[late]

"The seemingly credible evidence Rufo presents of radical influence — the mainstreaming of once-radical concepts like “structural racism,” for example — thus ends up undermining his case. When radical language goes mainstream without accompanying radical shifts in policy, that’s not actually evidence of a radical takeover. If anything, it looks like a win for the liberal mainstream, which seemingly has coopted radical ideas and redirected them toward more moderate ends.

Radicals haven’t taken over mainstream America; they’ve been taken over by it.

It follows, then, that Rufo’s “counterrevolution” is not countering much of anything. His war on American institutions is not a defensive action against an ascendant post-Marxist left; it is instead an act of aggression against the liberal ideals he occasionally claims to be defending.

What he’s describing isn’t a journalistic approach to “critical race theory.” It’s the mindset of a dishonest political attack dog, one that seemed to validate criticisms that he had played fast and loose with evidence. Rufo’s involvement with Trump and DeSantis further suggested he was less of a serious interlocutor than an operative.

Exaggerations weren’t just a problem with the book’s big-picture premise. The more I fact-checked what he said, the clearer the pattern of exaggeration and factual missteps became.

“Rufo is not a skilled rhetorician. He’s good at deception,” Sachs tells me. “He is not a deep intellectual. He’s a deep fake.”

Most of his attacks are racist.

https://www.vox.com/23811277/christopher-rufo-culture-wars-ron-desantis-florida-critical-race-theory-anti-wokeness

[Rancid]

Of course, Rufo is a piece of shit. what's new?

[late]

Of course, Rufo is a piece of shit. what's new?

Watson parroting Rufo..

[wat0n]

"Rufo is a racist, therefore any plagiarizers he calls out should be given a free pass"

- @late, coping with the truth in 2024

[Rich]

So what if he is? I haven't looked into him, but Claudine Gay is a racist and almost certainly a more vile one. Claudine Gay is probably just a White hating racist, although many people within the Black identity movement do have a special hatred for Jews.

In Orthodox Marxist fantasy land Zionism is a creation of White Gentile Finance Capital. In Orthodox Marxist fantasy land, somehow Israel is supposed to be some great servant of White Gentile Imperialism. To be fair in the early days Israel did try and make itself it useful to us, by gaining control of the Suez canal. Sadly Liberal and Cuckservative western leaders, kept pushing Israel to give back the land that was strategically valuable.

But many Black supremacists are either ignorant of Orthodox Marxist dogma, or are not taken in by it.

[late]

So what if he is?

People with integrity don't lie, cheat and steal...

Which kinda leaves Republicans out. The fact that they are trying to bring Jim Crow back just makes matters worse.

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters."

[wat0n]

People with integrity don't lie, cheat and steal...

Do they plagiarize?

[late]

Do they plagiarize?

You keep assuming your conclusion.

That's idiotic.

[Rancid]

There was a good wise crack video on this plagiarism thing, and how basically, something that people generally don't care about, is now somehow "important".

Anyway, all that stuff aside. Rufo sounds like a real piece of shit.

[g eagle]

[noemon]

Busted!

[wat0n]

There was a good wise crack video on this plagiarism thing, and how basically, something that people generally don't care about, is now somehow "important".

Anyway, all that stuff aside. Rufo sounds like a real piece of shit.

He probably is, but the plagiarism stuff is important within academia. She's hardly the first president to be fired for this kind of shit.

[Rancid]

He probably is, but the plagiarism stuff is important within academia. She's hardly the first president to be fired for this kind of shit.

Actually, "light" plagiarism, isn't a big deal in academia. This is because certain things start to be considered common knowledge as time passes. For example, if I write a paper, and I say something like "Poor people are disadvantage when it comes to income mobility" and I don't cite a source. One could find a source that supports this statement, and claim I plagiarized the statement. However, certain things like this, can be argued as common knowledge and not in need of citing. Of course, there is a grey area to this, because now people have to subjectively decide, what is common knowledge, and what isn't (This is something Rufo is exploiting in bad faith). Anyway, some of the folks she plagiarized came and basically said "meh, while technically plagiarism, not really a problem". Basically for similar reasons I stated. Basically all people that write papers in academia do this. Certain things just aren't worth citing. Otherwise, you'd have a paper where 70% of the words are citations. Which would distract from that main point/topic of the paper.

In my own field, if I say "SMT doesn't work well for server style workloads" adn don't cite a source. I could be called plagiarizer because there is plenty of research on this. However, this is commonly understood so much, that I can get away without a cite. This shit happens all the time in all fields. Likewise, I don't have to cite Issac Newton if I write a paper on gravity. Unless there is a key point I want to bring out from his works. However, the purpose of that, isn't to give credit, but to draw emphasis on that key point. If you cite everything, then even simple/basic points become over emphasized. When everything is emphasized, then nothing is... which means, your paper loses it's emphasis around its main point/topic.

Citing everything is not practical, and its accepted practice to not cite absolutely everything.

In any case, I'm not against the firing, because I just don't care enough to "do my own research" and figure out the degrees of plagerism, etc. etc. It doesn't matter, because Rufo, motivated by his ulterior motives has successfully blown this up and pulled it into this culture war nonsense. Hence, common know nothing morons that eat up the culture bullshit will all of sudden know about plagiarism and academia. All of sudden, they will have morals and ethics. A bunch of knuckle dragging morons that have never written a paper, read a paper, and probably never went to college at that.

In short, Rufo, is a bad faith actor in this matter. It's not that he probably is a piece of shit, he is a piece of shit if you pay attention to his statements on social media and elsewhere. It is this bad faith behavior that is so insidious from these type of people and MAGA. They are very good at veiling their shit intentions with things that look reasonable at the surface to common people. The playbook is good, the motivations are terrible and destructive.

[late]

Actually, "light" plagiarism, isn't a big deal in academia. This is because certain things start to be considered common knowledge as time passes. For example, if I write a paper, and I say something like "Poor people are disadvantage when it comes to income mobility" and I don't cite a source. One could find a source that supports this statement, and claim I plagiarized the statement. However, certain things like this, can be argued as common knowledge and not in need of citing. Of course, there is a grey area to this, because now people have to subjectively decide, what is common knowledge, and what isn't (This is something Rufo is exploiting in bad faith). Anyway, some of the folks she plagiarized came and basically said "meh, while technically plagiarism, not really a problem". Basically for similar reasons I stated. Basically all people that write papers in academia do this. Certain things just aren't worth citing. Otherwise, you'd have a paper where 70% of the words are citations. Which would distract from that main point/topic of the paper.

In my own field, if I say "SMT doesn't work well for server style workloads" adn don't cite a source. I could be called plagiarizer because there is plenty of research on this. However, this is commonly understood so much, that I can get away without a cite. This shit happens all the time in all fields. Likewise, I don't have to cite Issac Newton if I write a paper on gravity. Unless there is a key point I want to bring out from his works. However, the purpose of that, isn't to give credit, but to draw emphasis on that key point. If you cite everything, then even simple/basic points become over emphasized. When everything is emphasized, then nothing is... which means, your paper loses it's emphasis around its main point/topic.

Citing everything is not practical, and its accepted practice to not cite absolutely everything.

In any case, I'm not against the firing, because I just don't care enough to "do my own research" and figure out the degrees of plagerism, etc. etc. It doesn't matter, because Rufo, motivated by his ulterior motives has successfully blown this up and pulled it into this culture war nonsense. Hence, common know nothing morons that eat up the culture bullshit will all of sudden know about plagiarism and academia. All of sudden, they will have morals and ethics. A bunch of knuckle dragging morons that have never written a paper, read a paper, and probably never went to college at that.

In short, Rufo, is a bad faith actor in this matter. It's not that he probably is a piece of shit, he is a piece of shit if you pay attention to his statements on social media and elsewhere. It is this bad faith behavior that is so insidious from these type of people and MAGA. They are very good at veiling their shit intentions with things that look reasonable at the surface to common people. The playbook is good, the motivations are terrible and destructive.

You don't repeat racially motivated attacks endlessly by accident.

He knows, he even knows better because we've been over it.

He doesn't care, it enables him to do it...

[Rancid]

You don't repeat racially motivated attacks endlessly by accident.

He knows, he even knows better because we've been over it.

He doesn't care, it enables him to do it...

Of course, he has an openly stated position to hate everything DEI which is really just a veil for his racism.

For the record, I think some DEI efforts/concepts are stupid too (not all of them...issue with DEI is that it's too big of an umbrella term, so judging it in one fell swoop isn't right either), but Rufo is a bad faith piece of shit. It's very clear. Being against certain DEI concepts/etc. isn't automatically racist, but this guy is.

[Tainari88]

@Rancid I never heard of Rufo.

I guess paying attention to racist dudes is not my thing eh?

Some British guy went to a town called Zinc in Arkansas. Looking for a man who was a racist. Some Grand Wizard of the KKK. He lied to the dude and said he was a reporter for BBC. He was just an amateur youtuber who is of mixed race and his thing is to look for racists and make them look dumb.

Maybe he should do the same for this Rufo man?

[Rancid]

@Rancid I never heard of Rufo.

I guess paying attention to racist dudes is not my thing eh?

Some British guy went to a town called Zinc in Arkansas. Looking for a man who was a racist. Some Grand Wizard of the KKK. He lied to the dude and said he was a reporter for BBC. He was just an amateur youtuber who is of mixed race and his thing is to look for racists and make them look dumb.

Maybe he should do the same for this Rufo man?

lol. I'll need to find time to watch this later.

[wat0n]

Actually, "light" plagiarism, isn't a big deal in academia. This is because certain things start to be considered common knowledge as time passes. For example, if I write a paper, and I say something like "Poor people are disadvantage when it comes to income mobility" and I don't cite a source. One could find a source that supports this statement, and claim I plagiarized the statement. However, certain things like this, can be argued as common knowledge and not in need of citing. Of course, there is a grey area to this, because now people have to subjectively decide, what is common knowledge, and what isn't (This is something Rufo is exploiting in bad faith). Anyway, some of the folks she plagiarized came and basically said "meh, while technically plagiarism, not really a problem". Basically for similar reasons I stated. Basically all people that write papers in academia do this. Certain things just aren't worth citing. Otherwise, you'd have a paper where 70% of the words are citations. Which would distract from that main point/topic of the paper.

In my own field, if I say "SMT doesn't work well for server style workloads" adn don't cite a source. I could be called plagiarizer because there is plenty of research on this. However, this is commonly understood so much, that I can get away without a cite. This shit happens all the time in all fields. Likewise, I don't have to cite Issac Newton if I write a paper on gravity. Unless there is a key point I want to bring out from his works. However, the purpose of that, isn't to give credit, but to draw emphasis on that key point. If you cite everything, then even simple/basic points become over emphasized. When everything is emphasized, then nothing is... which means, your paper loses it's emphasis around its main point/topic.

Citing everything is not practical, and its accepted practice to not cite absolutely everything.

It's not plagiarism to just refer to common knowledge. Nobody will cite Ronald Fisher when doing hypothesis testing, precisely because it's supposed to be common knowledge at this point.

What Gay plagiarized is not common knowledge.

In any case, I'm not against the firing, because I just don't care enough to "do my own research" and figure out the degrees of plagerism, etc. etc. It doesn't matter, because Rufo, motivated by his ulterior motives has successfully blown this up and pulled it into this culture war nonsense. Hence, common know nothing morons that eat up the culture bullshit will all of sudden know about plagiarism and academia. All of sudden, they will have morals and ethics. A bunch of knuckle dragging morons that have never written a paper, read a paper, and probably never went to college at that.

In short, Rufo, is a bad faith actor in this matter. It's not that he probably is a piece of shit, he is a piece of shit if you pay attention to his statements on social media and elsewhere. It is this bad faith behavior that is so insidious from these type of people and MAGA. They are very good at veiling their shit intentions with things that look reasonable at the surface to common people. The playbook is good, the motivations are terrible and destructive.

Rufo has ulterior motives, he doesn't even deny it and indeed says so openly, but that does not mean one should just let it slide because people like @late get triggered for it.

If anything, the fact that there's people defending her just because Rufo wants to fulfill political goals actually proves the point he wants to make... That is, it plays into his hands.

Last year, Stanford's President was fired because it was shown his old lab had faked papers. He didn't even know about those, but he did participate as the first author since he's the head of the lab. This was also reported by the media (e.g. the NY Times) but it was wholly uncontroversial.

There are also academics who have taken on the mission to find these instances of research misconduct (plagiarism, fabricating data, etc) or even just find studies that, for whatever reason (not necessarily misconduct) don't replicate. Should they somehow stay away from whoever someone like Rufo calls out because "politics"?

[late]

It's not plagiarism to just refer to common knowledge. Nobody will cite Ronald Fisher when doing hypothesis testing, precisely because it's supposed to be common knowledge at this point.

What Gay plagiarized is not common knowledge.



Rufo has ulterior motives, he doesn't even deny it and indeed says so openly, but that does not mean one should just let it slide because people like @late get triggered for it.

If anything, the fact that there's people defending her just because Rufo wants to fulfill political goals actually proves the point he wants to make... That is, it plays into his hands.

Last year, Stanford's President was fired because it was shown his old lab had faked papers. He didn't even know about those, but he did participate as the first author since he's the head of the lab. This was also reported by the media (e.g. the NY Times) but it was wholly uncontroversial.

There are also academics who have taken on the mission to find these instances of research misconduct (plagiarism, fabricating data, etc) or even just find studies that, for whatever reason (not necessarily misconduct) don't replicate. Should they somehow stay away from whoever someone like Rufo calls out because "politics"?

You started with a lie, admitted Rufo is an attack dog, and then pretend you have a leg to stand on.

You don't.

What's worse, you know it.

[Rancid]

If anything, the fact that there's people defending her just because Rufo wants to fulfill political goals actually proves the point he wants to make... That is, it plays into his hands.

Sure.

That said, politics as the engine/mechanism of enforcement of rules/laws is a dangerous road. As politics is rooted in manipulation, lies, ulterior motives, etc. That is my concern here. This is beyond Rufo. This mechanism is destructive.