|
010224_7 posted:a Plagiarist makes it to President of Harvard University A Plagiarist is President of the United States, Harvard is small beans.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Gyges posted:A Plagiarist is President of the United States, Harvard is small beans. The Harvard president gets paid over twice as much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The Harvard president gets paid over twice as much. No one is the president of the US or an Ivy League university because of the salary…
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Kalit posted:No one is the president of the US or an Ivy League university because of the salary… Yeah obviously, it's just funny. If you have to spin an interesting point off it, it'z basically inevitable that each POTUS will be a little bit crooked because they're paid dramatically less than everyone they meet in the private sector, or than they could make with that same network and portfolio in the private sector. The President should receive an exorbitant salary every year after they're elected, including after they leave office, and be forbidden from accepting any other money for the rest of their lives. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 13:47
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Derailing a career for getting hung up on a few questions by a bad actor is just as stupid, if not more so. There shouldn't have been a congressional hearing about this dumb poo poo in the first place. Why should she stay on as president if she can’t even capably represent her institution? I just don’t see how someone who got brutally embarrassed by the heiress to Premium Plywood Products can be expected to lead one of the worlds top universities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Why should she stay on as president if she can’t even capably represent her institution? I just don’t see how someone who got brutally embarrassed by the heiress to Premium Plywood Products can be expected to lead one of the worlds top universities. I certainly got the feeling from the quoted exchange earlier in this thread that there was simply no response she could have given that wouldn’t have been broadcasted as insufficiently anti-Palestinian by the media. Also, I know the only thing that seems to matter anymore is how hard you wtfpwn your opponents, but maybe consider thinking of her as a human being who didn’t have the benefit of writing in hindsight on the internet about how she would destroy her enemies and maybe, possibly, even empathize with her and think about how impossible it would be to say the right thing under that situation when the Premium Plywood Products heiress is out for your blood because you’re, in her eyes, an inferior human being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I just did another online Gallup poll, about my satisfaction with various aspects of the government and the state of the economy and everything, and I thought of you guys! FYI this is talking about Joe Biden who is 100% getting impeached by the house before the election
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:34
|
|
|
Devor posted:FYI this is talking about Joe Biden who is 100% getting impeached by the house before the election Unless the GOP loses what is now a one seat majority, after January 21. Better take your beta blockers, guys. e: Aren't there still one or two who voted for Trump's impeachment in the House? I can't imagine they would be easy for Johnson & Co to land. Impeaching a President for a blatantly made up reason with a one seat majority when you have over a dozen reps coming from districts that voted for that President is not easy to pull off. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:44
|
|
|
I’m skeptical that they are going to be able to push forward with an actual vote before the election
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m skeptical that they are going to be able to push forward with an actual vote before the election This. It's going to be a very hard to sell to anyone that impeaching Joe Biden is more important than passing a budget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Heithinn Grasida posted:I certainly got the feeling from the quoted exchange earlier in this thread that there was simply no response she could have given that wouldn’t have been broadcasted as insufficiently anti-Palestinian by the media. Also, I know the only thing that seems to matter anymore is how hard you wtfpwn your opponents, but maybe consider thinking of her as a human being who didn’t have the benefit of writing in hindsight on the internet about how she would destroy her enemies and maybe, possibly, even empathize with her and think about how impossible it would be to say the right thing under that situation when the Premium Plywood Products heiress is out for your blood because you’re, in her eyes, an inferior human being. That's true, but how did the literal president of literal Harvard not realize that in advance? Attendance at that hearing was voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This. It's going to be a very hard to sell to anyone that impeaching Joe Biden is more important than passing a budget. This was already part of the reason why they agreed to open a committee where they can issue subpoenas and keep up the illusion that they are actually going to do something
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
Heithinn Grasida posted:I certainly got the feeling from the quoted exchange earlier in this thread that there was simply no response she could have given that wouldn’t have been broadcasted as insufficiently anti-Palestinian by the media. Also, I know the only thing that seems to matter anymore is how hard you wtfpwn your opponents, but maybe consider thinking of her as a human being who didn’t have the benefit of writing in hindsight on the internet about how she would destroy her enemies and maybe, possibly, even empathize with her and think about how impossible it would be to say the right thing under that situation when the Premium Plywood Products heiress is out for your blood because you’re, in her eyes, an inferior human being. “Calls for genocide are always unacceptable, congresswoman” Real simple. If you’re explaining you’re losing. Hire a goddamn PR firm before testifying in front of a hostile congressional hearing. Or maybe just dont testify if you’re not up to the task. And spare me the tears for the woman who will return to her faculty position earning $900k per year despite the numerous instances of plagiarism in her academic work. I honestly thought Harvard would hold itself to a higher standard. I’m not sure what you mean by this though: quote:when the Premium Plywood Products heiress is out for your blood because you’re, in her eyes, an inferior human being. could you please elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:A second indictment has hit the Menendez Strangely enough of the two Congressman under investigation for financial crimes, it was only the visibly gay one who was expelled,
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
Maybe she should've gotten fired for the hearing - yes it was a complete bullshit hearing, but she chose to go there and clumsily soak her name and her company's name deep in the mud. She could've, and should've, declined to show up, and if she had to show up she should've said "yes incitement to genocide is unacceptable at Harvard, so far nobody's done that, if it changes we'll act on it." She definitely should've gotten fired for the plagiarism. The plagiarism was only exposed because of a contemptible right-wing campaign against her, but they didn't make her plagiarize, and no university can maintain even the pretense of dignity when it's led by a serial flagrant plagiarist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Strangely enough of the two Congressman under investigation for financial crimes, it was only the visibly gay one who was expelled,
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
I admit I haven't read the plagiarism accusations in detail but considering every other accusation the right wing hurls is always bullshit I'm not exactly inclined to believe that *this* time it's different and the accusations have merit. I mean, Shirley Sherrod and Ruby Freeman both exist. The right wing has a long history of making bad faith false accusations against black women. It's a whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Menendez has a lot of power, whereas Santos was hated by everyone from day one and was clearly not going to make it more than his one term Menendez is also a Senator which is another can of worms for deciding when to just kick him out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
The Top G posted:
They're saying that the congresswoman who asked her all the mean questions is actually a racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Strangely enough of the two Congressman under investigation for financial crimes, it was only the visibly gay one who was expelled, Santos has some very obviously fraud things going on, like identity theft of his donors. Menendez has a lot of very obvious bribery things going on, but those are easier to cover up or give a fake explanation for. Hopefully Menendez will get his when more details come out. Does he have any real legislative power left? He stepped down from leadership iirc, but is he still on committees? He shouldn't be if he is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I admit I haven't read the plagiarism accusations in detail but It's pretty straightforward to look at two blocks of text and say "yes these are so similar that the latter is clearly replicating language from the former." When that replication takes place outside quotation marks,.it's plagiarism - even if the source is cited. You can review the examples that prompted her exit, put together by the Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing outlet so here is a link that doesn't give them any ad money. But, in the service of their campaign against her for being a Black woman who doesn't take the entire right-wing Zionist line on campus bullshit, they put together some very simple visualizations of the text she used vs. the original text she's obviously copying without quotation. https://web.archive.org/web/2024010...-of-plagiarism/ If she were a random worker then I might be inclined to disingenuously say it's not really plagiarism, or doesn't really matter. Certainly this is a case where her enemies deserve to lose at least as much as she does. But she's the millionaire chief executive of a billion-dollar corporation, she doesn't get any get-out-of-jail cards for poo poo that would get me or any of my coworkers fired instantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I admit I haven't read the plagiarism accusations in detail but considering every other accusation the right wing hurls is always bullshit I'm not exactly inclined to believe that *this* time it's different and the accusations have merit. Maybe you should read the plagiarism accusations in detail before coming to a judgment about them? After all, the Shirley Sherrod and Ruby Freeman incidents were both characterized by people jumping to conclusions without full evidence, just like you're doing now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
Got an email this morning from the FL DoH explaining why the fl.surgeon general wants to ban covid 19 vaccines nationwide. He's worried the DNA will get into our sperm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's true, but how did the literal president of literal Harvard not realize that in advance? Attendance at that hearing was voluntary. This is the part that gets me. Nobody would have come out of that right wing struggle session looking good; I certainly wouldn't have. Her only real mistake was attending, but it was a doozy. I'm honestly of two minds whether it's a damning failure. I can see not liking the optics of skipping it, and if you don't follow the right wing media sphere you might not realize just how far they're willing to go. I just don't get how you can get this invite, google the person, and still think "this is worth my time." Maybe the board made her go? Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's pretty straightforward to look at two blocks of text and say "yes these are so similar that the latter is clearly replicating language from the former." When that replication takes place outside quotation marks,.it's plagiarism - even if the source is cited. I'm not sure it is that straightforward. If someone writes enough pages of text, there are going to be portions that replicate other texts to one degree or another, partly due to random chance and partly due to human memory being imperfect; people accidentally quote each other frequently. There have been *many* instances of accidental "plagiarism" along those lines (it happens all the time in music and is frequently litigated) and a a fair evaluation of plagiarism accusations needs to take intent into account, which means detailed review of someone's entire body of work. Are those a few paragraphs out of tens of thousands of written pages, cherry picked by bad faith actors, or are they emblematic of a repeating pattern? That's what I meant when I said I haven't looked at the accusations in depth. I read the headlines and a few Twitter posts but everything I saw making the accusations was from known bad faith actors and so I kinda doubt they did an impartial evaluation of intent. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe you should read the plagiarism accusations in detail before coming to a judgment about them? I haven't come to a final judgment about them! But if I spent the time it would take to research every bad faith republican accusation in detail, I'd never have time to do anything else at all, and I still wouldn't finish, either. The right wing bullshit fountain doesn't stop from 9 to 5 or from 10 to 6 either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
Why on earth did they go through so much effort to make this hard to read, goddamn. I have switched to the "just assume it's bullshit" camp, because why else would they add visual effects like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This is the part that gets me. Nobody would have come out of that right wing struggle session looking good; I certainly wouldn't have. Her only real mistake was attending, but it was a doozy. I'm honestly of two minds whether it's a damning failure. I can see not liking the optics of skipping it, and if you don't follow the right wing media sphere you might not realize just how far they're willing to go. I just don't get how you can get this invite, google the person, and still think "this is worth my time." Maybe the board made her go? Yeah it just seems like absolute incompetence for the leader of any major institution to step into that room thinking a good faith debate was about to happen so let's all shake hands and chitchat. It's just basic media competence and it seems she doesn't have it, which should be independently disqualifying for the leader of any major institution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I haven't come to a final judgment about them! But if I spent the time it would take to research every bad faith republican accusation in detail, I'd never have time to do anything else at all, and I still wouldn't finish, either. The right wing bullshit fountain doesn't stop from 9 to 5 or from 10 to 6 either. If you don't have the time to research this stuff then it's fine not to spend time talking about it. It's stupid bullshit and even if it mattered our discussion about it wouldn't matter. But there's no valuable contribution to be made beginning with "I haven't really looked at whether there was plagiarism or not, but I looked into the races of the people involved, and..." Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure it is that straightforward. If someone writes enough pages of text... If you look at the actual text comparisons it clearly goes far, far beyond what's remotely plausible by accident or innocent human error. We're talking about entire paragraphs that have maybe a few sentences excised, a few words added, a tense or two changed, and then precisely replicated without quotation. This is why it's very difficult to make good points about the plagiarism accusations without actually reviewing those plagiarism accusations. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Why on earth did they go through so much effort to make this hard to read, goddamn. I have switched to the "just assume it's bullshit" camp, because why else would they add visual effects like that. I'm on my phone right now but looking at that as closely as i can, a lot of it looks like it's discussion of statutory and regulatory language, which often has to be *extremely* precise. The standard for use of quotation in legal documents is you only use quotation marks in *exact* quotation, and otherwise you don't; it's not about credit or plagiarism -- nobody cares about plagiarism in legal writing -- but about whether you are quoting something *exactly* or paraphrasing, even minimally. So a paraphrase for subject verb agreement or present / past tense adjustment doesn't get quotation makes because it isn't exact. Conversly though there are often very few ways to rephrase something without substantively changing the meaning of the text you're talking about. Maybe there's more to this but the bombastic style isn't convincing me. It looks like a clash between house styles for academic and legal writing, not an actual scandal. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:If you don't have the time to research this stuff then it's fine not to spend time talking about it. It's stupid bullshit and even if it mattered our discussion about it wouldn't matter. You don't think pointing out "hey guys, this might be racist bullshit, don't accept right wing framing at face value, they're racists?" might have value? I'm pointing out the race of the people involved *because right wing media is racist* and we shouldn't forget that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:This article goes through the claims. It's not like the Stanford guy who fabricated data, but still basic undergrad level of plagiarism
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
small butter posted:I thought they were down to a 3-vote majority now. Who are the others who left besides Santos and McCarthy? I read that too fast and thought it said Ron Johnson and got waaaay too loving excited 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You don't think pointing out "hey guys, this might be racist bullshit, don't accept right wing framing at face value, they're racists?" might have value? Since you asked, it is completely valueless in the context of this forum where we all know perfectly well that right wing media is not intrinsically trustworthy at all. Nobody has suggested that a story's presence in right-wing media means it is true, so to respond to that idea has, yes, no value at all. If you look at the text that Gay published, there's clear replication without quotation - plagiarism - not only in technical descriptions of mathematical formulas but also simple descriptions of historical background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Since you asked, it is completely valueless in the context of this forum where we all know perfectly well that right wing media is not intrinsically trustworthy at all. Nobody has suggested that a story's presence in right-wing media means it is true, so to respond to that idea has, yes, no value at all. There's a lot of users on this forum who earnestly parrot right-wing arguments because they don't critically analyze their sources at all as long as it agrees with their gut instincts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Morrow posted:There's a lot of users on this forum who earnestly parrot right-wing arguments because they don't critically analyze their sources at all as long as it agrees with their gut instincts. If that's happened in this discussion, show me where. If we're interested in talking about whether she committed plagiarism, then the question of interest is "did she publish text or ideas without proper attribution," not "how do we feel about the people who take the most joy in her being a plagiarist." Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
I'll just Plagiarize my way to a Harvard Diploma
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:If you look at the text that Gay published, there's clear replication without quotation - plagiarism - not only in technical descriptions of mathematical formulas but also simple descriptions of historical background. This is a slight oversimplification, for what it's worth - quotation does not necessarily mean something isn't plagiarism, and a lack of quotation doesn't mean it is. In most fields you are allowed to paraphrase (in which case using quotes would not be allowed) with the proper citation style for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Since you asked, it is completely valueless in the context of this forum where we all know perfectly well that right wing media is not intrinsically trustworthy at all. This seems like a greater assumption by far than anything else in the thread today. People credulously jump to conclusions in this thread all the time. The thread title was about that exact thing for a long time recently. People don't look at sources, accept first impressions, and jump to conclusions in here every day. This is not and never has been any kind of perfectly enlightened error free zone of perfect information. Pointing out potential bias always has value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is a slight oversimplification, for what it's worth - quotation does not necessarily mean something isn't plagiarism, and a lack of quotation doesn't mean it is. In most fields you are allowed to paraphrase (in which case using quotes would not be allowed) with the proper citation style for doing so. I didn't say quotation necessarily means something isn't plagiarism. I said there's replication without quotation, which might be permissible in some fields but in the social studies/"sciences" it's plagiarism. Hieronymous Alloy posted:The thread title was about that exact thing for a long time recently. People don't look at sources, accept first impressions, and jump to conclusions in here every day. Did anyone here, in this discussion about plagiarism, do that? In this case I think you're the one who, by your own admission, did not look at sources ("I haven't really researched this...*) accepted your first impression ("...but the people making the most noise about it are untrustworthy assholes..."), and jumped to a conclusion ("...so it's bullshit!") And 9 times out of 10 that would probably be correct. But in this case she really did plagiarize. Sometimes a completely cynical raid for skeletons in someone's closet actually finds a skeleton. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 16:37
|
|