- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
|
Not long ago people used to go to university to take practical courses that could lead them to meaningful employment.
In modern times, we have most people spending 4 years arguing about policy brutality, getting people locked up in prison for using incorrect gender pronouns, memorizing the communist manifesto and other associated activities. |
|
COVxy posted...
You are a troll, but unfortunately there's enough people who actually believe this s***. You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal, well beyond the average American.
KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos
|
|
REMercsChamp posted...
to take practical courses If you're making a distinction between academia and "practical courses", universities have been on the academia side longer than on the "job prep" side. |
|
COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal. Do you think learning in an overwhelming liberal environment, where many conservatives feel uncomfortable at best, or are weeded out at worst, is likely to result in biased education?
KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos
|
|
Antifar posted...
REMercsChamp posted...memorizing the communist manifesto You tell me, you're the expert on the subject |
|
TC, it's not that people weren't taking "useless" classes before, it's that they didn't have to major in STEM to have a good chance of landing careers out of college. Now, though, not even STEM guarantees anything. College is not the obvious path to success it once was.
If you like sluggers to beat off your head, don't organize, all unions despise.
If you want nothing before you are dead, shake hands with your boss, look wise. |
|
lderivedx posted...
conservatives getting "weeded" out This so hard. Give me a break @Callixtus, you can't actually believe that right? At least not outside of like Evergreen. I have more than a few conservative friends at Berkeley that love it there so we can't use that one either.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
|
Callixtus posted...
Do you think learning in an overwhelming liberal environment, where many conservatives feel uncomfortable at best, or are weeded out at worst, is likely to result in biased education? Not that I've observed. Political s*** almost never comes up in the classroom, that I've observed. Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
|
|
COVxy posted...
seeking information for the good of humanity, Oh lord. The sad part is this guy actually believes what he's saying |
|
lderivedx posted...
conservatives getting "weeded" out http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0
KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos
|
|
COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...Do you think learning in an overwhelming liberal environment, where many conservatives feel uncomfortable at best, or are weeded out at worst, is likely to result in biased education? The ol' conservatives hate knowledge number. One of my favorite tunes.
KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos
|
|
REMercsChamp posted...
COVxy posted...seeking information for the good of humanity, If I wasn't so sure you were a gimmick account, I would put money on the fact that you haven't stepped foot on a university campus.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
|
|
Callixtus posted...
The ol' conservatives hate knowledge number. One of my favorite tunes. No, the entire ideology resists change and prioritizes monetary incentives. Both things are contradictory to holding an academic position. Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, and only are successful in-so-far as they turn over conventional knowledge and institute change.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
|
|
COVxy posted...
Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, This is only true for the lower ranked grunts, who are busting their asses with the goal of getting a tenured position that they can never be fired from, delegate all the crap work and make $150k+ a year |
|
REMercsChamp posted...
COVxy posted...Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, Again, if you weren't a gimmick, I'd put good money on the fact that you've never been on a university campus. You don't know what you're talking about.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
|
|
COVxy posted...
REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, Sure thing bud. It's a good thing we have these selfless warriors dedicating themselves tirelessly to the betterment of humanity. |
|
Intro2Logic posted...
Why doesn't someone make a moderate college or a conservative university, and get all the kids and professors who don't want politics in their learning? That's most of the religious institutions TBH. Obviously, they don't actually do that though.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
|
REMercsChamp posted...
Sure thing bud. It's a good thing we have these selfless warriors dedicating themselves tireless to the betterment of humanity. Starting professors make around 60k, full professors around 100k, then the most prestigious make around what you're claiming. All still work 60-80 hour work weeks, which would be liberal when taking into account the amount of work done at home.
=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]
|
|
REMercsChamp posted...
COVxy posted...REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, If you weren't a gimmick I'd put good money you were homeschooled or have the absolute minimum experience with education in any capacity.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
|
COVxy posted...
which would be liberal Yep, it sure would be |
|
yesterday iirc
Drawn for me by | Popcorn_Fairy: https://i.imgtc.com/cvSNxRT.jpg | Volkswagen_Bros: http://i.imgur.com/86XOVXb.jpg | ShinobiNinjaX: https://imgur.com/bPb5vEV
|
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, Up yours, Zeeak! |
|
REMercsChamp posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...REMercsChamp posted...COVxy posted...Academic scientists work 80+ hour weeks with very little pay, Fair enough.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
lderivedx posted...conservatives getting "weeded" out Yes, I do actually think it happens. Look at the link I posted. No I don't think that these professors are overtly forced out, but the environment is so hostile to conservatism that some are all but forced out. Here are some other examples: Duke professor resigns after controversy where he criticized diversity training: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/05/divinity-school-professor-resigns-after-dispute-with-colleagues-about-diversity-training-calling-it-a-waste Penn law professor denounced in letter written by her fellow professors: http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-faculty Professor suffered concussion after being attacked by students for engaging with a conservative speaker https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?mcubz=1 Professor resigns after fighting his university in court on a variety of free speech issues, and winning https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2017/08/04/my-resignation-from-uncwilmington-n2364243
KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos
|
|
The last one wasn't being pushed out. He actually did the exact opposite of what you suggested and retired because he had won so much for the conservatives.
Griffith just sounds like a CEman. Penn wasn't an issue. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. If you say stupid s*** your employer and coworkers don't like you will probably be asked to leave. That's not an issue with students being indoctrinated or conservatives students/faculty being pushed out for their beliefs. It's for their public actions. Reading third link now. The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides. It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.
Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X
|
|
It's quite simple: Education, Administration, Student Counseling, and Early Childhood majors are the lowest-IQ college majors.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ So is it any wonder why leftists dominate these positions? lol
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell |
|
Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...lderivedx posted...conservatives getting "weeded" out I'm surprised it's taken this long for the "free speech" non-issue to enter the topic
peanut butter and dick
|
|
averagejoel posted...
I'm surprised it's taken this long for the "free speech" non-issue to enter the topic I think free speech stops being a "non-issue" when schools start mandating censorship laws to protect people's feefees.
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell |
|
Zeeak4444 posted...
If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground. |
- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
averagejoel posted...Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
"stupid" no; "harmful to already vulnerable people" yes
Define harmful and define vulnerable.
And explain how censoring conservatives doesn't then them into a marginalized minority also.Mal_Fet posted...It's quite simple: Education, Administration, Student Counseling, and Early Childhood majors are the lowest-IQ college majors.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
First, those majors have very little to do with professsors. Secondly, that link is so f***ing flawed it's hilarious that you'd have the balls to post it.
Just a joke of a post.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]Mal_Fet posted...It's quite simple: Education, Administration, Student Counseling, and Early Childhood majors are the lowest-IQ college majors.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
So is it any wonder why leftists dominate these positions?
lol
I don't see any actual date. I see when it was collected but can't find any actual date.
I apologize but do you know where it is. My mobile phones not helping with the terrible format of that site.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XIntro2Logic posted...Why doesn't someone make a moderate college or a conservative university, and get all the kids and professors who don't want politics in their learning?
Because it wouldn't make them enough money. Same thing when you ask those same people why they don't become teachers, when they spend all their time b****ing about how teachers are overpaid and do very little work. You would think they would jump at the chance, but they turn around and say they wouldn't get paid enough if they were to teach.The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes. That's fact.
Everything else, is theory.TradPaladin01 posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.
It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.
If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.
I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.
Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCallixtus posted...Yes, I do actually think it happens. Look at the link I posted.
I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.
"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.
“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom HanksZeeak4444 posted...TradPaladin01 posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.
It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.
If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.
I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.
Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?
Basically Antifa for the 60s and 70s, but more violent. You probably remember the scandal in 2008 about Obama's associatons with Bill Ayers.Callixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
Wait was that towards me or the guy below?
YOU
Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.
I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid s*** to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.
If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid s***.
He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a f***ing idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCapn Circus posted...I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.
"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.
“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”
Sounds like someone who's never even actually ran any studies, nevermind submitted anything for peer review.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]TradPaladin01 posted...averagejoel posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
"stupid" no; "harmful to already vulnerable people" yes
Define harmful and define vulnerable.
And explain how censoring conservatives doesn't then them into a marginalized minority also.
by "vulnerable" I mean marginalized groups. poor people, people of colour, women, LGBT+ people, disabled people, etc.
by "harmful" I mean that conservative policies disproportionately hurt those marginalized people.
as for your last demand, conservatives are not being censored - though they sometimes have a platform taken away. even if they were being harmed by others, that harm would be a reaction against their harmful ideology.peanut butter and dickTradPaladin01 posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
TradPaladin01 posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.
It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.
If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.
I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.
Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?
Basically Antifa for the 60s and 70s, but more violent. You probably remember the scandal in 2008 about Obama's associatons with Bill Ayers.
I do. I know exactly what you're talking about now.
Thanks for the help.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
Wait was that towards me or the guy below?
YOU
Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.
I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid s*** to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.
If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid s***.
He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a f***ing idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.
First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCOVxy posted...Capn Circus posted...
I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.
"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.
“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”
Sounds like someone who's never even actually ran any studies, nevermind submitted anything for peer review.
Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.
I've heard a lot of students bulls*** about their great ideas and how their gonna get into grad school with their 2.4 gpa. They express themselves with very similar sentiments.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]averagejoel posted...as for your last demand, conservatives are not being censored - though they sometimes have a platform taken away.
That's considered censorship.
averagejoel posted...by "vulnerable" I mean marginalized groups. poor people, people of colour, women, LGBT+ people, disabled people, etc.
by "harmful" I mean that conservative policies disproportionately hurt those marginalized people.
See above. If someone no-platformed a member of one of the groups you mentioned, on the basis of their identity, you would try to get the government involved, on the basis of it being "discrimination". So how can you call for more discrimination against conservatives without turning them into a literal marginalized group?
You're probably just a Marxist who wants special rights for demographics who vote Democrat, but assuming you're not a total joke, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and explain how you're not hypocritical.Callixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
Wait was that towards me or the guy below?
YOU
Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.
I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid s*** to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.
If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid s***.
He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a f***ing idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.
First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.
1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
Wait was that towards me or the guy below?
YOU
Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.
I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid s*** to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.
If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid s***.
He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a f***ing idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.
First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.
1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with stating that certain cultural norms are superior to others. The fact that you reflexively think otherwise, shows just how much you have been led astray.
There are cultures that practice female genital mutilation, or force their women to dress completely covered from head to toe with little eye slits being their only bared flesh. Do you think those cultural norms are equal to your own or are yours superior?KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCOVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.
I've heard a lot of students bulls*** about their great ideas and how their gonna get into grad school with their 2.4 gpa. They express themselves with very similar sentiments.
The student quoted was already in grad school. Furthermore,
"It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded""I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom HanksTradPaladin01 posted...That's considered censorship.
do you also consider it censorship when someone gets fired from their job for being racist
TradPaladin01 posted...See above. If someone no-platformed a member of one of the groups you mentioned, on the basis of their identity, you would try to get the government involved, on the basis of it being "discrimination". So how can you call for more discrimination against conservatives without turning them into a literal marginalized group?
because facing consequences for trying to harm marginalized groups is not the same thing as facing discriminationYou're probably just a Marxist who wants special rights for demographics who vote Democrat, but assuming you're not a total joke, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and explain how you're not hypocritical.
what on earth does Marxism have to do with the Democratic Party in the US?peanut butter and dickCOVxy posted...Capn Circus posted...
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded"
With the assumption of a random distribution. Nonproportional representation is certainly not evidence of discriminstion.
Except if it involves women, right?KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...So why do you think women are underrepresented in tech and engineering?
I think that some proportion of that is self selection, but given the relatively recent history of overt systemic biases, we have to keep an open mind observant for any systemic biases still in place, even if unintentional and covert.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]averagejoel posted...do you also consider it censorship when someone gets fired from their job for being racist
Yes.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.
Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Depriving someone of their livelihood because you don't like something they said is objectively a form of censorship, regardless of whether we assume it's justifiable or political correctness gone mad. You are applying restrictions on the free speech of your employees.
averagejoel posted...because facing consequences for trying to harm marginalized groups is not the same thing as facing discrimination
You'll have to slow down and make real arguments before you throw in the buzzwords. How does me having a different opinion than you "harm marginalized groups"? And how are conservatives not themselves a marginalized group in universities? They're so marginalized that the threat of violence even exists, unlike with racial or sexual minorities on campuses.Callixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Callixtus posted...
So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid s***" now. Classy.
Wait was that towards me or the guy below?
YOU
Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.
I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid s*** to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.
If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid s***.
He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a f***ing idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.
First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.
1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with stating that certain cultural norms are superior to others. The fact that you reflexively think otherwise, shows just how much you have been led astray.
There are cultures that practice female genital mutilation, or force their women to dress completely covered from head to toe with little eye slits being their only bared flesh. Do you think those cultural norms are equal to your own or are yours superior?
@Callixtus I think there's other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.
She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.
She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.
Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?
We all implicitly believe this btw.KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.
She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.
Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?
We all implicitly believe this btw.
Nothing. Like I said.
Saying it in public is stupid as s*** though and completely changes the conversation.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XTradPaladin01 posted...Depriving someone of their livelihood because you don't like something they said is objectively a form of censorship, regardless of whether we assume it's justifiable or political correctness gone mad. You are applying restrictions on the free speech of your employees.
ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.
TradPaladin01 posted...You'll have to slow down and make real arguments before you throw in the buzzwords. How does me having a different opinion than you "harm marginalized groups"? And how are conservatives not themselves a marginalized group in universities? They're so marginalized that the threat of violence even exists, unlike with racial or sexual minorities on campuses.
conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"
a "difference in opinion" is for people who listen to musical soundtracks in the car. not for people who try to take away poor peoples' healthcarepeanut butter and dickCOVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
So why do you think women are underrepresented in tech and engineering?
I think that some proportion of that is self selection, but given the relatively recent history of overt systemic biases, we have to keep an open mind observant for any systemic biases still in place, even if unintentional and covert.
But there are no systemic biases against conservatives, despite the widespread reports and constant campus agitation against conservative thinkers, their vast underrepresentation, the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etcKhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosZeeak4444 posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.
She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.
Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?
We all implicitly believe this btw.
Nothing. Like I said.
Saying it in public is stupid as s*** though and completely changes the conversation.
The fact that saying it in public is regarded as beyond the pale is exactly why it needs to be said in public. She is a professor. Her job is to seek out the truth and to argue for it. Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etc
The average there being around a 2/7, where 1 is not at all, where questions are ambiguous enough to suggest that the grant/paper might demonstrate conservative bias, in which case one should "discriminate" against, as research should be unbiased.
Not exactly stellar evidence of discrimination.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]@Callixtus
Sorry too lazy to format the 7 quote cap on my phone.
In response:
Nah, like I said, the problem is they're unsubstantiated. She's not seeking out the truth, she's pretending she already found it.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCallixtus posted...Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.
That's not at all what I said, but okay then.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]COVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etc
The average there being a 2/7, where 1 is not at all, where questions are ambiguous enough to suggest that the grant/paper might demonstrate conservative bias, in which case one should "discriminate" against, as research should be unbiased.
Not exactly stellar evidence of discrimination.
Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.
How many times have we all seen this?KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCOVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.
That's not at all what I said, but okay then.Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileosaveragejoel posted...ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.
Thanks for admitting it.
averagejoel posted...conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"
Literally is. If you think expressing conservative beliefs should magically be illegal because they're not real opinions, it backs up what I said earlier about you being a hard left Marxist.Callixtus posted...
Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.
How many times have we all seen this?
Overly criticize? The metric of willingness to criticize is only approx. one standard deviation above the minimum, and you're using this as evidence that there's definite discrimination, despite the ambiguous wording?
No, seems like you're trying to over interpret evidence.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]TradPaladin01 posted...averagejoel posted...
ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.
Thanks for admitting it.
averagejoel posted...conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"
Literally is. If you think expressing conservative beliefs should magically be illegal because they're not real opinions, it backs up what I said earlier about you being a hard left Marxist.
What is this.. a new ProudClad alt?If you're not looking for any honest discussion, agreement, meeting halfway or middle ground, don't bother arguing with me. Selfish narcissists need not apply.COVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.
How many times have we all seen this?
Overly criticize? The metric of willingness to criticize is only approx. one standard deviation above the minimum, and you're using this as evidence that there's definite discrimination, despite the ambiguous wording?
No, seems like you're trying to over interpret evidence.
All wording is ambiguous if it supports COVxy's agenda.KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...
Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.
That's not at all what I said, but okay then.Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".
@COVxy You gonna address thisKhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, BasileosCallixtus posted...Callixtus posted...
COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...
Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.
That's not at all what I said, but okay then.Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".
@COVxy You gonna address this
You can't call someone else out about addressing something right after I call you out on addressing something...Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCOVxy posted...Yeah, you clearly can't read if you think that my post is suggesting what you claimed.
Are the primary tenants of conservatism opposed to seeking information for the good or humanity or not?Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
Zeeak4444 posted...@Callixtus
Sorry too lazy to format the 7 quote cap on my phone.
In response:
Nah, like I said, the problem is they're unsubstantiated. She's not seeking out the truth, she's pretending she already found it.
She discusses specifically things like the benefits of marriage in the op-ed which was the cause of the controversy, and has a large amount of scholarly support behind it, despite liberal tears.Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal idealsCallixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus
Sorry too lazy to format the 7 quote cap on my phone.
In response:
Nah, like I said, the problem is they're unsubstantiated. She's not seeking out the truth, she's pretending she already found it.
She discusses specifically things like the benefits of marriage in the op-ed which was the cause of the controversy, and has a large amount of scholarly support behind it, despite liberal tears.
I thought it was her talk about the defense of the disparaged or something similar. Then she only made things worse with the Angelo comment.
I guess I'll have to read about it again sometime. Thanks for replying.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCOVxy posted...No. Never said that. Read.
1. Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals.
2. Th[is is] contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Do you understand what the word contrary means @COVxy? It means opposed to, or the opposite of. So the nature of the job which selects for liberal ideals, according to you, cleary does so because it is opposed to the tenants of conservative ideology.
Maybe you should clarify this, since it's so far above my head. Or is this the usual COVxy gameplan where words suddenly become ambiguous?Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal idealsCOVxy posted...Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Read. Change and disregard for monetary incentive are against the core tenants of conservatism. Pretty clear if you actually read the post.=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]COVxy posted...COVxy posted...
Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.
Read. Change and disregard for monetary incentive are against the core tenants of conservatism. Pretty clear if you actually read the post.
Nope the two things clearly referred to both sentences. And even if I granted your reading, it is still another example of liberal ignorance since you think accumulating knowledge is a liberal attribute.Liberal Arrogance: Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends self selects liberalsCOVxy posted...Your inability to read without puking your strawman interpretation onto the page.
Maybe you should work on your writing skills since you can't form basic expressions without retracting their meaning to substitute it for one that suits your agenda.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxyKineth posted...TradPaladin01 posted...
averagejoel posted...
ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.
Thanks for admitting it.
averagejoel posted...conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"
Literally is. If you think expressing conservative beliefs should magically be illegal because they're not real opinions, it backs up what I said earlier about you being a hard left Marxist.
What is this.. a new ProudClad alt?
You're not the only one suspicious about itCallixtus posted...MutantJohn posted...
wtf did I walk in on lol?
@COVxy backtracking on his garbage ode to liberalism
Seems like you're trolling like a champ. You may just be the conservative champion this board needs."Oh, my mother; oh, my friends, ask the angels, will I ever see heaven again?" - Laura MarlingThe hippies became the professors.COVxy posted...Callixtus posted...
You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal.
Academics are overwhelmingly liberal but that is not any indication of "indoctrination".
There are professors who definitely take advantage of the leeway given to them, their authority, and young open minds.SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlGweapon_d00d816 posted...COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...
You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal.
Academics are overwhelmingly liberal but that is not any indication of "indoctrination".
There are professors who definitely take advantage of the leeway given to them, their authority, and young open minds.
Nah, dude, more educated people are liberal just because they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed. They learn that there's more the universe than just them."Oh, my mother; oh, my friends, ask the angels, will I ever see heaven again?" - Laura MarlingMutantJohn posted...weapon_d00d816 posted...
COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...
You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal.
Academics are overwhelmingly liberal but that is not any indication of "indoctrination".
There are professors who definitely take advantage of the leeway given to them, their authority, and young open minds.
Nah, dude, more educated people are liberal just because they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed. They learn that there's more the universe than just them.
That was really lame and dodged the point anyway.SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlGMutantJohn posted...Callixtus posted...
MutantJohn posted...
wtf did I walk in on lol?
@COVxy backtracking on his garbage ode to liberalism
Seems like you're trolling like a champ. You may just be the conservative champion this board needs.
I'm not even a conservative. I'm a moderate or centrist, but there's hardly any difference anymore. These leftist progressives have become so extreme that we're all lumped together as bigots and deplorables.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxy@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you don't believe that typically, you (collective you) are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.
The vast majority of black people married before the sexual revolution and they were far, far, far more oppressed and poorer than any black people living in America today. The decline of marriage in the black community, and America altogether has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is plenty of research to back that up.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxyweapon_d00d816 posted...MutantJohn posted...
weapon_d00d816 posted...
COVxy posted...
Callixtus posted...
You can't deny that universities are liberal fortresses, and have becoming even more liberal.
Academics are overwhelmingly liberal but that is not any indication of "indoctrination".
There are professors who definitely take advantage of the leeway given to them, their authority, and young open minds.
Nah, dude, more educated people are liberal just because they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed. They learn that there's more the universe than just them.
That was really lame and dodged the point anyway.
Ya which was stupid to try and refute anyways. I've had plenty of teachers who completely based their teaching (discussion might be more fair) off their beliefs.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XCallixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.
The vast majority of black people married before the sexual revolution and they were far, far, far more oppressed and poorer than any black people living in America today. The decline of marriage in the black community, and America altogether has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is plenty of research to back that up.
Wait, is he literally trying to argue that stable families = oppressive to minorities?Fact of the matter is that professors have a golden opportunity to spread their beliefs to impressionable people, so inevitably some do. It seems like it isn't exactly rare either.SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SlGCallixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.
The vast majority of black people married before the sexual revolution and they were far, far, far more oppressed and poorer than any black people living in America today. The decline of marriage in the black community, and America altogether has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is plenty of research to back that up.
Yes but it's no where near exclusive to the black community and hilariously enough it's becoming even more prevelant showing an even further decrease in the gap between the majority and the minority.
I disagree 100% personally that marriage has a damn thing to do with anything. It's just a stupid deflection from the real issues regarding our governing system, infrastructure, laws, etc.
And that's at best. At worst it's a delusion that marriage is going to stabilize the state were in. Literally delusional to think people are magically gonna stay together because they suddenly had children after they married instead of before.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XTradPaladin01 posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.
The vast majority of black people married before the sexual revolution and they were far, far, far more oppressed and poorer than any black people living in America today. The decline of marriage in the black community, and America altogether has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is plenty of research to back that up.
Wait, is he literally trying to argue that stable families = oppressive to minorities?
Why wouldn't you just direct it at me.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
@Callixtus
Decided to actually research the Penn case.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/professors-cause-outrage-lamenting-culture-inner-city-blacks
This was the best article I read TBH. I read 9. This one provided the most quotes out of any I could find.
I think this ones important:
“For those of us who study midcentury U.S. law and culture, it is characterized by oppression every bit as much as opportunity,” they said in an email. “Picking and choosing in the ways that Wax and Alexander do – emphasizing what they view as positive features and downplaying the negative – does not take account of a much less rosy reality. Instead, they have constructed a wished-for (but never actual) golden age of hard work, pluck and respect.”
I am a Hetero white cis male. I apologize if I didn't get that right to anyone but I'm pretty sure that was it.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in America. I live 30 minutes away from the border. I went to school (Mount Miguel) where I was one of 7 white kids until I was kicked out during a riot and transferred to a school where there was about 20 minorities in the whole school late in my junior year (called West Hills High School). Both in San Diego.
I'm sorry, but everything in that statement was by someone who's never actually experienced inner-city culture. Marriage before children isn't realistic. No one wants that. Sorry, they just don't. Unless you're heavily religious you are the minority.
That opinion is literally calling for the poor to be segregated to the outskirts so we can go back to the stepford wives lmao. That's fine bro, like I said, you guys can believe that all you want. But you are in the minority. That's just the truth. She kept her job, so you really can't be mad that the worse she got was to be called an idiot (politely I might add) by her peers.
The fairest of next. Majority ruled in that case. You should be happy true Democracy was at work there.
The vast majority of black people married before the sexual revolution and they were far, far, far more oppressed and poorer than any black people living in America today. The decline of marriage in the black community, and America altogether has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is plenty of research to back that up.
Yes but it's no where near exclusive to the black community and hilariously enough it's becoming even more prevelant showing an even further decrease in the gap between the majority and the minority.
I disagree 100% personally that marriage has a damn thing to do with anything. It's just a stupid deflection from the real issues regarding our governing system, infrastructure, laws, etc.
And that's at best. At worst it's a delusion that marriage is going to stabilize the state were in. Literally delusional to think people are magically gonna stay together because they suddenly had children after they married instead of before.
Of course marriage isn't going to do anything now. That's because we've destroyed the norm of having children within wedlock, despite all the evidence showing that two-family households are far more stable for children and financially successful. Even poor people who are indistinguishable from other poor people statistically, except for the fact that they got married are far better off than those who didn't. But continue to believe marriage has no effect because it doesn't support your agenda.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxyZeeak4444 posted...I disagree 100% personally that marriage has a damn thing to do with anything. It's just a stupid deflection from the real issues regarding our governing system, infrastructure, laws, etc.
And that's at best. At worst it's a delusion that marriage is going to stabilize the state were in. Literally delusional to think people are magically gonna stay together because they suddenly had children after they married instead of before.
I think you're exaggerating what people mean when they focus on the "sanctity of marriage". Nobody is saying that a slip of paper will magically make your life better. It's not a hard and fast rule. But obviously a country after 60 years of feminism and welfare benefits is going to be in a much worse place after you've used the government to systematically destroy the family unit. It's a cultural problem.The family unit works. I'm not arguing against that.
The idea the family unit needs to be a husband and wife is flawed though. The idea that data from a point in time where the internet didn't exist, jobs were aplenty, and inflation hadn't hit so everything was a nickel would have any relevance whatsoever.
It's illogical. It's flawed. It's redundant to continue trying to make it work. If you really want a family unit you need to refine the idea of a unit. Not try and go back to a time that's so ridiculously different it might as well be talking about life at the turn of the century.
@TradPaladin01
@CallixtusTypical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XSo there was this Age of Enlightenment, it's on the internet, you can read about it. Liberalism and empiricism (foundation of modern science) both stem from that time. It's not very strange that academia is full of liberals when modern science is based on liberal philosophy. It sounds quite natural to me, actually, and I would expect that on top of the self selection COVxy mentions there is also a natural conversion - as you reason yourself to look at things with a scientific frame of mind, chances are it'll rub off on your reasoning skills. Which would lead you to favor the empirically optimal policies while still maintaining your moral foundation. That's a very liberal mindset.Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.Zeeak4444 posted...The family unit works. I'm not arguing against that.
The idea the family unit needs to be a husband and wife is flawed though. The idea that data from a point in time where the internet didn't exist, jobs were aplenty, and inflation hadn't hit so everything was a nickel would have any relevance whatsoever.
It's illogical. It's flawed. It's redundant to continue trying to make it work. If you really want a family unit you need to refine the idea of a unit. Not try and go back to a time that's so ridiculously different it might as well be talking about life at the turn of the century.
@TradPaladin01
@Callixtus
As if marriage dates from the dawn of the century. It was the norm in the West for thousands of years, and has worked quite well for all of that time. It's only been in the last 50 years or so that we've seen this decline because of idiotic liberal experimentation, and millions of the poor people they claim they wanted to "liberate" have suffered the devastating effects. No one should be shocked that when you destroy an ancient institution and replace it with nothing that you are not going to have good results.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxyZeeak4444 posted...The idea the family unit needs to be a husband and wife is flawed though
As opposed to like... 2 husbands? The cast of Full House? I don't think anyone is saying every family has to be the perfect nuclear, but it is a fact that divorced and single-parent households have negative outcomes compared to homes with a mom and a dad.
Zeeak4444 posted...The idea that data from a point in time where the internet didn't exist, jobs were aplenty, and inflation hadn't hit so everything was a nickel would have any relevance whatsoever.
It's illogical. It's flawed. It's redundant to continue trying to make it work. If you really want a family unit you need to refine the idea of a unit. Not try and go back to a time that's so ridiculously different it might as well be talking about life at the turn of the century.
I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. =/Callixtus posted...It was the norm in the West for thousands of years, and has worked quite well for all of that time.
I don't know how this topic came about, but you know that women were basically property until like the 20th century, right? "Worked quite well" is a bit of a laughable contention.Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.TradPaladin01 posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
The idea the family unit needs to be a husband and wife is flawed though
As opposed to like... 2 husbands? The cast of Full House? I don't think anyone is saying every family has to be the perfect nuclear, but it is a fact that divorced and single-parent households have negative outcomes compared to homes with a mom and a dad.
Zeeak4444 posted...The idea that data from a point in time where the internet didn't exist, jobs were aplenty, and inflation hadn't hit so everything was a nickel would have any relevance whatsoever.
It's illogical. It's flawed. It's redundant to continue trying to make it work. If you really want a family unit you need to refine the idea of a unit. Not try and go back to a time that's so ridiculously different it might as well be talking about life at the turn of the century.
I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. =/
For the first part I agree. But I don't see how we're gonna fix that these days. It was far different back in the day when cheating was far harder (and yet still prevelant). Now it's only easier to see what else you can have and etc. The root cause of people not wanting marriage because their interests don't always stay the same forever isn't gonna be solved by anything Amy suggested.
The second part was for @Callixtus who's still going on about it. I don't know how I can simplify it any further.
You're logic is flawed because you're ignoring the fact that the changes in the last 50 years have been so rapid it dwarfs almost everything before it and those it doesn't are completely different subjects which don't apply such as mass production.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_Xscar the 1 posted...Callixtus posted...
It was the norm in the West for thousands of years, and has worked quite well for all of that time.
I don't know how this topic came about, but you know that women were basically property until like the 20th century, right? "Worked quite well" is a bit of a laughable contention.
Pretty sure this is feminist mythology. How is today any different? Only difference is that men and women both have the luxury of being property of the state, now, thanks to the IRS.
scar the 1 posted...NadYobWoc posted...
MutantJohn posted...
wtf did I walk in on lol?
Callixtus trolling
Free speech is trolling now.TradPaladin01 posted...Pretty sure this is feminist mythology. How is today any different? Only difference is that men and women both have the luxury of being property of the state, now, thanks to the IRS.
So I guess the whole asking for the father's permission/father giving the daughter away at the wedding/man of the house/stay-at-home-mom/women voting rights coming much later/etc just came from nothing. "Feminist mythology" is probably the dumbest excuse I've heard today.Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.scar the 1 posted...TradPaladin01 posted...
Pretty sure this is feminist mythology. How is today any different? Only difference is that men and women both have the luxury of being property of the state, now, thanks to the IRS.
So I guess the whole asking for the father's permission/father giving the daughter away at the wedding/man of the house/stay-at-home-mom/women voting rights coming much later/etc just came from nothing. "Feminist mythology" is probably the dumbest excuse I've heard today.
Or, you know, arranged marriages.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XTradPaladin01 posted...scar the 1 posted...
Callixtus posted...
It was the norm in the West for thousands of years, and has worked quite well for all of that time.
I don't know how this topic came about, but you know that women were basically property until like the 20th century, right? "Worked quite well" is a bit of a laughable contention.
Pretty sure this is feminist mythology. How is today any different? Only difference is that men and women both have the luxury of being property of the state, now, thanks to the IRS.
scar the 1 posted...NadYobWoc posted...
MutantJohn posted...
wtf did I walk in on lol?
Callixtus trolling
Free speech is trolling now.
HahahahaCowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scenescar the 1 posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
Or, you know, arranged marriages.
Yeah, but that's kinda what "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" is.
Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
When I think arranged marriage I think literal property like you said. "Hey, have my daughter in return for land or political gain." Far far worse since we're talking about how marriage was just fine until 50 years ago and no one ever regretted it (as call suggested).Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XZeeak4444 posted...Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
Well yeah, that's the modern day phenomenon. However the tradition didn't just spring up from nowhere. It came from exactly what you're describing in your second paragraph.
"Hey, I want to marry your daughter."
"Hmm, nope, your estate isn't big enough, I decline."Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.Zeeak4444 posted...scar the 1 posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Or, you know, arranged marriages.
Yeah, but that's kinda what "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" is.
Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
When I think arranged marriage I think literal property like you said. "Hey, have my daughter in return for land or political gain." Far far worse since we're talking about how marriage was just fine until 50 years ago and no one ever regretted it (as call suggested).
The only thing stopping two people who have a kid by accident from getting married is cultural norms. Look at Japan. Almost no children there are born out of wedlock and they are subject to all the changes in economy in technology that we are. That's what happen when you have strong norms. But people havr left the Church of God and havr subscribed tp the Church of Me, in which they don't give a f*** if they knock a girl up, and there is minimal social pressure for them to do something about it.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxyCallixtus posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
scar the 1 posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Or, you know, arranged marriages.
Yeah, but that's kinda what "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" is.
Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
When I think arranged marriage I think literal property like you said. "Hey, have my daughter in return for land or political gain." Far far worse since we're talking about how marriage was just fine until 50 years ago and no one ever regretted it (as call suggested).
The only thing stopping two people who have a kid by accident from getting married is cultural norms. Look at Japan. Almost no children there are born out of wedlock and they are subject to all the changes in economy in technology that we are. That's what happen when you have strong norms. But people havr left the Church of God and havr subscribed tp the Church of Me, in which they don't give a f*** if they knock a girl up, and there is minimal social pressure for them to do something about it.
Yeah good thing those Japanese people love Jesus so much.Cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scenescar the 1 posted...So I guess the whole asking for the father's permission/father giving the daughter away at the wedding/man of the house/stay-at-home-mom/women voting rights coming much later/etc just came from nothing.
Or maybe it was just an easier way to make sure the genes passed on prior to the era of courtship, hookup culture & online dating, and the sexual revolution.MutantJohn posted...they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed.
I can hardly think of anyone more self-important and self-obsessed than an academicREMercsChamp posted...MutantJohn posted...
they learn to not be short-sighted and self-obsessed.
I can hardly think of anyone more self-important and self-obsessed than an academic
The irony is that you are conveying a sense of self-importance and I won't even bother commenting on the self-obsession part, but point is, what the f*** does your opinion matter? It's not backed up by anything. I could literally say Chris Jericho, the wrestler, portrayed a persona with more self-importance and self-obsession. Or even the Kim dynasty with the amount of statues, pictures, painting, etc that show depictions, images and etc. of them, as well as the propaganda that he forces the citizens to watch or about like the 18 hole-in-ones story. Hell, Henry VIII literally changed the Country's religion to Protestantism because he wanted to break tradition and be able to divorce some of the wives that didn't get killed or die.
Point is it's a disingenuous sentiment that doesn't fairly represent anything. There's either a lack of information, whether studied, or learned from the environment to explain the lack of context and other plausible possibilities, a clear bias against the subject that leads to things like: intending to discredit them, failing to see individuality in a group leading to failure to see the individual as anything but an idealized representation of the object in your head which leads to speaking of an unrealistic subject because it's not a realistic representation or a respectable one at that. It's likely a mix of both when people say this as a true sentiment instead of just to troll.
I don't want to even bother with the weird deflective conversation about matrimony in the black community. Like.. really. What the f*** is this topic supposed to be aboutIf you're not looking for any honest discussion, agreement, meeting halfway or middle ground, don't bother arguing with me. Selfish narcissists need not apply.scar the 1 posted...Zeeak4444 posted...
Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
Well yeah, that's the modern day phenomenon. However the tradition didn't just spring up from nowhere. It came from exactly what you're describing in your second paragraph.
"Hey, I want to marry your daughter."
"Hmm, nope, your estate isn't big enough, I decline."
Oh wow lol. I didn't know that, thanks for the new fact for the day.Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_XNadYobWoc posted...Callixtus posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
scar the 1 posted...
Zeeak4444 posted...
Or, you know, arranged marriages.
Yeah, but that's kinda what "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" is.
Fair enough. When I think asking for hand in marriage I think 18 year old talking to his highschool sweet heart or old fashioned gentleman asking the father.
When I think arranged marriage I think literal property like you said. "Hey, have my daughter in return for land or political gain." Far far worse since we're talking about how marriage was just fine until 50 years ago and no one ever regretted it (as call suggested).
The only thing stopping two people who have a kid by accident from getting married is cultural norms. Look at Japan. Almost no children there are born out of wedlock and they are subject to all the changes in economy in technology that we are. That's what happen when you have strong norms. But people havr left the Church of God and havr subscribed tp the Church of Me, in which they don't give a f*** if they knock a girl up, and there is minimal social pressure for them to do something about it.
Yeah good thing those Japanese people love Jesus so much.
They don't but they are still a society with strong values, unlike ours.Liberal Arrogance:Academics are overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, self selects liberals--COVxy- Boards
- Current Events
- When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?
