One time I was playing the game before I had some friends over . They arrived as I was still playing and I told them about the game . I was only about 14 into the game at most , and since I had already saved , I decided to just get killed by the Alien , let them see the cool kill animation . I started running . Jumping . Throwing stuff around . Even shooting the gun I had never touched until then . Nothing . No matter what I did , the Alien didn ' t appear . I think now it was scripted to not appear in that area . My friends just laughed and didn ' t believe there was an Alien at all . <| sep |> Yes ! Great Job ! <| sep |> It is the correct traslation <| sep |> link you sent me was in RussianIt is a link to scihub , a big repository of scientific papers , so you don ' t have to pay 25 dollars for science that was already paid for by taxes . Fill in the captcha , press enter and you ' ll get the paper I linked to in English . You want to talk about academic freedom ? That ' s an ideological view you ' re supporting . You want to talk about exposing students to new ideas ? Well that ' s actually an ideological position . I would rather say that it is a metaideology . There are many people with competing ideologies that can coexist , because the ideologies don ' t seek to oppress each other , but rather , to win by gaining as much support for their ideas . Similarly , in politics most people see a difference between a party that wants to eliminate Obamacare and one that wants to eliminate elections . The latter is not merely a desire that one can agree or disagree on , it is a fundamental attack on the very idea that people should have a freedom to choose their path in life . You talk of them indoctrinating people , but for the life of me I don ' t see why people can ' t understand that we ' ve all been indoctrinated by society and our education . The difference is that I support your and my right to speak out against this indoctrination and convince people that other ideas are better . These people don ' t want to extend that same right to the people they disagree with , they just want their ideas to be unchallenged . This , of course , just leads to other indoctrination , but one that is far more insidious , as people are prevented from hearing other ideas . When people speak about indoctrination they so often don ' t realize that they too are arguing for a type of indoctrination themselves , even if its freedom . Not really , if I get my way , antifreedom people will have just as much right to be heard as profreedom people . This is not the same as people who want only one side to be heard . I have to be honest , I ' m not sure what you ' re trying to say in the part that I bolded . My point was that when there are ideological rules , where people are punished when they break those rules , people cannot just ignore that they rules exist . If you are not religious in Iran , you cannot afford to not know the religious rules that exist or to ignore them , because the religious police will enforce those rules on you . Similarly , if you don ' t care about SJ , you can increasingly not afford not to know the SJ rules , because the SJ police will enforce those rules on you , if they can . There is literally no danger of business being changed . , the reductionist framing of gender inequalities as the ' wage gap ' is a very good example of how a onesided view is pushed as the only appropriate way to approach the issue . But don ' t lay this at the doorstep of some social justice ideology when the data at the time supported that men overwhelmingly abused women as if we could peer into a magic ball and just find the truth . The issue is that ideological science doesn ' t allow the facts to invalidate the theory . Science is no longer judged on the quality of the methodology , but on the ideological correctness of the outcomes . As such , the science will keep showing the same things , regardless of whether it is true , as other outcomes are considered wrong , even if the scientific methodology is strong while theoryaffirming outcomes are considered correct , no matter how weak the scientific methodology . The Straus paper has many examples of this . It just seems kind of farcical to me to think that there was a time when universities taught only truth . That ' s not the claim though , the claim is that they strove to find and teach the truth and are abandoning this more and more . And let ' s just be clear here , just a policy being sexist where women get better government support is not wrong on its face . If women face more disadvantages than men or have unique issues that they need dealt with isn ' t automatically bad anymore than EI is bad because it helps out poor people . The problem is when people who say that men are not necessarily more advantaged in a certain situation are not called wrong and their arguments debated , but ' no platformed ' andor run out of science as being an evil person for even entertaining this option .