The Great Twitter Meltdown of 2021 - Emulator creator Byuu bullied to death by HateSpeech™ forum, Twitter takes up arms (Still No Death Report)

[Big Bang]

Self-reported statistics are a notoriously weak basis for studies. Especially weak are anonymous online studies. It is a stretch to call a lot of modern social studies science. Particularly any "X-indentity" Studies fields (women, gender, queer, etc). The same shit is leaking into actually important fields and diluting the value of the body of work.

I'm particularly concerned regarding the legal system. I've seen judges seriously cite critical theory in lawsuits. This was from an appeal where the judge overturned the earlier decision that heavily cited critical theory. Unsurprisingly, Canada's courts are heavily compromised by wokish nonsense.

Spoiler: Some Judge's Appeal Decision Said:

[24] In voir dire cross-examination Professor Robertson noted that Morellian analysis had been superseded by “critical theory,” and that while Morellian analysis was taught when she was in school, it is no longer taught. This reference to critical
theory caught the trial judge’s attention, who remarked: “I’m only smiling because I’m looking forward to a two-sentence explanation of [French philosopher Michel] Foucault,” to which she replied: “I’m happy I didn’t mention [French philosopher Jacques] Derrida.”

[25] When he qualified Professor Robertson as an expert witness, the trial judge
made the following comment:
As for Morellian analysis, I will hear Professor Robertson’s evidence on that methodology. She’s been
straightforward and frank about the place of Morellian analysis and the weaknesses – and its weaknesses in
the present scholarly view. I’ll take her evidence on that with that perspective in mind. For those legal academics,
former legal academics in the room, it sounds to me something sort of akin to someone who has studied
traditional statutory interpretation, the canons of constructions, which were of course early 20th century
attempts at so-called scientific legalism, and today in law schools critical theory has come to dominate legal
scholarship and interpretation.

[26] This comment morphed into a significant aspect of the judgment, which was
largely a deconstruction of the Morellian method using critical theory. In paras. 117-134 the trial judge drew on numerous critical theorists and their works.
Unfortunately, none of these were in the evidence nor had Professor Robertson been given any opportunity to respond to them. The trial judge said, at para. 117:
“While I genuinely respect the scholarly effort that Professor Robertson has put into this analysis, I frankly am skeptical of its usefulness.” He then began the deconstruction process with the comment, at para 118: “This tendency to read undiscernible qualities into physical detail represents the central effort, and central
fallacy, of Morellian analysis.”

[27] Given Professor Robertson’s earlier comment about Derrida, it is perhaps
ironic that the trial judge concluded, at para 134:
The Morellian analysis simply does not produce the kind of scientific, objective conclusions that its promoters
claim for it. It stresses the artist's conventions, but, as leading critical theorists’ caution, "conventions are by
essence violable and precarious, in themselves and by the fictionality that constitutes them, even before there
has been any overt transgression": Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988 p.105.
(Source)

The only statistics you can obtain regarding the thoughts of others is to self-report. In the case of attempts or other physical acts, to have an actual report filled out by another individual (hospital, police, etc.) is more verifiable, but one could balance the statistic of actual attempts documented vs attempts claimed and make your choice. You'd be an idiot to completely trust the attempts claimed statistics since troonery bases their entire lives around lies. I'd be willing to put more faith in the attempt rate claimed by adolescents versus the attempt rate claimed of those who are over eighteen. Most of those kids are just groomed into thinking something's wrong with them because they don't feel comfortable with themselves. The ones over 18 are more likely to be AGP/porn addicts. Not that a minor can't be a porn addict, but it's less likely. I agree with you nonetheless. I cannot find a report on the approximate number of actual suicides committed by transgender individuals. Canada is a joke. They still have child labor in supply chains, modern slavery. There's also that indigenous genocide... Canada was just as bad as the Democrats back in the day. I'm not surprised they're quoting critical theory. Both America and Canada's court law systems need reform. People howl about how bad police are, but police wouldn't get off scott free for blatant abuse of power if you didn't have such a corrupt court system.

 

[Syntaxion]

Is anyone else here still trying to digest the fact that by all logical metrics this whole thing should have been so much worse for us?

I'm gonna admit, as someone who watched what GG did to the Chans from afar, and what the woke movement have been doing to any sites they don't control (I mean, Torba's a mongoloid who enabled them to murder his site every step of the way, but still) I was fully expecting the normies to take notice.

But no, a bunch of shit goblins on Twitter sperged out a bunch and tried to make a thing out of it and everyone with any credibility totally ignored them.

I have hope for the future. They done cried 'wolf' so many times nobody shows up anymore.

Lolno

It could've been bad, but only if,

1, there was concrete proof he died. An obituary or something.

And 2,

If there was good proof his thread/kiwifarms caused it

For example if his name, the names of his relatives and all friends, their locations and pictures etc were doxxed.

And if you had multiple retards in the thread going "I'm going to troll him!!!"

I mean, that last one happens from time to time and people always tell them to fuck off, but if his thread had multiple of those, combined with the other points, that would be pretty bad optics for us.

But in the end, none of it was the case so it doesn't matter

 

[Lord Xenu]

The only statistics you can obtain regarding the thoughts of others is to self-report.

The reason I highlighted that anonymous studies are particularly more prone to poor results is because the 41% meme study was an anonymous online study, and there has been research to suggest this is a poor methodology.

Self-reporting is the only way to obtain this information, but you can study other types of information and draw inferences from the results. For instance, one study I am aware of was about peoples feelings and morality regarding waste reduction and recycling in homes. The study used UPC data from groceries and covert collection of the garbage/recycling from homes in the study and compared this data to self-reported data. I'm sure there are many studies that compare both reported and objective data, I think it's fair to draw some conclusions regarding self-reporting in general.

 

[Syntaxion]

It does make me wonder though. This whole fake suicide debacle did put us offline for a while.

Which other lolcows would realistically fake their suicide to get this webite taken down?

It needs to be someone with more than 3 pages after 50 years though. Kevin Gibes maybe? Would he do it? I feel like Yaniv would do it at some point, but I hope twittertards aren't so far gone they'd fight for a pedophile rapist.

 

[DumbDude42]

It does make me wonder though. This whole fake suicide debacle did put us offline for a while.

Which other lolcows would realistically fake their suicide to get this webite taken down?

It needs to be someone with more than 3 pages after 50 years though. Kevin Gibes maybe? Would he do it? I feel like Yaniv would do it at some point, but I hope twittertards aren't so far gone they'd fight for a pedophile rapist.

yaniv who recently had his dick rot and fall off? more likely to actually rope than fake it tbh

 

[Meiwaku]

Self-reported statistics are a notoriously weak basis for studies. Especially weak are anonymous online studies. It is a stretch to call a lot of modern social studies science. Particularly any "X-indentity" Studies fields (women, gender, queer, etc). The same shit is leaking into actually important fields and diluting the value of the body of work.

I'm particularly concerned regarding the legal system. I've seen judges seriously cite critical theory in lawsuits. This was from an appeal where the judge overturned the earlier decision that heavily cited critical theory. Unsurprisingly, Canada's courts are heavily compromised by wokish nonsense.

Spoiler: Some Judge's Appeal Decision Said:

[24] In voir dire cross-examination Professor Robertson noted that Morellian analysis had been superseded by “critical theory,” and that while Morellian analysis was taught when she was in school, it is no longer taught. This reference to critical
theory caught the trial judge’s attention, who remarked: “I’m only smiling because I’m looking forward to a two-sentence explanation of [French philosopher Michel] Foucault,” to which she replied: “I’m happy I didn’t mention [French philosopher Jacques] Derrida.”

[25] When he qualified Professor Robertson as an expert witness, the trial judge
made the following comment:
As for Morellian analysis, I will hear Professor Robertson’s evidence on that methodology. She’s been
straightforward and frank about the place of Morellian analysis and the weaknesses – and its weaknesses in
the present scholarly view. I’ll take her evidence on that with that perspective in mind. For those legal academics,
former legal academics in the room, it sounds to me something sort of akin to someone who has studied
traditional statutory interpretation, the canons of constructions, which were of course early 20th century
attempts at so-called scientific legalism, and today in law schools critical theory has come to dominate legal
scholarship and interpretation.

[26] This comment morphed into a significant aspect of the judgment, which was
largely a deconstruction of the Morellian method using critical theory. In paras. 117-134 the trial judge drew on numerous critical theorists and their works.
Unfortunately, none of these were in the evidence nor had Professor Robertson been given any opportunity to respond to them. The trial judge said, at para. 117:
“While I genuinely respect the scholarly effort that Professor Robertson has put into this analysis, I frankly am skeptical of its usefulness.” He then began the deconstruction process with the comment, at para 118: “This tendency to read undiscernible qualities into physical detail represents the central effort, and central
fallacy, of Morellian analysis.”

[27] Given Professor Robertson’s earlier comment about Derrida, it is perhaps
ironic that the trial judge concluded, at para 134:
The Morellian analysis simply does not produce the kind of scientific, objective conclusions that its promoters
claim for it. It stresses the artist's conventions, but, as leading critical theorists’ caution, "conventions are by
essence violable and precarious, in themselves and by the fictionality that constitutes them, even before there
has been any overt transgression": Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988 p.105.
(Source)

That's interesting because the opposite is true for reporting crime against oneself in terms of self-report studies (not online tho and this is for everyone not just special interest groups).

Academia Social Science Sperg (tried to make it make sense for people who don't know academia) :

If they adhere to social science standards and scientific method its still a critical study. Social Science is hardee than natural sciences due to the factors of "humans" (id argue this for medicine as well or any hard science that has human implciations and testing). People are an unpredictable wild card. Hence why the degrees of confidence (that you are correct) rate for social science is usually 95% (although you can up it).

You also have to look at what journal is it published in, a credible journal is peer reviewed. If its a peer reviewed journal rhe chances for fuckery are less. I've seen some troon BS published in journals where the board of directors was the one who wrote the article, not peer reviewd= opinion discarded in academia.

While I will admit there are publications that are WAY better than others theirs one thing that a prof said to me which is "there's no such thing as a perfect study." This goes for any field. Anything is subject to adequate relevant criticism. The reason you have a "methods" section in your research paper is to show exactly what you did so people can follow it and figure out if you're a sped. If it sucks fat dick you can always

• Replicate the study to disprove it. A number of studies (wokeist and non) in the USA have undergone this scrutiny to get lying profs or grad students yeeted into space. Getting caught taking results and fudging data makes academia news and banhammers you for life. If you misappropriated grants for this then..... Welp
• Find a hole in it and critique the study. There are papers published of literature reviews and yes people make reviews to dunk on bad research.
• Redo the study using it as a basis while fixing the hole, seeing if its true then.
• The more you can replicate a study and scrutinize it in many ways and it STILL be true, the more likely it is so

Some wokeist studies while it sounds like absolute jiblets may have merit. Maybe this phenomenon IS true but only on in the section where their population was selected to test from so it has no wider application. This is still valid data that can be used as a stepping stone for other studies.

Basically , the way ALL science works is theres a hypothesis (1) and a null hypothesis (0) (kek)

Edit: finding sufficient evidence to YOUR hypothesis (within the confidence interval chosen aka 95% sure 98% sure) means you reject the null (lol)hypothesis for this one case, it doesn't mean that you are 100% correct and free from criticism or that the Null (lol) Hypothesis is completely incorrect. It just means in this one scenario you were right.

More studies to btfo the Null (lol) the more solid it is. Ex: gravity is real, vaccines not causing autism, genetic factors of certain mental illnesses, etc.

Spoiler: Turbo Statistics Autism

Also if you're a social science or science statistics sperglord looking at what types of tests they used to study their data can indicate if its absolute nonce easily. You have to apply the proper method for the proper study. I see people get uppity about the N(sample size) being low or high when in reality it depends upon what you're doing. Solo case studies are completely valid. For specialized populations like troons a sample size of 10-30 is A LOT. While its nowhere NEAR (lol) the millions that are taken for vaccine trials or othe rmed studies on heart attacks or cancer....its because there isn't funding for this shit also that it's not applicable to everyone. So reasonable sample sizes compared to population or relevant to the purpose of your study is an important factor.

When you start a study, you have what is called mortality rate of a study and we don't just mean 41%, we mean that theres always data you will have to exclude and hoes who will drop out of your study or leave an incomplete data set. This is true for even the best most highly funded highly vetted studies.

 

[BlueKirbo]

vote for josh to play this next stream

 

[Pargon]

Seeing as byuu so badly wants to be rid of his online handle to the point that he concocts a story which resulted in my favorite McDonald’s(tm) Playplace being taken down for most of the week I propose we lift the burden from his greasy, still-very-much-living head and turn the moniker into the largest 21st century boogeyman/scapegoat the world has ever seen.

byuu caused the Holocaust.

byuu did 9/11.

byuu left the milk out on the counter causing it to spoil and it definitely wasn’t me.

etc.

 

[Joe Swanson]

Seeing as byuu so badly wants to be rid of his online handle to the point that he concocts a story which resulted in my favorite McDonald’s(tm) Playplace being taken down for most of the week I propose we lift the burden from his greasy, still-very-much-living head and turn the moniker into the largest 21st century boogeyman/scapegoat the world has ever seen.

byuu caused the Holocaust.

byuu did 9/11.

byuu left the milk out on the counter causing it to spoil and it definitely wasn’t me.

etc.

Byuu caused dream to cheat in his speedruns

 

[Big Bang]

Proving YOUR hypothesis means you reject the null hypothesis, it doesn't mean that you are 100% correct and free from criticism or that the Null (lol) Hypothesis is completely incorrect. It just means in this one scenario you were right.

Correction. You don't prove a hypothesis. You find evidence to support the claim, or to disprove it, but there are no proofs, as proofs do not occur. That's why you'll have other scientists to reproduce your experiment to provide further evidence, but it doesn't 'prove'. Agreed with the rest. Regarding the spoilers, the trans studies where half or more of the sample size tend to drop out without contact. Especially the neovagina studies. It tells you a lot by saying nothing. They're embarrassed/ashamed or depressed because it doesn't make their lives better. Otherwise, they definitely would have reported back to the scientists because it would disprove those who claimed neovaginas made your life worse ("take that, terf!"). Wouldn't be surprised if at least half of those that dropped out overdosed or intentionally killed themselves.

 

[Dyn]

Is anyone else here still trying to digest the fact that by all logical metrics this whole thing should have been so much worse for us?

No, this isn't our first rodeo.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Seeing as byuu so badly wants to be rid of his online handle to the point that he concocts a story which resulted in my favorite McDonald’s(tm) Playplace being taken down for most of the week I propose we lift the burden from his greasy, still-very-much-living head and turn the moniker into the largest 21st century boogeyman/scapegoat the world has ever seen.

byuu caused the Holocaust.

byuu did 9/11.

byuu left the milk out on the counter causing it to spoil and it definitely wasn’t me.

etc.

Byuu stole my bike.

 

[Null]

as opposed to FUCKING TWITTER which has no children on it lmfao

Edit: Unironically use Bing or the new Brave search if you're looking for a Google replacement. I've never liked DDG and Yandex can be spotty. I have zero issues with Bing. Brave is new and not 100% but you will not notice any QoL loss with Bing. The only thing I sometimes have to Google still is specific tech questions. Google's search is basically just a tool to find obscure old forum posts with error messages on them.

 

[Nointey]

View attachment 2313342

as opposed to FUCKING TWITTER which has no children on it lmfao

Edit: Unironically use Bing or the new Brave search if you're looking for a Google replacement. I've never liked DDG and Yandex can be spotty. I have zero issues with Bing. Brave is new and not 100% but you will not notice any QoL loss with Bing. The only thing I sometimes have to Google still is specific tech questions. Google's search is basically just a tool to find obscure old forum posts with error messages on them.

furry lives never matter

 

[Desu Vult]

It does make me wonder though. This whole fake suicide debacle did put us offline for a while.

Which other lolcows would realistically fake their suicide to get this webite taken down?

It needs to be someone with more than 3 pages after 50 years though. Kevin Gibes maybe? Would he do it? I feel like Yaniv would do it at some point, but I hope twittertards aren't so far gone they'd fight for a pedophile rapist.

About 41% of them. But out of those I cant think of a single one who would be able to stay offline for more than a day.

 

[Dafrunk89]

Friendly cartoon fox; if you are worried about the pedos, please consider not being a furry. Abandon everything and everyone involved just to be safe. Best of luck.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Byuu caused dream to cheat in his speedruns

Byu talked dobson out off posting online.

 

[Meiwaku]

Correction. You don't prove a hypothesis. You find evidence to support the claim, or to disprove it, but there are no proofs, as proofs do not occur. That's why you'll have other scientists to reproduce your experiment to provide further evidence, but it doesn't 'prove'. Agreed with the rest. Regarding the spoilers, I love the troon studies where half or more of the sample size tend to drop out without contact. Especially the neovagina studies. It tells you a lot by saying nothing. They're embarrassed/ashamed or depressed because it doesn't make their lives better. Otherwise, they definitely would have reported back to the scientists because it would disprove those who claimed neovaginas made your life worse ("take that, terf!"). Wouldn't be surprised if at least half of those that dropped out overdosed or intentionally killed themselves.

Yes you're right apologies this is more correct I'll edit my post to reflect this.

There's also plenty of anti-troonery studies that are just pressed as general study but the subtext of reading it is "hoes mad and lie". Like there was one about patients claiming their amholes become mucosal membranes (not true it becomes like folds of skin where its just moister because covered (think shiny foreskin dick head vs wrinkled look on circumcized dick, or under fat folds). I also read a REALLY funny one of some dudes who replicated a Blanchard study to disprove it and their conclusion was full of seething that the study was right LOLOL.

Also for those who are curious. There are a lot in social science that is not wokepilled like even studies or topics you think would be Twitter woke are actually sane and make sense and are often not PC as you would think (multicultural psychology/sociology, womens studies /gender based approaches to treatments for medicine/criminal justice/psychology/ athletics etc. Which are super relevant actually. ), No psychology/ criminology/ medical journal thinks sex work is woke and based or that porn doesn't cause terminal coomer brainrot that leaves you spiraling down a slope of needing more and becoming desensitized to violence and empathy (see: troons who feel theyre women because they are bottoms with coomrot yet do the most stereotypical male shit) .

Also the journals things are published in also can somewhat vet how good it is. If it's published by the APA (american psychiatric association) its likely better than something posted by a fringe seethe libertarian journal. For Kiwis out there who are non-academia who are skeptical of a "scientists say" study always find the original study and look at the journal who published it. Basically even if its small or niche just look for one thing....

Peer viewed= not entirely shit
non peer reviewed= twitter RT button without reading

 

[Pargon]

View attachment 2313342

as opposed to FUCKING TWITTER which has no children on it lmfao

Edit: Unironically use Bing or the new Brave search if you're looking for a Google replacement. I've never liked DDG and Yandex can be spotty. I have zero issues with Bing. Brave is new and not 100% but you will not notice any QoL loss with Bing. The only thing I sometimes have to Google still is specific tech questions. Google's search is basically just a tool to find obscure old forum posts with error messages on them.

“Uh oh, we’re having trouble getting groundswell on the murder accusation. Might have something to do with the victim still being alive. Better accuse ‘em of uhhhhh—“ *flips through playbook* “—pedophilia!”

Like clockwork.

 

[Dickxon]

Byuu stole my bike.

But he probably needed it so he wouldn't kill himself. The overall happiness in the world has increased.