly describing Shiao someone who lacks an undergrad's understanding of social constructionist ideology -- seeing as you are describing me that way for having the same understanding as Shiao. Please explain why a leading sociology journal would publish his article, then.
   Right, you can't. So you'll ask me to name random unrelated journals instead.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   c4e7
   

   You’ve claimed Roberts view on biology, race, and health are normative. If you don’t know where the majority of research in this area is, and you clearly don’t, then you don’t know this subject area.

   I didn’t say a single word about Shiao.

   Journal. Now.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   1e52
   

   <blockqoute>You’ve claimed Roberts view on biology, race, and health are normative.

   They are. I listed several other sociologists, namely Cohen, Hughey, and Ray, who have the same views as Roberts.

   I didn�t say a single word about Shiao.

   Isn't that funny that you are unable to say a single word about the specific article most important to the subject we're discussing, and you instead try to shift the subject to unrelated journals that do not even discuss genomics? You've explicitly described Shiao's account of social construction as lacking an undergrad's knowledge of the subject. Yet you can't then explain why it would appear in a leading sociology journal.

   Journal. Now.

   You're again asking to shift the discussion to journals that do not deal with genomics. Yet you admit you're not discussing the actually relevant articles related to this subject -- because they completely demolish your case -- and you can't name any sociology article dealing with questions about genomics and social construction with more than 379 or 98 citations first.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   1e52
   

   https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24540549
   How can you lie with a straight face that DR's views are not normative in sociology? Some of those articles are directly repeating talking points originating from Dorothy Roberts.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   d691
   

   No, you're asking me to name journals that are only tangentially related to the subject we're discussing. I've linked directly to multiple sociology articles on this subject, and none of them appeared in journals related to health.
   You're explicitly describing Shiao someone who lacks an undergrad's understanding of social constructionist ideology -- seeing as you are describing me that way for having the same understanding as Shiao. Please explain why a leading sociology journal would publish his article, then.
   Right, you can't. So you'll ask me to name random unrelated journals instead.

   No one has described Shiao that way. Just you.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    No one has described Shiao that way. Just you.

    You've repeatedly described me as ignorant for having the exact same view as Shiao on this subject.
    I can see why you keep trying to shift to unrelated subjects seeing as you're entirely unfamiliar with the relevant scholarly work on this subject.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

11. Sociologist
    d691
    

    It’s entirely obvious to the real sociologists which poster doesn’t know the literature here, champ. Usually it’s the physicists and archaeologists who have to deal with non-academic cran/ks who think they’ve cracked a code that overthrows an entire discipline. I’ve never seen one of these in Soc before. At least you have that to hang onto!

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

12. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    I'm pretty sure you're not actually a sociologist seeing as you have no ability at all to intelligently discuss articles that actually appear in sociology journals.

    Shiao explicitly explains that the social constructionist account is premised on the notion that races as biologically real categories have been refuted. You're accusing him of ignorance, yet cannot explain why a leading sociology journal would publish his article if that were so.
    It's just weird that you would spend so much time arguing about this subject when you have shown that you have never even read a single relevant article about sociology and race/genomics, despite many of these being directly linked itt.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

13. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    It�s entirely obvious to the real sociologists which poster doesn�t know the literature here, champ.

    Exactly. I guess Shiao and even Roberts are just above your undergrad reading level and that's why you can't understand their articles.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

14. Sociologist
    401b
    

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24540549
    How can you lie with a straight face that DR's views are not normative in sociology? Some of those articles are directly repeating talking points originating from Dorothy Roberts.

    Ah, so I was spot on.

    Show me the most important journal for this type of research. Show me that research in line with her argument is the norm in it.

    If you can’t do that, then you simply aren’t equipped to be talking about the norm.

    Not following tangents.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

15. Sociologist
    8f9d
    

    No one has described Shiao that way. Just you.
    You've repeatedly described me as ignorant for having the exact same view as Shiao on this subject.
    I can see why you keep trying to shift to unrelated subjects seeing as you're entirely unfamiliar with the relevant scholarly work on this subject.

    Nope. That wasn’t me. Your imagination is getting the best of you again. I’ve described your assessment of the normative state of the field. Not your position on race as a social construct.

    And you just doubled down on the normative state of the field. Show me that you know what you’re talking about by the easiest criterion I could possibly give. Or admit you don’t.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

16. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    Which posters on page 1 and 2 are you now claiming are not you, and which are you acknowledging are your proxies? It seems obvious that I'm only talking to one person here. One page 1 I was accused of being "ignorant" for sharing Shiao's understanding on social constructionism.

    I've linked to literally dozens of articles now by prominent sociologists stating that they hold DR's views both that race lacks biological reality and that any scientific research treating race as biological real is just a foundation for white supremacist oppression. You're saying these articles are unimportant because they do not appear in some specific journal you refuse to name that you say doesn't even deal with genomics at all but rather with racial health disparities.
    "What is the most important sociology journal for research on genomics" seems like a false question, seeing as sociology as a discipline rarely discusses genomics head on.
    In recent days I've read basically every article searchable via google scholar appearing in a sociology journal concerning race and genomics.
    By contrast, you've established repeatedly that you have not read any of the articles I've linked to, while pretending you have knowledge about this field. I've linked to many articles, you lack ability to link to even one article showing that what you're saying has any accuracy. You're asking me to give you information completely unrelated to sociological discussion on genomics. This is because you have no awareness about the state of sociological discussion on race as a genomic category.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

17. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    To my knowledge, there is literally no sociology journal that is themed around the subject of genomics, so your question is both weird and meaningless in context of this conversation.
    Individual articles on the subject are extremely easy to find and read, something you seem incapable of doing. You have been unable to link to a single article showing there is any disagreement among normative sociologists with Dorothy Roberts. I linked to an entire special issue showing that the most prominent sociologists associated with the ASA hold her views exactly.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

18. Sociologist
    c38e
    

    Didn’t think so. But at least you’ve quit denying you made the claim.

    I did respond from another computer earlier. I did not argue with you about your lack of understanding of the social construction view. Someone else did.

    If you honestly believe that I am everyone else, and you’re not just doing that to wave me in to a different argument that you think you won’t lose, then please get help. That is delusional.

    There’s a very easy journal to link me to. I’ll respond if you can. If you panic and start melting down about conspiracies, Shiao, or PNC, I’m going to ignore you. Bye bye.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

19. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    I did not argue with you about your lack of understanding of the social construction view.

    My view is the same as Shiao's. How is this a "lack of understanding"? If it is a lack of understanding, why was Shiao's article published in a leading sociology journal?

    You're repeatedly asking me to name journals entirely unrelated to the subject we're discussing, which is very strange. Meanwhile, you've shown extreme ignorance about the state of sociological discussion of this issue.
    I guess you gave up on even pretending that you understand the subject matter. You just want to play weird "Name the journal" games. I guess you failed debate class in high school and logic is not your strong suit.

    I said Dorothy Roberts represents the normative position among sociologists, and objectively demonstrated this by linking to a special issue featuring many of the most prominent sociologists directly repeating her talking points. You're saying that doesn't matter and that I need to name random journals that don't even cover similar issues instead, even though you yourself have proved yourself incapable of naming journals, articles, and scholars associated with discussions about how genomics relates to controversies around accuracy of the social constructionist ideology.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

20. Sociologist
    1e52
    

    Someone who has never read Shiao and Roberts is asking me to name random journals to cover his own ignorant bluster. Hilarious.
    I don't think you've ever read a single article on this subject, as you keep asking me for additional journals to point you to despite having already showed you dozens of articles. You're the most stubborn and avowedly i/gnorant student I've ever made a good faith effort to trying to teach free of charge for your own benefit.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

Reply »