“ You're repeatedly asking me to name journals entirely unrelated to the subject we're discussing, which is very strange.”
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.
Womp. Womp.
� You're repeatedly asking me to name journals entirely unrelated to the subject we're discussing, which is very strange.�
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.
Womp. Womp.
OP is going to throw a long fit, trying to get me to go down a red he r r ing. Then they’re going to work in a “womp womp” back at me ;-)
� You're repeatedly asking me to name journals entirely unrelated to the subject we're discussing, which is very strange.�
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.
Womp. Womp.
You're the "womp womp" guy? My God, you've been trolling this forum with your low literacy for years now.
I linked to this:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24540549
exactly to show that DR's view is normative among sociologists. Are you saying those people are not normative sociologists?
You lost the argument so you just go on non-sequiturs and tangents. White liberalism is a hell of a mental disease.
I remember you did the "womp womp" stuff in the thread where you got pwned for not knowing what PCA is also.
Lol there’s a “womp womp” guy? It’s a meme. Lots of people say it.
I’ve never argued about PCA my dude. I don’t use it. Whatever thing from years ago has been living rent free in your head has nothing to do with me.
Or are you going to pretend there are multiple users on SJMR who believe it is witty and intelligent to respond with "womp womp" in order to pretend to be winning an argument when they're in over their head on a subject they've already established they've never read about?
You're asking me to name a random journal which probably doesn't exist (the most important sociology journal specifically themed on genomics??), while you cannot name that journal (because it only exists in your imagination?), and showed yourself entirely ignorant about Shiao and Roberts. You lost, womp womp.
Lol there�s a �womp womp� guy? It�s a meme. Lots of people say it.
This forum has very few active users.
You made the same demands to name random journals in that thread as well. You're saying there are two differnet people who think it's hilarious to say "womp womp" when they're losing arguments on subjects they don't understand, while making demands to list random journals?
You seem even dumber now than you did, then, though, since you were arguing entirely false things like that Dorothy Roberts is not a sociology professor.
? You're repeatedly asking me to name journals entirely unrelated to the subject we're discussing, which is very strange.?
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.
Womp. Womp.
You're the "womp womp" guy? My God, you've been trolling this forum with your low literacy for years now.
I linked to this:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24540549
exactly to show that DR's view is normative among sociologists. Are you saying those people are not normative sociologists?
You lost the argument so you just go on non-sequiturs and tangents. White liberalism is a hell of a mental disease.
That’s an article from a journal.
It’s not the major journal for the subfield in question. It’s also interdisciplinary, recently edited by non-sociologists. Citing it argues against your understanding of the normative state of the field.
It�s not the major journal for the subfield in question. It�s also interdisciplinary, recently edited by non-sociologists. Citing it argues against your understanding of the normative state of the field.
Every sentence he types reveals his ig/norance of the topic. It should be funny, but really it’s just sad. What is he trying to accomplish? Does he even know?
What are you claiming is "the subfield in question"? Genomics is not a subfield of sociology.
Goodness, you don’t know what you don’t know.
There’s one major, incredibly lucrative area where race and health are studied. And biological indicators are popular. I could not be making this any easier.
I�ve said womp womp on SJMR before. If someone arguing about PCA did too, then yes, multiple users think it�s funny.
Which isn�t surprising for a popular meme.
The person who didn't understand PCA made identical demands to name unrelated journals as well after losing arguments. But it definitely wasn't you, there must be multiple people who respond to losing arguments by saying "womp womp" and randomly demanding the person they're arguing with name unrelated journals.
What are you claiming is "the subfield in question"? Genomics is not a subfield of sociology.
Goodness, you don�t know what you don�t know.
There�s one major, incredibly lucrative area where race and health are studied. And biological indicators are popular. I could not be making this any easier.
See, again, you're shifting to race and health, and you're avoiding genomics. Just admit that you lost the argument, just like when you didn't know what PCA is.
I?ve said womp womp on SJMR before. If someone arguing about PCA did too, then yes, multiple users think it?s funny.
Which isn?t surprising for a popular meme.
The person who didn't understand PCA made identical demands to name unrelated journals as well after losing arguments. But it definitely wasn't you, there must be multiple people who respond to losing arguments by saying "womp womp" and randomly demanding the person they're arguing with name unrelated journals.
I’ve never argued about PCA, chief. If your case depends on convincing me I’m someone I’m not, then you’re in trouble.
Link me to the thread if you want.
What are you claiming is "the subfield in question"? Genomics is not a subfield of sociology.
Goodness, you don?t know what you don?t know.
There?s one major, incredibly lucrative area where race and health are studied. And biological indicators are popular. I could not be making this any easier.
See, again, you're shifting to race and health, and you're avoiding genomics. Just admit that you lost the argument, just like when you didn't know what PCA is.
Race and health is where the genomics research is published, genius!!
What are you claiming is "the subfield in question"? Genomics is not a subfield of sociology.
Goodness, you don?t know what you don?t know.
There?s one major, incredibly lucrative area where race and health are studied. And biological indicators are popular. I could not be making this any easier.
See, again, you're shifting to race and health, and you're avoiding genomics. Just admit that you lost the argument, just like when you didn't know what PCA is.
Race and health is where the genomics research is published, genius!!
And you know this, because you claimed that sociologists follow Roberts into saying biology shouldn’t be cited in the research on race and health. Facepalm emoji!
(More than one person use emojis)
See, again, you're shifting to race and health, and you're avoiding genomics. Just admit that you lost the argument, just like when you didn't know what PCA is.
There’s only one los/er ITT, champ. We’re just toying with you. I feel a tad ashamed of baiting the mentally unwell, but I’ll get past that.
I�ve never argued about PCA, chief. If your case depends on convincing me I�m someone I�m not, then you�re in trouble.
Link me to the thread if you want.
Right, there are two "Womp Womp Men" who go off-rails on tangents demanding someone they lost an argument to name random journals unrelated to the subject being discussed.
The thread was deleted because the social constructionist lost the argument so badly. Previously "Womp Womp Man" would also flood threads with spam and start asking people to name their favorite wrestlers after losing arguments. At least this time you're not acting as hysterical and are trying to show some restraint, even though you've displayed having no awareness about sociological discussions on genomics.