> The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti-homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti-gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes.

So, let me rephrase that

> after hearing jokes featuring homosexuals, the anti-homosexuals (however those where determined and chosen for the study) where anti-homosexual. The not-anti-homosexuals where not anti-homosexual ater hearing jokes featuring homosexuals

If anything, that link disproves your own point.

How excactly? The anti-homosexual people apparently did not change, while the normal people also did not change. The study thus proofed that the presence of the jokes is moot, no?

Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

Yes I think that one can be dismissed.

I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

> A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis

My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too.

> a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts.

Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers?

I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.

> I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed.

> I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to

That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment.

> Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.