r/RedditCensors: Me getting permanently banned from r/psychology for criticising a controversial paper that the mod liked. Apparently, pointing out the left-wing political bias in a work is "science denialism".

55 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] * 14 Mar 2019 12:22

Further details, copied from the OP: The paper in question was the highly controversial APA guidelines for treating men, which pointed to "masculinity ideology", "oppression", "white privilege" and "patriarchy" as the causes of male mental illness. It's deconstructed [here](https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/comment-on-the-apa-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-boys-and-men/), with links to the paper itself. Left-wing reddit loved it because it epicly owned traditional masculinity with Logic and Facts(TM), but most of the paper was just political ideology based on shoddy, if not outright non-existent evidence. When I pointed out that the work had a left-wing bias, so the controversy was "understandable", I was instantly banned with no recourse. Apparently ideological enforcement constitutes science these days, and criticising the ideology is "denialism". Later I found this same mod in r/skeptic, saying that "all evidence supports the democrats' policies" (after claiming that he was a lifelong right-winger in this exchange, to cover his ass). What’s more outrageous is that, after permanently banning me for being skeptical of a paper he liked, and refusing to discuss it, repeatedly muting me from messaging the subreddit instead, he has the nerve to claim an association with skepticism.

11 u/id_bang_mcconaughey 14 Mar 2019 19:25

It’s a shame when science gets confused with politics. In anthropology this was an issue that came up a lot, that in studying culture or critiquing culture there were dilemmas resulting from “privilege, race (white looking into nonwhite cultures), appropriation, etc” a good professor would immediately throw out these claims and point out that much of these discussions were political in nature and held no true weight in academic settings. In fact, even stunted anthropological research where results could cause a group to be offended. (A big example would be genetic proof of migration from tribes who believed they were “First Nation” and always existed in one place) many of those papers would be pressured into not being published due to the backlash it would cause. Or the pressure not to participate in ceremonies due to “appropriation” or the pressure not to write findings if you were white as it would be “observations from the oppressor” I genuinely love cultural anthropology and it taught me a great deal about human nature and the similarities that almost all cultures hold. However we risk losing much of those sciences simply on the belief that they are controversial in today’s political climate.

8 u/NeoMarxismIsEvil 14 Mar 2019 22:59

That isn't science, it's scientism. Pseudoscientific religion masquerading as science is a massive problem right now.

1 u/Shadilay_Were_Off 15 Mar 2019 03:38

Scientism at least has the benefit of being based on actual science (that is, the scientific method). Modern psychology, and this mod, don't even have that.

1 u/Chill-BL 15 Mar 2019 09:27

APA is an organization that is run by (if I'm correct) 70% females. Of course they are convinced that something they can't deal with/understand is toxic. Anything from APA should not be taken seriously.

2 u/Lupinfujiko 03 Apr 2019 15:04

What a bunch of dishonest weasels. This is happening all over the Internet. Very similar tone and arguments used by the mods of /r/Canada. They won't allow "conspiracy theories". But only they can decide what a conspiracy theory is. Any criticism of our publicly funded news broadcaster CBC, and you're immediately banned. But Trump and his Russian Trolls? That's fine! Go ahead! Say whatever you want about that and you will never get banned. It's rules for some, and other rules for others.

45 u/JohnMcPineapple 14 Mar 2019 12:33

Criticising flaws in existing research *is the foundation* of science! What the mod /u/mrsamsa is doing here, promoting the "listen and believe" approach to handling publications, is much more a case of science-denial than criticizing a publication ever could be.

14 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 12:33

But if you criticise flaws in the research that a moderator likes, that’s denialism, and must be met with the harshest possible punishment, of course.

2 u/SomethingWitty4this 15 Mar 2019 11:53

heresy. it's heresy. these fucks are religious.

10 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 12:36

On a related note I actually made this argument multiple times to the moderator. His response was to mute me.

19 u/joedude 14 Mar 2019 14:04

Welcome to "academia" where the results are the hypothesis and the conclusions Is whatever I said initially :)

14 u/Esdarke 14 Mar 2019 14:24

It's ok, psychology isn't a real science.

5 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 14:25

I want it to be. I’m a student of literature and psychology. The ideological censor mentality, as demonstrated by mrsamsa, is one of many obstacles to psychology’s legitimacy, since it openly contravenes the scientific mindset.

6 u/Esdarke 14 Mar 2019 14:38

It'd be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately that sort of thing seems to be happening in a lot of fields to appease the leftist narrative that everybody's normal except for the actual normal people who are "toxic" now.

6 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 14:49

If you think psychology is messed up you should try literature. Being a student of both I’m surrounded on both sides by corruption. Literature is ridiculous, it’s more like learning Marxist activism than learning anything real.

3 u/Esdarke 14 Mar 2019 14:59

Literature doesn't make headlines and I'm more of a hard sciences guy anyway, so I have no idea at all what goes on in that field.

1 u/NeoMarxismIsEvil 14 Mar 2019 22:56

If you're actually interested in hard science then neurology would make more sense. Psychology is founded in religion, starting with Freudian mysticism (psychoanalysis)

1 u/illisit 14 Mar 2019 16:40

There's a large potential market for great writing that isn't post modernist or rather critiques of post-modernism, like Michel Houellebecq.

1 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 17:16

True but I don’t plan to pursue it as a career. Creative pursuits are extremely unreliable and I need money for my family

1 u/illisit 14 Mar 2019 17:25

What are you planning on psychology in that case?

1 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 17:38

Not sure yet. I might go into teaching English or find another professional job where I could make use of my degree. I’ve done more years in English than Psychology. But I don’t plan on doing anything creative until I have a reliable income, so we’ll see where I end up.

4 u/illisit 14 Mar 2019 20:01

The most financially successful people I know with psych degrees work in either marketing or they studied business with an HR major as well as psych if you need any ideas. Teaching is probably great if you can deal with being a cultural outsider in the field. Good luck anyway, you are in a scientific field that adheres to ideological dogma so you'll need it.

2 u/TWK128 14 Mar 2019 19:07

Have you tried behavioral economics? Less fuzzy horseshit, more math, and more cognitive psych mixed in. Kahneman and Tversky and their successors have done some really, really neat work.

3 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 19:08

I’m terrible at math and weeks from graduating, but thank you for your concern.

2 u/TWK128 14 Mar 2019 19:14

Yeah, me too. But the early parts of the math aren't too difficult, and there's a *lot* in the field that doesn't have much to do with math at all. Y'know the term "framing effects"? Kahneman and Tversky. These dudes did some great work without touching math outside of probability and basic statistics.

2 u/TWK128 14 Mar 2019 19:20

Addendum: I didn't spec math because "math," but to underscore that it's a field that has *far* more rigor than modern mainstream psych. There are good, rigorous and legit science-minded people in psych, but they seem to be in the minority.

8 u/CeauxViette 14 Mar 2019 12:20

Observe how a perfectly usable phrase, science denial, has to have an ism tacked on the end.

3 u/seventyeightmm 15 Mar 2019 00:43

Ideologues cannot fathom that people can act without an ideological motive.

1 u/sensuallyprimitive 25 Mar 2019 10:15

Truer words have never been spoken.

5 u/Hektik352 14 Mar 2019 22:02

Over half of those psychology studies can't be reproduced because of ideology influence in that "science".

3 u/shits_kafkaesque_yo 14 Mar 2019 17:13

Reading that pastebin is frustrating as shit. Fuck that mod.

5 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 17:15

No kidding. You can’t tell from my messages but I was furious. It’s hard to believe that anyone could be that much of an insane corrupt dickhead.

1 u/TWK128 14 Mar 2019 19:08

Somehow I just knew you were relatively new to Reddit. Were you around when Spez did his thing?

3 u/SillyConclusion0 [OP] 14 Mar 2019 19:09

No. I’ve never been a part of the reddit community, really. I mostly post in niche subreddits.

1 u/[deleted] 14 Mar 2019 12:26

[deleted]

Me getting permanently banned from r/psychology for criticising a controversial paper that the mod liked. Apparently, pointing out the left-wing political bias in a work is "science denialism".

35 comments