Top Harvard Cancer Researchers Accused of Scientific Fraud; 37 Studies Affected (arstechnica.com) 172
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, is seeking to retract six scientific studies and correct 31 others that were published by the institute's top researchers, including its CEO. The researchers are accused of manipulating data images with simple methods, primarily with copy-and-paste in image editing software, such as Adobe Photoshop. The accusations come from data sleuth Sholto David and colleagues on PubPeer, an online forum for researchers to discuss publications that has frequently served to spot dubious research and potential fraud. On January 2, David posted on his research integrity blog, For Better Science, a long list of potential data manipulation from DFCI researchers. The post highlighted many data figures that appear to contain pixel-for-pixel duplications. The allegedly manipulated images are of data such as Western blots, which are used to detect and visualize the presence of proteins in a complex mixture.
DFCI Research Integrity Officer Barrett Rollins told The Harvard Crimson that David had contacted DFCI with allegations of data manipulation in 57 DFCI-led studies. Rollins said that the institute is "committed to a culture of accountability and integrity," and that "every inquiry about research integrity is examined fully." The allegations are against: DFCI President and CEO Laurie Glimcher, Executive Vice President and COO William Hahn, Senior Vice President for Experimental Medicine Irene Ghobrial, and Harvard Medical School professor Kenneth Anderson. The Wall Street Journal noted that Rollins, the integrity officer, is also a co-author on two of the studies. He told the outlet he is recused from decisions involving those studies.
DFCI Research Integrity Officer Barrett Rollins told The Harvard Crimson that David had contacted DFCI with allegations of data manipulation in 57 DFCI-led studies. Rollins said that the institute is "committed to a culture of accountability and integrity," and that "every inquiry about research integrity is examined fully." The allegations are against: DFCI President and CEO Laurie Glimcher, Executive Vice President and COO William Hahn, Senior Vice President for Experimental Medicine Irene Ghobrial, and Harvard Medical School professor Kenneth Anderson. The Wall Street Journal noted that Rollins, the integrity officer, is also a co-author on two of the studies. He told the outlet he is recused from decisions involving those studies.
Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same Harvard that holds almost $50 BILLION dollars in their endowment?
And now, we find that they have basically, hamstrung cancer research for decades?
Am I the only one that feels every single cancer patient should be part of a class action against said institution?
You cannot string a corporation up by their neck until dead, but people who suffer from their actions deserve recompense, as they say with every sort of crime performed by mere humans, "It will deter others from acting in the same way"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same Harvard who just fired a president for rampant plagiarism, and for whom calling for genocide is gray area that may or may not constitute "harassment" by Harvard student conduct guidelines?
Re:Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:5, Informative)
The context in which that opinion is used, i.e., whether in a bullying or harassing matter, is what matters.
This person definitely committed plagiarism, but your crude ideological tests are boring.
The hearing wasn't about "calls for genocide", it was for the adopted definition of anti-semitism to mean anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism equating to a call for genocide, which is so fucking 1984 it makes one's head spin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The larger context is that places like these elite universities were nearly always treating certain opinions as harassment; almost regardless of context. Where as other opinions get hide behind the 'free expression of ideas.' As to which opinions being 'acceptable' or not acceptable, and if events are classified as harassing appears to have much more to do with the political alignment of opinion in questions than any ridged legalistic approach to policy enforcement.
While we normally we don't as a nation, or
Re: (Score:2)
Basically this person does not exist in the general human population
That seems bold. In 6 billion people (or 360 million Americans if that's what you're talking about), nobody has those characteristics? We can probably agree Trump nor Biden has them though.
Re: (Score:2)
Having an opinion that anybody should be victim of genocide is not necessarily bullying or harassment.
Simply having the opinion clearly is neither bullying or harassment but that's not what was being asked. Actively calling for genocide at a place where the targets of such vile opinions live, work and study, is definitely bullying and harassment. Freedom of speech always has limits and one of those limits is generally threats of and incitement to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic that genocide was called for required the equivocation for "Free Palestine" with the destruction of Israel and the Jews inside of it.
That may be a real-world result of such a thing, but such a thing was never called for.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you are mis-stating the issue:
"But last month, Gay, along with the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania, came under fire for their lawyerly responses to a line of questioning from New York Republican representative Elise Stefanik, who asked whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct."
So, they gave thought-out replies based on what their schools had documented in their Codes of Cond
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was calling for it, unless you engage in obscene mental gymnastics. That is why the person being deposed in front of Congress didn't want to directly answer the question- because it was a soap box, not a real question about something that was actually happening.
Your attempt at silencing discourse, or covering up your elementary ability to apply logic to situations by calling people antisemites is so original.
Re: (Score:2)
The more you misuse that word, the more meaning you steal from it.
You dumb fuckers are going to make it impossible to tell what real antisemitism or real genocide actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they were, you stupid fucking Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a liberal. Fascism is antithetical to everything I stand for. Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? You have to be trolling right? You couldn't possibly have eaten enough paint chips to think you're clever.
All the nuance in the world, and you think anyone who doesn't consider saying the words, "From the River to the Sea" is a "call for genocide" (let's hope it isn't, because that makes Ben Gurion guilty of calling for the genocide of Palestinians)
I bet y
Re: (Score:2)
If you were liberal, you could see how killing babies and raping women is not an acceptable way to "resist," full stop.
Nobody said it was an acceptable way to resist.
Can you only argue with strawmen?
And you'd recognize that calling for genocide of Jews at the very least makes them feel really bad.
Still waiting for you to show that happened. Just another strawman until you do.
And you wouldn't make excuses for either.
I haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing antisemitic about an idealist thinking Zionism is a pile of shit. Having idealistic views with little consideration of the real-world ramifications is literally a fucking hallmark of people that age.
You stupidly calling such a thing antisemitism is the actual problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"You stated twice the same opinion and called them different side of the spectrum"
Your inability (or refusal??) to comprehend that the current political establishment of the state of Israel is separate from Judaism and its followers IS the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it time to fuck your sister, Cletus? Does your daddy know you're using the internet again?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clever. It's gross. Don't be pond scum. You can be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Swing it however you like, nobody called for genocide.
They called for "Free Palestine", and through a political thought process, that equates to genocide.
Whether calling for "Free Palestine" is bullying or not is a simple question- it is not.
The question asked, was "Is calling for genocide bullying?"
Depends. Are you actually calling for genocide of someone in a place that impacts them? Probably yes.
Is someone calling fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:4, Informative)
The same Harvard who just fired a president for rampant plagiarism, and for whom calling for genocide is gray area that may or may not constitute "harassment" by Harvard student conduct guidelines?
Gay was a weak scholar who got the Harvard job in part due to both her plagiarism and her race and gender. I think that's undeniable. While most of her plagiarism was indeed of the most minor variety, some of it was not, and she clearly shows a pattern of plagiarizing. That should be punished, uniformly, across academia. I fully support her being removed from her role for this.
However, her responses in the Congressional hearing, that raised such ire, particularly amongst the Jewish donor class, are a separate issue.
https://rollcall.com/2023/12/13/transcript-what-harvard-mit-and-penn-presidents-said-at-antisemitism-hearing/
Here's a transcript of the hearing. I'm not going to bother attempting to summarize or highlighting the points, but you should read it yourself. What I will say is that Stefanik completely conflated the concepts of "intifada" and "genocide" so that any answer that gave any legitimacy to an intifada would automatically be considered anti-Semitic. In other words, any answer that didn't support the current status of the Palestinian and Israeli nations and peoples would automatically be considered anti-Semitic and the anti-speech fascists want that speech shut down. Stefanik argues that Harvard should not allow any opposition to Israel amongst its students.
That is unacceptable.
By those same standards, SUPPORTING the creation of Israel in the 1940 would be considered a genocidal act.
We have to be able to talk about ideas that other people may find offensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ELISE STEFANIK: Well, let me ask you this, will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say from the river to the sea or intifada advocating for the murder of Jews?
CLAUDINE GAY: As Iâ(TM)ve said that type of hateful reckless offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Please note that in that question, the murder of Jews is started ex
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ignoring that Stefanik is presupposing that advocacy for either intifada or usage of the statement ("from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free") means genocide (and I don't universally agree with that presupposition), Gay's continued answer is:
CLAUDINE GAY: When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against bullying, harassment or intimidation, we take action. And we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold individuals accountable.
Which again brings me back to my core point. If even saying that Palestinians are allowed to fight back against Israel--Intifada--is genocidal and anti-Semitic, then we have failed as a society that even pretends to protect free speech.
Flip it on its hea
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to find this quote redeeming, but again I see it as an acceptance of hate speech. And like I quoted, the question included an explicit mention of violence, not implied or not-implied depending on how "from the river to the sea" is interpreted. The interpretation of Stefanik is clear, by the explicit part, but Gay could have addressed that instead. She didn't, so no, she doesn't pass go, but gets to leave.
As for your protection of free speech, you don't have a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure "redeeming" is quite the right, and I don't personally agree with everything Gay said (nor do I think she said everything particularly well), but, as the saying goes, I'll defend her right to say it. The question was a trap and Gay walked into. Nuance is lost when politicians set up traps.
Europeans and Americans have, traditionally, had very different views on "hate speech." I think we're much closer now than we were even 20 years ago.
I said something like this in another post, but for me, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stefanik begs the question, and makes it a trap.
will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say from the river to the sea or intifadaadvocating for the murder of Jews?
Those slogans are not calling for the murder of Jews any more than "Give me liberty or Give me death" was calling for the murder of Brits.
We can all play this game- and that's the problem. I can pick some slogan, like "Make America Great Again", and say it calls for the murder of liberals.
Re: Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:4)
It literally does not mean that. This is the same trap that Gay fell into—any resistance to Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza is now “genocide.” It’s a pretty clever attempt to quash discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point and well said.
The real problem is that supporting Hamas - who has repeatedly and incessantly called for the elimination of Jews, and taken every opportunity to do exactly that - is endorsing genocide.
You're absolutely right here, and this is what so gets lost. When ANY criticism of Israel, the Gaza military action, Israeli control over the West Bank, etc., is automatically met with cries of anti-semitism, Hamas gets a pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Israel doesn't control the West Bank
Maps:
https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/map-en.html [btselem.org]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/West_Bank_Access_Restrictions_June_2020.pdf [wikimedia.org]
Israel controls the West Bank. There are enclaves of Palestinian Authority control, but you cannot travel from one end of the West Bank to the other without encountering Israeli control. Israel regularly runs operations throughout and within these enclaves.
nor did it operate in Gaza (until a few months ago).
Israel controlled all land and sea borders around Gaza. Israel controlled trade in and out of Gaza. Israe
Re: (Score:2)
Israel has had Gaza 100% blockaded for over a decade.
When you have a strip of land 100% blockaded, you control its inputs and its outputs. Even if you don't operate within it, you control it.
You spew ignorance all over this conversation. It's really unhelpful.
Re: (Score:2)
One, Hamas doesn't have the manpower to enact "genocide". The idea is fucking laughable on its face.
They definitely call for it though, and so they're definitely the nastiest kind of little fanatic fucks.
The real problem in my eye, is that sharing a goal with Hamas- Palestinian control of Palestine, is considered supporting Hamas, and thus Genocide. And that's wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have a right to fight back? Is any fighting back (e.g., intifada) automatically genocidal?
Were the Jews taking Muslim and Christian Arab land in 1948, expelling tens or hundreds of thousands, genocidal?
If we can’t have conversations about the facts, we can’t have a conversation. That’s what the enemies of free speech seem to want. Shut it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but they're not "fighting back," they're just fighting.
Right, so you as a third-party (presumably) observer get to decide what valid forms of fighting back are. So it's OK for the state of Israel to control the borders of Gaza and the West Bank, run targeted military and police expeditions through those regions any time they want, control imports/exports, etc., but the residents are only allowed to resist in certain ways prescribed as legitimate by you.
This is EXACTLY why we must have free and open discussion of the issues, because people like you want to use l
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so you as a third-party (presumably) observer get to decide what valid forms of fighting back are. So it's OK for the state of Israel to control the borders of Gaza and the West Bank, run targeted military and police expeditions through those regions any time they want
YES, because the Palestinians are a psychopathic society, bent on violent and genocide. They've been offered their own independent state several times, and turned it down. They are no better than Nazis and must be controlled as such, or they will do what Nazis do, and genocide the Jews the instant they get a chance.
And you defending their attacks on civilians and genocidal goals makes YOU no better than a Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
And you defending their attacks on civilians and genocidal goals makes YOU no better than a Nazi.
Right, so this is how these conversations almost invariably go. You claim I have lied, I asked you to cite *one single* thing I have said that is not true. Instead you call me a Nazi, call all Palestinians psychopathic, and make up false claim strawmen (e.g., you claim I am defending attacks on civilians).
Quite frankly, you're illustrating very well who precisely the liar is, and you're illustrating why we MUST BE ABLE TO DISCUSS these issues without immediately starting to froth at the mouth with claims of
Re: (Score:2)
You are a Nazi. And I've been telling what's wrong with your so-called "arguments" all along, you just don't like to hear them.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to people like you, the term Nazi has been so denatured and trivialized that it's essentially the same as calling someone a meanie. It's pretty sad.
I stand by what I've said. If you can point to one single thing I've said that isn't true, I'm all ears.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis stood by what they said.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the fact that you literally can't show me one single thing I've said in this conversation that is not true would lead you to a moment of introspection. Should be easy to do, if you're correct.
It's easier just to resort to schoolyard insults. Freedom is hard, and freedom of speech is especially hard. Truth is even harder.
Happy to continue chatting if you have anything to add other than sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
You rationalize intentional and purposeful Anti-Semitic violence and genocide, in proud Nazi tradition. STFU, you fucking Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an opinion on the matter, but there's little indication yours is worth much.
Re: (Score:3)
part of a class action
And what? Make a group of lawyers rich? No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, and how exactly would you propose that any group of people harmed by a wealthy organization, with nearly limitless access to lawyers and judges, seek recompense?
Frankly speaking, corporations that profit from harming their customers have been the ones pushing to eliminate class action lawsuits, and propagandizing against civil recovery for the damages that they have done
Oh my, you watched a EpochTV youtube feeding you full of bullshit, and now you are White Knighting for corporations
What a rube
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, and how exactly would you propose that any group of people harmed by a wealthy organization, with nearly limitless access to lawyers and judges, seek recompense?
The only thing I can come up with is violence. Which is why I shouldn't be in charge of things.
I also would like to know how any corp has been punished by paying a nominal fee and admitting no fault. I want to know who has been helped or save by the pittance they get after the lawyers take their cut. That if they get anything. They prolly will end with a coupon.
So, I don't think this will work. Like the 1,000,000 other times it has been attempted and failed.
Sure, maybe 1,000,001 will be the one that wil
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, and how exactly would you propose that any group of people harmed by a wealthy organization, with nearly limitless access to lawyers and judges, seek recompense?
Frankly speaking, corporations that profit from harming their customers have been the ones pushing to eliminate class action lawsuits, and propagandizing against civil recovery for the damages that they have done
Oh my, you watched a EpochTV youtube feeding you full of bullshit, and now you are White Knighting for corporations
What a rube
In a case like this, I think a class action may be warranted, but I have yet to hear of any class action where more than a few dollars at most make it to the people most affected. In cases of this type of fraud causing this much damage? I'd much rather our government actually do one of it's primary jobs and serve the public good by starting criminal proceedings. We don't have a fitting punishment for corporations/schools/larger business related organizations now, but it's not like we can't come up with some
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, and how exactly would you propose that any group of people harmed by a wealthy organization, with nearly limitless access to lawyers and judges, seek recompense?
True, but class action lawsuits benefit the corporation. They end up paying much less than they would if they had to deal with each litigant separately.
There's no good answer it's just stacked against the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
They only benefit the corporation if damages are too low. When the corporation gets too big, that happens. Maybe increase damages proportional to the # of claimants, or reduce that percentage that can go to the lawyers.
But if you hurt them too much, a lot of people, or all of them, could lose their jobs. Or everyone will be suing over nothing, and HR departments will become even more ridiculous.
What exact system do you propose? A purge? Not sure we'd win that system, either!
Re:Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would propose getting rid of lawyers all together and make it a trial where an impartial Judge/Jury presides, collects evidence from both sides.
All that the presence of lawyers does is weigh the verdict in favor of the rich, justice should not be a function of the size of your wallet.
Since Harvard is a law school, it is probably helping them out having large lots of lawyers.
Alternatively you could force parties large parties the same amount to the people suing as they pay to their lawyers, so they are not able to out finance them.
The simple solution that wouldn't immediately destroy corporate sponsored lawyer teams would be to start a pool at the launch of a trial. That pool is an aggregation of what each "side" can afford to pay their lawyers. That pool is then split. If it's not enough for the bigger budget involved, they're welcome to add more, but only if they hand the same amount off to the other side. If we want to pretend to have a justice system and not a legally enforced oligarchy masquerading as a court? That would solve a lot of the "greed wins the day" nonsense.
It'd never happen because the moron brigade would crawl out of the woodwork to scream about all-important business entities that the country would fall apart without being harmed by the little guys they're stepping on, but it's a nice theory to imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
That solves the David vs Goliath problem but introduces a new problem. What do you put in place to prevent crap legal harassment suits from people who don't have a legit issue and just want an easy pay day?
There'd probably have to be an oversight officer to judge if the case had any merits before the money started flowing. The trick would be to have that officer be isolated enough from the situation that they couldn't be bought outright by the bigger purse. I would think having a judge from another jurisdiction be the oversight officer could work. Of course, it's entirely possible any judge *could* be bought, but I think most judges actually try to stick to the letter of the law. I know the few I've spoken wi
Re: (Score:2)
It's more about hurting the bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, but I'm pretty fucking sure all assholes who get sued don't have mansions and luxury cars and can easily lose. Otherwise, they would never defend themselves. Are you really trying to argue that people should never sue?
Oh, you were just being a total fucking asshole, yourself?
Re:Haaa Vaaaahd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same Harvard that holds almost $50 BILLION dollars in their endowment?
No, this is Dana Farber, a large teaching hospital that is institutionally independent from Harvard College, but is affiliated with (i.e. trains students from) Harvard Medical School -- as are about eight other major Boston area hospitals. It's roughly analogous to your local vocational high school having an arrangment with some local car repair shops to help train students and provide internships.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification. Seems to me the article shouldn't have played up the Harvard affiliation.
This is going to happen a lot over the next 3-5 yr (Score:3, Insightful)
It's remarkably easy to pull an entire researcher's catalog of work, then use AI to cross reference it against all of (researcher's language here, probably english) scihub looking for plagiarism now. 10-40 hours per researcher. No surprise the people at the top cheated their way there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell the truth (Score:4)
Re:Tell the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
It does no one justice to lie and definitely not to yourself or organization. Yeah, it can be grey sometimes, don't do it. Ever.
And yet, we have roughly half the country cheering a makeup wearing lying adulterer who wears lifts in his shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a good idea and it is the only way to actually advance your own personality (not your status or position). Most people cannot do it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is unclear. What is clear is that the average person lies daily and hence expects (often correctly) that others lie routinely too.
I don't. I find it detrimal to understanding reality. As soon as you start lying to others, you are prone to lying to yourself as well. And that is not good at all.
PubPeer? (Score:2, Funny)
One of the first things they taught us in college (a party school) orientation is that public urination is no joke.
the examples are interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
At a certain point the fairly-incestuous process of peer-review starts to appear as foolish as letting Boeing inspect its own planes.
Consequence? (Score:3)
Academics urgently need to look into the mirror and objectively note what they observe. They probably have a course on that.
Freakonomics covered this recently (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple worthy podcasts from Freakonomis Radio that dig into this:
Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?
Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?
Roughly speaking we have an incentive system around "Publish or Perish" that makes honesty much less profitable than fraud. Fraud itself is too simple of a term when it comes to things like P-hacking. Until you can have a good career without becoming a paper mill, the problems of low quality and fraudulent academic papers will persist.
Re: (Score:2)
Top-shelf research and academics in the US is overcompetitive. Competit
trust is down the toilet (Score:2)
We're kind of in an era where quoted science is open to suspicion and research results can't be trusted either.
Frankly I doubted the Harvard report about levitating goats that quoted Einstein as saying gravity is just an illusion of small minds and then cited physicist Indiana Jones.
incentives (Score:2)
People cheat when it makes sense for them to cheat. I used to work with a PhD from Harvard, he would cherry pick data to tell any story he wanted. The company needed his projects to work and needed to show customers data, he needed to produce the right documents whether it matched reality or not. Similar to the Theranos situation actually.
37 known or so far (Score:2)
And this just Harvard. Add in other big name universities and this number could get huge.
cheating is taught in the first university class (Score:2)
Re:Science cult (Score:5, Insightful)
They cried into their pillow on a literal story about scientists holding other scientists to account .
Re: (Score:2)
and another thing: im not mad. please dont put in the newspaper that i got mad. [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That’s why you publish data, so others can validate your claims. Since I assume you’re talking about the covid vaccine can you offer data as to it’s dangers or efficacy?
Re: (Score:2)
Science is not faulty. Some scientists are. Your generalization is invalid.
But then, you are on the side of lying, lying and some more lying, aren't you? Because that works so much better...
Re: (Score:2)
This is just how the human mind works, if someone in your family does something wrong you are likely to say they are bad, if someone in an outside group does something wrong you are likely to say that group is bad.
We generalize we have much more information about things that are closer to us so we can see, however since I have very little information about Harvard I just have to judge Harvard, although it is probably just a few people in Harvard too, but which ones?
Re:If harvard were a Chinese university (Score:5, Insightful)
There are countless American idioms meant to indicate that it's okay to do immoral things to get what you want: "the ends justify the means", "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs", "desperate times call for desperate measures", "it's a dog eat dog world", &c, &c.
As for your claim about the chinese idiom, I've never heard it. Can you please provide the precise chinese language translation, so I can verify if it even exists at all?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the ends justify the means
Italian.
you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
French.
desperate times call for desperate measures
Greek.
Americans didn't invent the concept of shitty people making cute phrases to justify immoral shit, you ignorant toolshed.
Re: (Score:2)
Too lazy to read the thread? The OP claimed:
"There's no common idiom in the US...."
Those are all common idioms in the US.
Put away your American outrage. Nobody said you invented anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at your quote:
"There's no common idiom in the US...."
Let's look at what they actually said:
There are countless American idioms meant to indicate that it's okay to do immoral things to get what you want:
Looks like neither of us are lazy, but your ability to memorize even small statements without modifying them is lacking.
The idioms listed above are not "American Idioms".
They are foreign idioms in common use in the US.
Next we shall call c'est la vie an American idiom.
Try harder next time. You just made yourself look stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes yes, China evil, US exceptional (and good). We know the schtick.
All's fair in love and war, you know, so just do what it takes and fake it until you make it.
Re:If harvard were a Chinese university (Score:4, Informative)
Fake it until you make it. Quantity has a quality all of it's own. All's fair in love and war. Everything around the legend of Robin Hood.
People like the GP are hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
There are countless American idioms meant to indicate that it's okay to do immoral things to get what you want: "the ends justify the means", "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs", "desperate times call for desperate measures", "it's a dog eat dog world", &c, &c.
Aside from "the end justify the means", I don't see how any of the other saying indicate acceptance of immoral actions. Breaking a few eggs indicates that mistakes or sacrifices must be made but doesn't say anything about the morality of such sacrifices. Desperate measures also indicate desperation but not necessarily immorality. "Dog-eat-dog" indicates competitiveness but again doesn't necessarily indicate immorality.
"The end justify the means" does indeed indicate the desirability of immoral actions.
Re: (Score:3)
"might makes right", "history is written by the victors" etc... the examples are endless. you can pretend otherwise, but there are plenty of idioms that Americans use to justify immoral behavior that they happen to like.
Re: (Score:2)
"might makes right", "history is written by the victors" etc... the examples are endless. you can pretend otherwise, but there are plenty of idioms that Americans use to justify immoral behavior that they happen to like.
One point, "history is written by the victors" is not at all a moral justification for immoral behavior. It's an explanation as to why immoral behavior on the part of the victors is often glossed over in history lessons, and that phrase is said to indicate that you're not getting the whole story. "Might makes right" definitely fits the direction we're headed in this thread though. That's a real shit attitude used by wanna-be slavers, fascists, and shit-heels that are strong in body, weak in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
"might makes right", "history is written by the victors" etc... the examples are endless. you can pretend otherwise, but there are plenty of idioms that Americans use to justify immoral behavior that they happen to like.
Are you aware that both of your additional examples are precisely what is addressed by the comment you're replying to? Re-read larryjoe's second paragraph.
The fact that you seem to offer them as counterexamples suggests either or both:
A) you're not really thinking about and engaging with the points the other person is making, you're just coming back to repeat your argument for its own sake.
B) you're not a native/proficient user of American English, or perhaps you have some neurodivergent cognition where you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Cultures contain multitudes. The fact that there are negative idioms present in American culture doesn't mean that every American is always acting negatively; nor does it mean there are no positive idioms.
2) You are redefining the idioms to be much narrowly used than they are in practice. Additionally, the list of such idioms is nearly endless... people will say "might makes right" to argue that the more powerful entity can do whatever it wants and shouldn't be restrained... they'll say "history is w
Re: (Score:2)
"Better to ask for forgiveness than permission?"
I don't know to what degree it's fully cultural vs situational, but in multiple countries (including America) I have witnessed, firsthand, groups of Indian (from India) and Chinese (from China) students who seem to have absolutely no issue with organized and systematic in-group cheating. Again, I don't know if it's cultural, the position of being foreign students in a different country, or what. It seems pretty rampant, however.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no common idiom in the US that's equivalent to the very common Chinese phrase, "if you can cheat, then cheat."
This itself is an American fabrication, no different than a Chinese claiming "Fake it til you make it" is a common American phrase and hence American culture encourages liars.
As another poster provided a link above, "if you can X, then X" is just a common language pattern, you can just as well say that "if you can work hard, then work hard" is a very common Chinese phrase and hence Chinese are culturally hard workers.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase "what they don't know won't hurt them" doesn't exist in English?
Interesting take.
(Without knowing the Chinese context I have to assume it has basically the same meaning).
Re: (Score:2)
That is entirely in your mind. You should seek help.
Incidentally, the whole deranged "anti-vaxx" movement is based on a study that was scientific fraud.