A curious, if not bizarre, peer-reviewed paper has emerged, which said things like this: “The quantitative synthesis results suggested that sexual minority families may perform better in children’s psychological adjustment and parent–child relationship than heterosexual families”.
Depressing, and we're running out of American fingers to plug the holes and stop the leaks our Chinese invaders are drilling into the crumbling dykes that hold back the final flood.
I take issue with your false distinction between propaganda that is sincere (because, ostensibly, its assertions are genuinely believed by the invader) and propaganda that is known to be false but is "planted" by the invader nevertheless, so as to weaken USA. No propaganda is created and propagated in sincerity. Propaganda is always falsehood, known by its spreaders to be false and used for that very reason. All propaganda is spread ("planted") by an invading force to weaken/defeat its enemy during war between rivals.
This is true specifically of most of what was printed and said from 2020-2023 by Fauci and the Poison Boys about the China Virus and Vaccine. It is also true of most of what has been printed and said by the CCP and the Red Horde since 1972 about USA and the American way of life.
Welcome to Absurdistan
Propaganda which no doubt the trans activists will pick up and use to further their perverted agendas
Thinking of modern day science, I employ a simple heuristic:
It MUST ALWAYS promote and defend liberalism and egalitarianism (democracy) in the extreme.
And this is why science is broken.
This is CCP spook stuff. All the Warsaw pact nations used to crank out "peer reviewed" papers like these with the help of complicit western academics. They did this KNOWING such papers would never affect policy in their own nations but damn sure could affect debate and policy in the West.
AND Substack itself is full of CCP spooks (like Cynthia Chung) who crank out unusually long, footnoted, polemics against the west.
Wow! I’ve been reduced to a stereotype. Oh well. It’s served me well so far.
They say they are measuring stereotypes.
Implicitly, there is a judgement.
But their judgment is scientific: something is good or bad according to the orders of the party.
Politicized science is not science.
Why their judgment is correct and the judgment of other people is incorrect?
Those who cannot answer that question should leave scientific research and go back to study the basics of everything, in a non-fraudulent educational system this time.