Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Marxist Profs or Sensitive Students?
Over at the LA Times' Dust Up, reason.tv interview subject and chief skeptic at The Skeptic Michael Shermer and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Greg Lukianoff are discussing academic freedom, student indoctrination, and the like. Two snippets:
Shermer: "...Unless they are openly teaching a course entitled, in effect, 'Why Liberals Should Rule the World,' professors have no business introducing their political bias to students. Their job is to teach the curriculum of their subject, not churn out a bunch of Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko graduates who will go out into the world woefully ignorant that most Americans think entirely differently from the way they do...."
Lukianoff: "...Is having an opinionated professor really the same as indoctrination? I have seen claims—often from conservative students—that students have a right not to be "harassed" by the left-leaning opinions of their professors. This drives me nuts because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment. Harassment rationales are used to shut down people with dissenting opinions (often the socially conservative, the un-PC, or the merely unlucky) far too often...."
More here. They'll be kicking each other around each week.
reason on campus bias and more here.
|4.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#
mmm, it might have been nice to read an intelligent opinion that
was actually different than shermer's. he and lukianoff seem to be
in 95% agreement.
yes, it would be damned difficult to find an intelligent opinion to
the contrary, but it would be easy to find a phd professor as a
debate opponent who would at least provide a hilarious and
inadvertent demonstration of shermer/lukianoff's point.
|4.14.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Another brilliant feint in FIRE's grand scheme to appear neutral while fulfilling its rightwing agenda. As per joe.
Episiarch|4.14.08 @ 5:32PM|#
This would be even more interesting if they were doing a concurrent Centurion or several keg stands.
|4.14.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Wow! They prod college freshmen with polarization full-time
now?
I am still trying to determine if my 35% federal tax rate is
"socialist" or if the remaining 65% is "capitalist". I am really
suspicious of this labeling game.
Hmmm, should I turn to Fox News or to Democracy
Now! for an answer?
Maybe I should have paid more attention in class.
Apaulogist|4.14.08 @ 5:54PM|#
If I was the student, I would be pissed that my tuition money was spent for purposes other than advertised. It's kind of like how unhappy I was when Nick and the gang joined the dog-pile on Ron Paul while claiming to advocate "free minds and free markets." Fortunately, we can all vote with our course/college choices and magazine-buying dollars.
|4.14.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Major in engineering and this is much less of an issue. Either
you can model a linear system, perform the Laplace transform and
identify the poles, or you can't. There's just not that much room
for bias and opinion (but what room there is can get pretty
hot).
Though I was required to take "senior seminar" in order to
graduate, it was nothing short of a one hour a week -
Marx-worshiping, Republican-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko
indoctrination mandate.
javier|4.14.08 @ 5:58PM|#
being exposed to different ideas is not harassment but when you are graded poorly precisely because your ideas differ from the prof's, then you have a problem.
squarooticus|4.14.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Fortunately, we can all vote with our ... magazine-buying
dollars.
Drink!
|4.14.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Goddam, squarooticus. Its after 5:00. I don't need no steenkin' rules telling me I can drink!
javier|4.14.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Michael Ejercito,
i went to university st. thomas and was there for ann coulture's
speech. It was fairly ridiculous but that is no excuse for not
allowing YAF sponsored events. In fact. St. thomas was actually
really conservative when I was there, at least compared to
macalester down the road. however, most in the school council parts
were fairly liberal.
|4.14.08 @ 6:09PM|#
I hate when the comment thing fucks up after you written
something.
In my experience, I only had a handful of teacher who where really
out of hand and would turn the classroom into a pulpit, outside of
that I've had many teachers who would occasionally throw out a
vaguely left-leaning glib remark ("This is a picture of Hitler-I
mean president Bush. Ha Ha Ha"). If there was an attempt to curb
the indoctrination, I have no doubt that teachers would be running
in fear over making some statement that could be even slightly
construed as being political, either that or the more anal Con kids
would shoot down those professors who occasionally throw out a side
joke.
|4.14.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Teachers who attempt to indoctrinate, rather than teach, should be put up against a wall. No blindfolds either, I want the bastards to see it coming . . .
|4.14.08 @ 6:18PM|#
"being exposed to different ideas is not harassment but when you
are graded poorly precisely because your ideas differ from the
prof's, then you have a problem."
Precisely. To be fair to many Marxist professors, I'd say there's a
wide divergence from case to case on how well they accomplish it.
Many are fully tolerant of opposite viewpoints and grade entirely
on the quality of your research and arguments. Unfortunately, there
are a sizable minority who, for whatever reason, hold your grade
hostage until you spit back out their viewpoint.
ed|4.14.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Major in engineering and this is much less of an
issue
True enough, tho' I doubt the experience of getting stoned and
snuggling with an impressionable chickie while testing the prof's
theories of inebriation and casual sex as a path to understanding
Finnegans Wake would be the same with a pointy-headed engineering
undergrad. Just sayin'.
|4.14.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Fortunately, we can all vote with our course/college choices
and magazine-buying dollars.
Yes and no. Yes, you can choose to pull out of a college whose
professors espouse views that you find offensive or even
oppressive, but no it's not as simple as returning a defective
clock radio to Circuit City and vowing to only shop at Best Buy
from now on, because:
1) The money that you paid for your current semester/quarter
college courses will most likely be completely or at least
partially lost (not to mention the lost time/effort)
2) The course work that you've completed up to this point may not
transfer to your new college (representing more lost money, time
and effort).
3) The time and effort (and fees) that goes into applying to a new
college are not trivial.
4) Moving arrangements and costs are always expensive and
stressful.
|4.14.08 @ 6:27PM|#
I had a fair amount of teachers that let their political ideology get in the way of relating empirical and logical reality to us. But I do think that, if you look at conservatives today, they think anything to the left or contrary to a Rush Limbaugh program must be evidence of a liberal conspiracy and bias, and so I can't credit their assertions of liberal bias much. I don't think such conservatives are worried about bias in academe, they just would like to see a bias more friendly to their views...Meanwhile, the majority of us who are not conservative or liberal tools get screwed. Are'nt we in the majority? Can't we just tell these people to go bite each other while us grown ups talk about reality?
|4.14.08 @ 6:28PM|#
...Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving,
pinko...
Oh, ok. Just as long as you're taking the question seriously and
not pimping a political line.
|4.14.08 @ 6:30PM|#
NAL
A lot of the reasons you mention could apply to any new job, where
you've made some investments to move to the job, get a place, a
parking spot near the workplace, etc., and are arguments as to why
it's not always as easy to "voluntarily walk away" from an employer
as many hard-core libertarians seem to think...
There\'s an old saying ed,|4.14.08 @ 6:32PM|#
'Love is a matter of chemistry, sex is a matter of physics.'
Neil|4.14.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Theres no doubt most of so-called "higher" education (ESPECAILLY
in the 'liberal arts' departements) are filled with Democrat
Party-loving socialistic Marxists.
But this is begginning to change, with places like Regent and
Liberty, the new generation is becoming Conservative!
shecky|4.14.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Shermer is sounding oddly like Ben Stein in that article. What
gives?
I've had some apolitical asshole teachers and profs who demanded
that students service their egos in order to pass. Yeah, it's
fucked up. But just like putting up with some nasty parts of one's
job, sometimes they're just a means to an end. At least half of
education is just paying dues anyhow. Is dealing with
Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving profs really as
dramatic as Shermer made out to be?
|4.14.08 @ 6:44PM|#
It's sad but true that too much education is a waste, but also
that education is wasted on too many people.
I despise creeping totalitarianism nannyism, the kind of coercive
protectionism that infantalizes the student body. I also despise
the more extant problem: creeping totalitariam paternalism, the
kind of authoritarian protectionism that convinces a nation full of
sheeple to quietly cede their civil rights and moral center to a
tough-talkin daddy figure who says they're safer that way.
In the face of this two-pronged assault on individualism, what I
hear too often from protesters of the second type (big daddy
fascism) is clinically hysterical rhetoric made of grossly sextual
metaphors and/or crassly overstated complaints in language so
litigious it could make a nannytort lawyer blush.
At the very least, undergrads must be expected to (gasp!) grow
their intellect. Those who characterize difficult encounters with
the knowledge base as "harrassment" or "kxssing xss" are dogs who
cannot be tolerated. Those who mischaracterize their confrontation
with new ideas as having it "shoved down their throats" are
American X cliches.
Personally, in that case, I think education will have succeeded
when it shoves the Constitution and Bill of Rights down the throats
of each and every one of them.
|4.14.08 @ 6:44PM|#
This drives me nuts because if there is one thing
conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that
merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing
as harassment.
A professor is in a position of authority over his or her students.
There are a lot of things that are totally appropriate for people
in general to do that are not appropriate for people in authority
to do.
I trust all of us would agree that it would be inappropriate for a
professor to make romantic advances towards his or her adult
students. The same holds for making ideological advances.
|4.14.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Let's see:
I had a law school professor who taught us that the US Constitution
is inferior to the South African Constitution and should be ignored
because it was written by "rich, white males". This was 1L conlaw,
btw.
I had a law school professor who taught that women are constantly
abused by men, and that all women are by nature lesbians...we've
just been forced by men to think otherwise (which I guess is a good
thing for the propagation of the species and whatnot). She also
taught that a proper use of Congress was to legislate housework -
complete with "IRS-like agents" to do random checks in order to
make sure that men were doing their fair share.
And I had an undergrad professor whose 1st exam included the
MULTIPLE CHOICE question: "Based on your own personal experience,
what would you tell a young girl to expect from her 1st menstrual
cycle". The correct answer was "Do not worry about PMS - it does
not exist and was invented by men to belittle women". (My husband,
then boyfriend, LOVED that class;)
Seriously, some of it gets WAY out of hand. I'm in grad school now
(perpetual student here) and as I was waiting for my class, I
listened to the undergrad class taking place. The professor was
trying to convince the students that capitalism was evil and that
we should enforce group behaviors to help everyone.
|4.14.08 @ 6:47PM|#
I'm not sure there was point to that post. Sorry! I think I was just trying to give some over-the-top examples that I have seen at two Southern colleges:)
Neil|4.14.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Ben Stein is a brillliant political commentator who reveals the truth about far-left indoctranation in "higher" education.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Neil just can't leave it alone. He HAS to prove his inanity to the world definitively.
|4.14.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Chris Potter: "I trust all of us would agree that it would be
inappropriate for a professor to make romantic advances towards his
or her adult students. The same holds for making ideological
advances."
With the absurd notion of "ideological advances" the commenter
becomes a case in point: the conservative male ideologue as Dave
Mammet's Oleanna.
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Ben Stein is a dishonest pseudo-intellectual in the service of anti-empiricism, anti-evolution intelligent design advocates.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Michael Shermer was clearly touched inappropriately by Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving profs in the past. Several at once. And he's confused because he thought it felt good.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Sorry innominante one, guess I'm just bitter and better go cling
to my gun and scripture.
Hey, you know who was one of the first people to endorse the
"Theory of Evolution"?
KARL MARX!
|4.14.08 @ 7:03PM|#
I'm not a conservative, "MMMMM". You seriously don't see the
difference between a random person out on the street pushing a
political opinion, and a professor doing so in his/her class?
It's interesting how many profs who squeal "Academic Freedom!" when
they're called on their propagandizing will belittle the opinions
of any student who dares voice a dissent from their dogma.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:05PM|#
I guess that makes Karl Marx pretty smart, Neil. Pretty smart
indeed.
If it were true. In fact, the major ideas behind the theory of
evolution stretch back quite aways, some all the way to Heraclitus.
You *do* know who that is, don't you, Neil?
tarran|4.14.08 @ 7:06PM|#
OK,
based on Neil's 6:56 post, I have concluded that Neil is an
ingenious piece of performance art.
Next he'll be telling us that the Nazis were the original
proponents of the Interstate Highway System
ain|4.14.08 @ 7:07PM|#
"But this is begginning to change, with places like Regent and
Liberty, the new generation is becoming Conservative!"
Wow...we can only hope they are as good as Monica Goodling.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:08PM|#
It's interesting how many profs who squeal "Academic
Freedom!" when they're called on their propagandizing will belittle
the opinions of any student who dares voice a dissent from their
dogma.
You know, I've been taking humanities courses fairly non-stop for
eight years, and I personally have *never* seen or heard a
professor belittle someone's opinion insofar as it differed from
his/her own.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and maybe I'm just the luckiest
human being on the face of the Earth, but it has led me to believe
that such events are much more rare than those who are invested in
the meme would have people believe.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Its absoluteley true. Just check it out here
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm
". Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to
Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx,
he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on
religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he
did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83
quoting Jorafsky)."
Hows that? So, you agree with Marxists now? Theres a reason they
endorsed evolution!
|4.14.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Hegel were the best of liberal
minds.
The problem with the Groper Norquist types is that taxes are the
ONLY issue!
True freedom extends beyond tax policy!
(I know, the GOP types cannot grasp this fact)
|4.14.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Elemenope,
I've also never had a SWAT team raid my house in the middle of the
night, nor has this happened to any of the houses on my street, at
least as long as I've lived there.
That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about midnight SWAT raids.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Chris Potter --
Difference is the relative frequency we are intended to infer from
the people telling the stories, true or not.
The way Shermer tells it, academia is absolutely lousy with little
Marxist tyrants, which as I said from my experience is an
exaggeration of several orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, SWAT raids are well understood to be rare, but
still sufficiently serious (and usually tragic) to warrant
attention despite their rarity.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:18PM|#
So, you agree with Marxists now?
If they endorsed evolution as a decent explanatory theory, I agree
with them on that point.
Hitler was a vegetarian and Churchill a racist alcoholic. What is
your fucking point?
|4.14.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Also, the people who dare question such a professor are probably
more pigheaded types who are going to be unaffected by propaganda.
The people I'm concerned about are the vast majority of freshmen,
who come in to college with the weak political background produced
by our largely politically apathetic society.
Of course I believe they should be exposed to as many political
opinions as possible -- but that exposure should not come in the
form of an authority figure propagandizing a captive audience.
Fluffy|4.14.08 @ 7:20PM|#
A lot of you people are all wet.
There is no such thing on the liberal arts side of the university
as "value-free" content. This means that by definition there is
ideological bias in all content, if you look hard enough.
I would take issue with the notion that there should be
value-free content.
If I have a choice between taking a class taught by Hegel and
taking a class taught by Mr. Rogers, I know which one I am
choosing. Despite the fact that Hegel would definitely have been
the kind of guy who would give you a bad grade if you didn't submit
to his viewpoint. But getting bludgeoned with his viewpoint
would be the point of taking the class.
I think too many people look at their education as a mere
credential, to be acquired like an appliance or like levelling up
in a video game. "They might give me a worse grade if I don't agree
with them!" So what? That's only important if you're buying a GPA
and not an education. If you're buying an education, engaging in an
epic semester long battle of wills with an aggressive professor
will benefit you more than turning in a couple of nice little
papers and getting an A.
I suspect that the "fear of indoctrination" talk is really just the
nanny statism of the right. [The fake right, not the real right,
which is of course me.] People who could never be indoctrinated by
any professor are deadly worried that someone else might
be so weak-minded that they are indoctrinated. "Oh noes!
This dangerous product might produce liberals!" is just the
pseudoright's version of "Oh noes! This cigarette marketing might
appeal to children!" or "Oh noes! The poor might gamble their money
away if you open a casino!" In other words, it's crap. Everyone is
afraid that someone else might be indoctrinated, but somehow I've
never met anyone who puts this fear into the first person.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:21PM|#
And apparently, according to almighty Wikipedia, evolutionary
thought stretches further back into the pre-Socratics all the way
to Anaximander.
I learned something today because of you, Neil. For this you should
be proud.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:24PM|#
"Oh noes! This dangerous product might produce liberals!" is
just the pseudoright's version of "Oh noes! This cigarette
marketing might appeal to children!" or "Oh noes! The poor might
gamble their money away if you open a casino!"
Excellently put.
|4.14.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Well, in my four years of undergraduate work at SUNY, I've had
two classes with lectures filled with lefty propaganda.
Appropriately, one was a communications course titled "Propaganda
& Persuasion".
Oh, and I'm a double major in math/physics...so that represents a
huge proportion of my liberal arts coursework.
|4.14.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Wow. Shermer busted out 'Marx-worshiping, Bush-hating, Che Guevara-loving, pinko graduates' non-ironically? My estimation of him just went way down. It's still pretty high, though. There was a lot of room to drop. Big fan. But 'pinko'? Seriously?
|4.14.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Fluffy,
Now that is silly. So, this means you'll not complain about public
school indoctrination re: drugs, smoking, recycling, or guns, since
you obviously weren't taken in by it?
|4.14.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Also, the atheists here have no grounds to complain about Christian theology being taught in public schools, according to Fluffy, since they clearly wouldn't be affected by it.
|4.14.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Kimberly Hellmuth
"Let's see:...
I had a law school professor who taught that women are constantly
abused by men, and that all women are by nature lesbians...we've
just been forced by men to think otherwise (which I guess is a good
thing for the propagation of the species and whatnot)."
I hope for her she is not married or have any children for that
matter, because she would be all screwed when she has to come home
to her family...what am I saying, she is already screwed. One
wonders what happened to her.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Chris --
You do realize there is an appreciable difference between 10 years
olds and 17 year olds, despite all the jokes made to the contrary,
right?
Comparatively fewer 10 year olds are resistant to indoctrination,
and in any case, by the time you are 17 if you are *not* resistant,
you are likely a lost cause anyways.
|4.14.08 @ 7:43PM|#
There is no such thing on the liberal arts side of the
university as "value-free" content. This means that by definition
there is ideological bias in all content, if you look hard
enough.
You're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Of course I don't
expect professors to be opinionless robots, but that shouldn't mean
that they don't even try to keep their own political views from
dominating the class. If you can't teach a course on contemporary
issues without turning it into a bully pulpit for your political
opinions, you need to find a new line of work.
"They might give me a worse grade if I don't agree with them!"
So what? That's only important if you're buying a GPA and not an
education.
Like it or not, most people aren't going to college to enrich their
intellectual lives. Dropping from an A to a D because you dispute a
professor's opinions could seriously impact your ability to get a
job.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 7:44PM|#
My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil
backers.
You cannot be a person of faith and believe in freedom this
"theory".
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Neil:
Regardless of what Marx thought about Darwin, empirical evidence
demonstrates that evolution is real.
Come back when you're done committing logical fallacies.
|4.14.08 @ 7:47PM|#
The complainers just want ideology-free, straightforward
education. You know, like, "George Washington was the Father of our
country," and "Lincoln freed the slaves."
As at least one commenter above amply demonstrates, it's difficult
to take this critique seriously when so many of the complainers
don't understand the difference between being exposed to ideas and
being persecuted or indoctrinated.
Oh no, you heard lefty ideas? Ones you didn't walk into the class
agreeing with? Er, is that it?
When I was at GW, there was a group called the Politically
Incorrect Student Society who were always whining about how
terribly they were being persecuted. Their big issue was...the GLBT
organization received the same funding as every other student
organization. They weren't complaining that ideas were being
squashed and students made to feel unwelcome, but that ideas
WEREN'T being squashed, and students WEREN'T being made to feel
unwelcome.
There is a line that shouldn't be crossed; students should be free
to question and disagree and discuss competing ideas in an
atrmosphere that encourages the free exchange of ideas. Professors
have a responsibility to create such an atmosphere. The interesting
discussion is about how to create an atmosphere that allows
questioning and dissent and open discussion. Squashing the ability
of professors to discuss ideas isn't the way to do that.
And as for "someone in a position of authority," ahem: maybe this
is a good opportunity for some people to get beyond the "no one
held a gun to their head. The could CHOOSE..." b.s. that renders so
much libertarian thought on workplaces so divorced from
reality.
INIGO MONTOYA|4.14.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:44pm | #
My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil
backers.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
|4.14.08 @ 7:48PM|#
I think the difference between public school teachers and college professors has more to do with the voluntary nature of college association. After all, nobody's complaining about Intelligent Design being taught privately.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 7:49PM|#
TIO evolution is a good explination for an atheist. But isn't
intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have
true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?
Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in this?
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 7:49PM|#
I thought lonewacko was the ultimate douche. Now there's
competition.
Bring back Donderoooo please. It will be like matter &
antimatter. Maybe they will merge in some strange way and end up,
like, not dicks.
Or not
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Apparently Neil believes that being faithful necessitates being
a reality-denying moron.
Let's hope he isn't indicative of the future of religion in
America.
For what it's worth, Neil, a whole fuckload of Christian scholars
disagree with you on the whole evolution and faith thing.
That's a metric fuckload, BTW. It's bigger.
|4.14.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Elemenope,
Ah. The "rebellious teenagers resist indoctrination" myth. Ever
heard of the Brownshirts?
The typical behavior of 17 year olds is not rebellion
against conformity. It's just a strict adherence to an alternate
conformity. Dogmatic Marxism is an awfully attractive form of
"rebellion" to a kid who was raised in a "shallow capitalist"
society.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 7:51PM|#
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #
TIO evolution is a good explination for an atheist. But isn't
intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have
true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?
Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in
this?
I think the word you're looking for is "ignorant"
|4.14.08 @ 7:52PM|#
For what it's worth, Neil, a whole fuckload of Christian
scholars disagree with you on the whole evolution and faith
thing.
Yeah, but only radical lefties.
Like Pope John Paul II.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in
this?
This is what we in the business call "false dilemma". You see, you
excluded a whole other set of reasonable options.
Like "ignorant", "idiotic", and "embarrassingly stupid".
Les|4.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Also, the atheists here have no grounds to complain about
Christian theology being taught in public schools, according to
Fluffy, since they clearly wouldn't be affected by it.
Children in mandatory public school vs. adults voluntarily in
college.
You are silly.
|4.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#
The typical behavior of 17 year olds is not rebellion
against conformity. It's just a strict adherence to an alternate
conformity. Dogmatic Marxism is an awfully attractive form of
"rebellion" to a kid who was raised in a "shallow capitalist"
society.
And also, the smoking. And the drugs.
|4.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#
The complainers just want ideology-free, straightforward
education. You know, like, "George Washington was the Father of our
country," and "Lincoln freed the slaves."
Read the above about perfect vs. good.
And as for "someone in a position of authority," ahem: maybe
this is a good opportunity for some people to get beyond the "no
one held a gun to their head. The could CHOOSE..." b.s. that
renders so much libertarian thought on workplaces so divorced from
reality.
I'm not calling for a law against professors pushing political
opinions in class. I'm making a statement about what should be the
(non-legally-enforced) expectation for professors.
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:44pm | #
My point is evolution is a very evil theory with very evil
backers.
Your point is wrong and is not supported by empirical
evidence.
You cannot be a person of faith and believe in freedom this
"theory".
Try explaining that to
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and devout
Christian.
Neil | April 14, 2008, 7:49pm | #
TIO evolution is a good explination [sic] for an atheist. But isn't
intellegent design just as good an explanation? Why can't we have
true academic freedom and teach both in the classroom?
Because there is no empirical evidence for intelligent design. If
there were, there wouldn't be any need to mandate its instruction,
scientists and science instructors would include it of their own
accord on its merits. It, like "creation science" is a default
explanation based on a false dichotomy.
Or am I just misguided and "bitter" for believing in
this?
I haven't used the word "bitter", so I don't know why you keep
putting it in quotes, as though you're ascribing it to me.
|4.14.08 @ 7:58PM|#
And also, the smoking. And the drugs.
ie, things that all their friends are also doing. You're not
seriously going to argue with me about the conformity of "teenage
rebellion", are you?
Seriously, how many teens rebel by cranking up their boom boxes and
blasting Beethoven, as opposed to those doing so with the latest
hip-hop artists? The former is far less expensive, and just as rare
and subversive in our society as the latter.
|4.14.08 @ 7:58PM|#
I'm making a statement about what should be the
(non-legally-enforced) expectation for professors.
...and doing so because you recognize that professors, despite the
"voluntary" nature of their association with students, have power
and authority over them, and the students are not simply free to
leave without consequence.
What solutions you aren and are not proposing is irrelevant. Laws,
expectations, professional enforcement, legal enforcement - none of
these have anything to do with whether or not professors (bosses)
are in positions of authority over their students (employees).
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 7:59PM|#
"...gaps in the fossil record..."
Are you referring to the gaps that keep on being filled in by new
discoveries? The gaps that exist because we haven't and never will
be able to exhaustively examine every bit of the planet? The gaps
that will always exist because of the random nature of fossil
formation, or the gaps that will always exist because some fossils
are destroyed by natural events like floods and earthquakes?
|4.14.08 @ 8:00PM|#
You're not seriously going to argue with me about the
conformity of "teenage rebellion", are you?
No, just pointing out how closely your discourse on the subject
tracks with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, MADD, and the
like.
The little tots, they're subject to peer pressure, so we must save
them from being influenced by the bad people who would take
advantage of that!
Urkobold™|4.14.08 @ 8:02PM|#
This is what we in the business call "false dilemma". You
see, you excluded a whole other set of reasonable options.
Like "ignorant", "idiotic", and "embarrassingly stupid".
THE Urkobold™ INSISTS ON TOTAL FAIRNESS FOR Neil.
HE IS ALSO MISGUIDED AND BITTER.
Ophelia Paine, PhD, Professor |4.14.08 @ 8:04PM|#
What are you people talking about? Harassment? We professors
believe in exposing students to a diverse array of opinions.
In my University, we have a wide range of opinions among our
professorial staff. We have quite a spectrum of opinions - New
Dealers, democratic socialists, Trotskyites. In the Woman's Studies
Department we likewise have a wide array of views: Equity
feminists, difference feminists, lesbian feminists, straignt
feminists . . .
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Thank you for your wisdom and insight, oh mighty Urkobold, my lord and master.
|4.14.08 @ 8:05PM|#
No, just pointing out how closely your discourse on the
subject tracks with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, MADD,
and the like.
What does this have to do with anything? The fact that those groups
have horrid ideas for how to deal with alcohol and other drug use
by teens doesn't change the fact that they're right about teens
being heavily influenced by peer pressure.
Les|4.14.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Why doesnt someone explain to me the gaps in the fossill
record then?
I suspect you're probably not interested in a genuinely scientific
answer, but this
site would answer most questions that an objective inquirer
might have.
As far as God and evolution go, try this.
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#
If it please the Urkobold, rumor has it that Neil's middle name is "Bob".
Neil|4.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#
The bottom line is universities are a hotbed of liberal America-hating leftists enamored with the Democrat Party and their lackeys, and infected with Bush Derrangement Syndrome.
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 8:09PM|#
No, Neil, the bottom line is that you are an idiot who is bitter that you couldn't even gain admission to community college.
|4.14.08 @ 8:09PM|#
What does this have to do with anything?
It is an example of people with similar ideas to yours.
The fact that those groups have horrid ideas for how to deal
with alcohol and other drug use by teens doesn't change the fact
that they're right about teens being heavily influenced by peer
pressure.
And also, the fact that they are right about how teens are subject
to peer pressure doesn't change the fact that they have horrible
ideas about how to deal with alcohol and drugs.
It's a warning about where this could be headed. Something to look
out for.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Chris --
You've completely missed my point.
It is not that teens are significantly resistant to peer pressure
in an objective sense (though, compared to 10 year olds, they most
certainly are). Humans are somewhat credulous creatures, regardless
of age.
It's that, at that age, the are basically *morally* responsible for
themselves and their own beliefs; if they get snookered because
they can't think, that's their problem and fuck 'em. I wouldn't say
the same about a ten year old who was being propagandized to.
|4.14.08 @ 8:10PM|#
joe,
I know where you're going with this -- you're trying to justify
laws governing the employer-employee relationship. Yes, an employer
has a great deal of influence over an employee. Yes, an employee
choosing to walk away from the job may suffer hardship as a result.
I don't deny that.
I do deny that legislating details of employment relationships is
the best way to handle that situation (just as I would oppose
legislating professor-student relationships).
|4.14.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Hey, now. Neil is clearly someone with a unique insight into derangement syndromes.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Hey TIO, what are you? Some bartender with an English or Women's Studies "degree"? LOL!
|4.14.08 @ 8:12PM|#
OK, Chris. Good for you.
Sadly, there is a significant body of libertarians who disagree
with you that an employer has a great deal of influence over an
employee...an employee choosing to walk away from the job may
suffer hardship as a result.
They come out every time any workplace issue is discussed.
|4.14.08 @ 8:12PM|#
So when I'm losing an argument, I can say 'the bottom line is'
and repeat my unfounded assertions and be right? Awesome rhetorical
device!
The bottom line is ice cream is a nutritious breakfast.
|4.14.08 @ 8:12PM|#
joe,
You know, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tse-Tung believed the State
should control employer-employee relationships -- just like you!
Careful where you go with that idea!
|4.14.08 @ 8:15PM|#
And I am, Chris. For example, I advocate ferociously for
democratic answerability, precisely because it is possible for
government to become abusive.
Now you're getting it: a cautionary tale doesn't mean you wholly
withdraw from the issue. It means you learn from what can go wrong,
and keep that in mind as you formulate problems.
the innominate one|4.14.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Actually, Kneel Bob, I have a B.Sc. and M.S. in biology and I'm working on my doctorate in biology studying evolutionary and ecological genetics of populations.
|4.14.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Elemenope,
So, if a professor is convincing 18 year old students to sleep with
him/her by implying it will help their grades, no one should be
concerned about this situation because it involves consenting
adults?
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 8:06pm | #
The bottom line is universities are a hotbed of liberal
America-hating leftists enamored with the Democrat Party and their
lackeys...
Yes Neil. And they also study things from time to time.
It's amazing how many of us escaped college without becoming
"liberal America-hating leftists", or something like you....
Absolutely amazing.
|4.14.08 @ 8:21PM|#
joe,
I recognize this game. You're the Overbearing Horny Professor, and
I'm the Impressionable Virgin Coed who's failing your class.
Well, I'm not sleeping with you, professor, I don't care how much
it helps my grade. Maybe a little cuddling, but THAT'S IT!
|4.14.08 @ 8:23PM|#
If Neil went to Regents, he's Exhibit A in the evidence of harm done by propagandizing college students.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Chris theres no need for me to be "propagandized" . You know,
most people in this country don't believe in evolution. Especially
the real folks out there in the heartland between Manhattan and
Malibu.
These are VALUES and they're natural.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 8:28PM|#
So, if a professor is convincing 18 year old students to
sleep with him/her by implying it will help their grades, no one
should be concerned about this situation because it involves
consenting adults?
Oh, come on! Sexual predation is so not the same thing as
propagandization.
When talking about apples, please refrain from bring up
broccoli.
|4.14.08 @ 8:32PM|#
The cells in your body that were sexually violated will be shed
and replaced in a few weeks or months.
The neurons that were intellectually violated by classroom
propaganda will remain stained with ideological semen for a
lifetime.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Neil, what does not believing in evolution have to do with
values?
I'm honestly curious.
|4.14.08 @ 8:38PM|#
You know, most people in this country don't believe in evolution.
Um. .
what?
Especially the real folks out there in the heartland between Manhattan and Malibu.
The people who live in Manhattan and Malibu aren't real? You do
know that 75% of the US population is urban and only 25% rural,
right? Have you considered that whether something is true or not
isn't based on how many people believe in it? Reality isn't a
democracy.
TallDave|4.14.08 @ 8:43PM|#
I would have more respect for the argument the overwhelmingly
lefty profs can hold forth in class on whatever views/rants they
like, except that these are the same people who say blacks need +20
pts and Asians -30 on their SATs so we can have "diversity."
Apparently some kinds of diversity are more diverse than
others.
Of course, they'll argue more leftists and fewer righties want to
teach at colleges, which is true, just as it's true more Asians and
fewer blacks want to study hard and attend college.
|4.14.08 @ 8:44PM|#
For instance, observe this thread. Here you are arguing with
Neil, who is probably just a troll, but in any case not someone
whose mind is likely to be changed by arguing with him.
What could be your purpose in doing so? Is it not because you fear
that someone else who reads this thread may be convinced by him?
That's the reason that I care about less-strongwilled students not
being seduced into leftism by overbearing professors.
|4.14.08 @ 8:44PM|#
This guy "Neil" is a dumber redneck than any GOPer on Fox
even.
He is a fucking Creationist hillbilly!
Yes - I know, he does this to promote Bush and Cheney.....
What a fucking idiot though.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 8:47PM|#
"Yes - I know, he does this to promote Bush and
Cheney....."
Don't forget McCain, our next Commander-in-Chief!
|4.14.08 @ 8:50PM|#
It was rather interesting being an avowed libertarian in a Film and Media Arts program in an Eastern state university. "Production of Media Culture" was a required class, and it was basically "Major media organizations are evil, because they like to make money" class. You should have heard the gasps when I posited that the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine was POSITIVE for debate in the United States. Once I explained what the Doctrine actually did, I had a fair number of allies within the class. My teacher remained a Culture Studies light Marxist, but I earned her respect with my knowledge of foreign films and general skepticism, though. It seemed as if she (an adult doctoral student adjunct) had never heard libertarian arguments before.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#
What could be your purpose in doing so? Is it not because
you fear that someone else who reads this thread may be convinced
by him?
I do it because it's *fun*. Why else on Earth would I bother?
Well, to be honest, actually, I also find it educational in several
senses. I get to learn about the psychology of trolls, and hicks
(simultaneously!). I get to refine my arguments on these topics and
read others that are novel to me or better-constructed. I get the
opportunity to occasionally, possibly be proved wrong, which can
only happen if you engage with someone you hold a disagreement with
(admittedly unlikely in Neil's case.)
Also, did I mention it was fun? Entertaining? And fun?
|4.14.08 @ 8:57PM|#
oh, the Fairness Doctrine - another smokescreen!
A tired FCC 80's dead move --- and the GOP wants to kill NET
NEUTRALITY?
the GOP wants to bypass Net standards and kill access for little
guys like reason.com?
Another Sean Hannity blowjob for misdirection!
|4.14.08 @ 8:58PM|#
It was quickly buried underneath Neil's latest bout of verbal
diarrhea, joe's lackluster libertarian-baiting, and the hijinks
that always seem to summarily ensue, but...
I never knew that Voros McCracken
was a Hit'n'Runner.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:07PM|#
Hey, Neil. How about you answer my question.
What does rejecting evolution have to do with values?
Neil|4.14.08 @ 9:10PM|#
"What does rejecting evolution have to do with values?"
If you believe in evolution you're a costal elite who believes in
atheistic materialism and an "anything goes" morally relativistic
attitude.
This leads to things like the killing of the unborn, sex before
marriage, crime, drugs, divorce, illigetimate births, etc.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Why don't you respond to my first answer Thats a good an answer
as any.
Maybe I'm just a dumb, bitter American who clings to guns and
religion.
|4.14.08 @ 9:20PM|#
I never knew that Voros McCracken was a Hit'n'Runner.
Awesome.
I still remember staring at his results showing Maddux had a top
average on balls in play one season and a bottom average the next
and thinking "Holy crap. Pitcher evaluation just got
revolutionized".
Fluffy|4.14.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Chris,
A couple of points:
First of all, I don't think public schools should exist, precisely
because I honestly don't believe religion/philosophy/ideology can
be successfully compartmentalized, and therefore conclude that if
the separation of church and state is a good thing, the state must
be similarly separated from subsidizing just about any
humanities-related activity.
But the conservotard whining about left-wing professors is not
restricted to public universities, so comparisons to public school
students are not apt.
The discussion about peer pressure is also not apt as far as I am
concerned, because it assumes there is a default set of ideas that
students "should have", and inappropriate influence from professors
is causing them to "fall away" from this state of grace. This is,
of course, crap. It's crap for smoking and drinking, too. I have no
problem with people using marketing to convince college kids to
smoke or to drink, and I have no problem with a professor using a
college class to convince students to become communists. That's
what freedom is about - if I think smoking is good, I should be
allowed to convince YOU that smoking is good. If I think communism
is great, I should be allowed to convince YOU that communism is
great. Etcetera.
And like LMNOP, I fight people online because I want to argue with
THEM. The audience is secondary.
an employee choosing to walk away from the job may suffer
hardship as a result.
Joe, I have never argued that an employee would not suffer
hardship as a result of walking away from a job. I argued
that they would not suffer a harm, in the sense of an
actionable harm that requires legal redress.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.14.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Is having an opinionated professor really the same as
indoctrination? I have seen claims-often from conservative
students-that students have a right not to be "harassed" by the
left-leaning opinions of their professors. This drives me nuts
because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it
is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different
points of view is the same thing as harassment
Certainly that's a misprint. Wasn't it just days ago we were
assured that FIRE was pretty much locked into reactionary
Neanderthal ideology?
Fluffy|4.14.08 @ 9:27PM|#
crime, drugs, divorce, illigetimate births
In my state it's the folks in the trailer parks who don't believe
in evolution who have all the crime, drugs, divorce, illegitimate
births, etc.
Us latte-drinking, Volvo-driving elitist materialist types don't
commit any crime, don't have babies at 16, don't drop out of school
at 17, etc. It's the Jesus people who do that.
Where I sit if we could just get rid of all the people who believe
in intelligent design, our stats on just about every measure of
social well being would spike immediately.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:28PM|#
If you believe in evolution you're a costal elite who
believes in atheistic materialism and an "anything goes" morally
relativistic attitude.
...
Why don't you respond to my first answer Thats a good an answer as
any.
No it isn't Neil, because you are implying a whole host of things
that the people you are talking with don't imply.
So, if you would, please be explicit; draw the picture. How does
one get from evolution to an "atheistic materialism" and a "morally
relativistic attitude"? Cause I'm not seeing a plausible causal
connection, and I've been around the block on this one.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 9:29PM|#
"Where I sit if we could just get rid of all the people who
believe in intelligent design, our stats on just about every
measure of social well being would spike immediately."
So now your endorsing genocide. You just proved my point!
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:30PM|#
Fluffy raises an excellent point: atheists are
*underrepresented* as a proportion of the population in
prison.
How do you explain this, Neil?
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Neil, try to focus. I pointed out my objection. Try not to be distracted by the people who think you are so stupid they would endorse extinguishing you to bring up the national average.
Fluffy|4.14.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Neil, that's awfully literalist of you. But then I guess anyone who takes the Book of Genesis literally has a thinking problem.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 9:32PM|#
I bet they didn't believe in the Lord BEFORE they went to prison elemenope. People often turn to God after their atheistic, if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.14.08 @ 9:32PM|#
In my American Government class the core subject matter was
Jeremy Rifkin. The class had nothing whatsoever to do with American
Government and everything to do with pissing and moaning about how
many clock radios Americans own.
Most of the students regurgitated what the prof wanted to hear and
yawned their way to the safety of the next class.
It was an annoying waste of time and taxpayer money. However, I
doubt if any student was influenced in any way other than a firm
resolution to bounce hard objects against the lefty loonie prof's
bald noggin.
Oh, and no escape, attendance was like half your grade.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.14.08 @ 9:33PM|#
So now your endorsing genocide
No, I think he's just pointing out that tornado's are an example of
natural selection. They always take out the trailer parks.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Neil, conversion rates in prison are extremely low, as prison
ministries themselves routinely admit.
Try again.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:32pm | #
I bet they didn't believe in the Lord BEFORE they went to prison
elemenope. People often turn to God after their atheistic,
if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray.
No one who believes in god ever does any bad things.
I mean, the 30years war was totally excusable, because, like, they
were killing the shit out of everyone for different interpretations
of teh bible
What kind of pistol would jesus pack?
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 9:35PM|#
But first, try again with the "evolution is atheistic materialism" thing. It still ain't clear.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.14.08 @ 9:36PM|#
People often turn to God after their atheistic,
if-it-feels-good-do-it-now attitudes lead them astray
That's what happened to all them hippies. Now you'll find them
Sunday morning at Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 9:38PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:29pm | #
"So now your endorsing..."
In college they often make sure people use the apostrophe properly
with contractions.
But maybe thats an atheist leftist kind of thing.
Daniel Reeves|4.14.08 @ 9:39PM|#
Chris theres no need for me to be "propagandized" . You know, most people in this country don't believe in evolution.
Assuming this is even true, what on earth are you trying to imply
from this? Please tell.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 9:41PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:29pm | #
You just proved my point!
I didnt think you were much on "proof" dude. Not a Karl Popper
fan.
Or is anyone named Karl vaguely suspect?
|4.14.08 @ 9:43PM|#
That's what freedom is about - if I think smoking is good, I
should be allowed to convince YOU that smoking is good. If I think
communism is great, I should be allowed to convince YOU that
communism is great. Etcetera.
I agree with you insofar as it should not be ILLEGAL to do such
things.
I think it's contrary to the purpose of a college to have authority
figures pushing ideology, that's all. I don't think my view on that
matter should be legally enforced, but let's not pretend this isn't
a problem.
Daniel Reeves|4.14.08 @ 9:49PM|#
I don't think my view on that matter should be legally enforced, but let's not pretend this isn't a problem.
"[Modern liberalism], like the ancient ideas from which it springs,
confuses the distinction between government and society. As a
result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by
government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being
done at all." - Frederic Bastiat
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 9:52PM|#
the innominate one | April 14, 2008, 8:16pm | #
I have a B.Sc. and M.S. in biology and I'm working on my doctorate
in biology studying evolutionary and ecological genetics of
populations.
Which makes you a marxist i think.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:03PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 9:56pm | #
I wouldnt be suprised if he is Gilmore.
Wouldnt be suprised at all.
Fuck Neil,
You being an idiot doesn't make scientists "marxists".
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:04PM|#
Daniel Reeves | April 14, 2008, 9:59pm | #
Is Neil parodying himself?
I wouldnt be suprised if he is
Wouldnt be suprised at all.
Les|4.14.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Is Neil parodying himself?
I wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) if he is Daniel.
Wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) at all.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Shouldnt have cut and pasted that
Neil, "Surprised". It has an r in there.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Les | April 14, 2008, 10:06pm | #
Damn, Gilmore! We are,like, mentally connected
The lord works in mysterious ways
Les|4.14.08 @ 10:11PM|#
The lord works in mysterious ways
I just hope He's not working through Neil.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:15PM|#
Les | April 14, 2008, 10:11pm | #
The lord works in mysterious ways
I just hope He's not working through Neil.
Of course He is.
A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till
afterwards. ~Proverbs 29:11
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:18PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 10:12pm | #
Anyone catch The Factor tonight??
I think he's trying to out himself at this point
We got pwned by some grade-A trolldom
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Does Bill do your thinking for you, Neil? Me, I decided what to
make of BHO's comments without the assistance of talking
heads.
Must be that coastal atheistic precociousness.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:24PM|#
maybe I'm wrong
he could be a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool idiot
for a minute there i had hope we were getting played
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:28PM|#
someone please put on the album "Fear of a Black Planet". I
think it's the soundtrack of this thread
My idea for an anti-lonewacko device was for his computer to play
mariachi music anytime he comes to H&R
in Neil's case, it should be this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpKRd2xQeq8
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Do you defend them or what??
I think that to point out that people who are poor and live in an
economically depressed area of the country are serially pissed-off
about their situation is no crime. Especially because it tends to
be true.
It is also no crime to point out that in situations of economic
weakness, people's political behavior becomes focused upon those
things that give them a feeling of strength (Guns, God, etc.). I
think it is no comment on the validity of those things, just simply
the tendency of people to read them into their political behavior
that changes (i.e. publicly "cling" to them).
I think he phrased some parts of his comments poorly, and he said
them to the wrong audience (San Francisco is not the best place to
talk about the mid-west, IMO). It was a foot-in-mouth moment, and
if anywhere it should have happened in rural Pennsylvania, not a
'coastal' fundraiser, to use your term.
To infer from his comments that he is somehow elitist is a stretch,
especially since for the vast majority of his life, unlike his two
opponents, he was far from wealthy. So I do not agree with the
dominant media frame of the comments, and to that extent, I defend
his comments.
More to the point, there are more important things to be concerned
with than a comment that, while phrased poorly, was essentially
true. Like, for example, *what these three people actually stand
for*.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:42PM|#
LMNOP =
Seriously. Stop trying. dude is 'baitin.
Although, as a side note, the Economist this week pointed out that
most Americans want to vote for things that are in fact contrary to
their interests (e.g. protectionism, enlargement of government,
increased regulation, silly global warming ideas, 'energy
independence', missle sheilds, mexican sheilds, etc)
That probably makes the Economist, like, Marxist though.
Saying most Americans are idiots isnt exactly something a
politician should do, though. "Bittergate" though has to rank up as
possibly the gayest catchphrase of recent memory
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Pardon me = "shields"
I got too used to reading Neil's name and forgot the old
"i-before-e" rule.
Stupid marxist professors...
ace|4.14.08 @ 10:45PM|#
this debate always pisses me off. shermer and those who agree
with him imply that the democrat/republican ratio of universities
should mirror the country's ratio. clearly, this is a politically
insensitive point, but i hope the open-minded people here at h
& r will understand: there is a positive correlation between
education and liberal attitudes.
to me, it seems that the most likely explanation is that certain
moral truths become difficult to ignore during school. living for
four years surrounded by people of all races, religions and sexual
orientations makes it harder to harbor certain socially
conservative beliefs. after being exposed to that kind of
diversity, one finds it harder to say with certainty "i know what
attitudes people should have about sex/family/drugs/etc and i want
legislation passed forcing my views on everyone," which is the core
conceit of social conservatism.
as for why socially liberal students often go for the fiscal
liberalism package, from a snotty fiscal conservative perspective,
they have the empathy/guilt from their social liberalism which, on
average, counteracts what they may learn in their econ courses, if,
indeed, they take them. it also doesn't help that we have a two
party system which lumps together social and fiscal ideologies and
presents them as inextricably linked.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Seriously. Stop trying. dude is 'baitin.
Seriously, stop micturatin' on my fun. :)
|4.14.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Alright, Steve Sailer and Mark Steyn write anti-Obama pieces,
Billary tries to slam him, Dondeeeeeerooooo tries to make him into
a jihadist, and now Kneel Bob chimes in that hes a "costal
elitist".
I have to admit, the fact that Obama seems to be hated by all the
right people makes me like him more and more, even if he is at the
end of the day a vanilla post-Johnson liberal.
Anyone else feel this way?
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 11:11PM|#
Cesar | April 14, 2008
Anyone else feel this way?
Yes. More or less. Neil is an awesome case in point for "person who
undermines his own cause" through his inability to resort to
anything but appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, appeal to
MORE AMERICAN THAN YOU-NESS-talking points, and so on and so
on.
I mean for fuck's sake. I couldnt figure out what "Allahbama" even
meant for like an hour or so. One minute dude is like, we all
should believe in god and shit, and 2 seconds later its like "The
BLACK GUY HAS A MUSLIM NAME!~!!"
I will be SO glad when this election shit is over and the freaks
have nothing to piss themselves over except, you know, things that
may matter... like the economy imploding, the Neverending
War-Story, irrational fear of immigrants, the erosion of the bill
of rights, etc.
Seriously. Some people need new hobbies.
I dont know who said it, but I came across a comment once which was
something like, "politics is intellectualism for the vacuous". I
wish I could remember the original. It's a point that seems to
prove itself every day.
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 11:16PM|#
Well, SIV, I know you are thoroughly convinced that if there is
a new progressive revolution, they will engage in wanton forced
sterilization of capitalists and prohibition of alcohol and fatty
foods.
So your feelings are understandable.
SIV|4.14.08 @ 11:20PM|#
I do like the idea of a McCain vs Obama race because ,despite
Obama's technical status by birthdate, and McCain's Vietnam story
,it won't feel like a fucking baby boomer contest.
whatever the outcome it is a lose/lose proposition for freedom and
liberty.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 11:21PM|#
wanton forced sterilization of capitalists and prohibition
of alcohol and fatty foods.
You forgot forced gay-reprogramming of our children
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 11:22PM|#
"In every party there is one member who, by his all-too-devout pronouncement of party principles, provokes the others to apostasy." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human
Happy Jack|4.14.08 @ 11:22PM|#
Of course I believe they should be exposed to as many
political opinions as possible -- but that exposure should not come
in the form of an authority figure propagandizing a captive
audience.
This sounds like parenthood.
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 11:27PM|#
whatever the outcome it is a lose/lose proposition for
freedom and liberty.
As opposed to every election since...
No, really. So your argument is, 'we should elect guy A
because..."?
I mean, if it's bad all around, dont you just go for the one who
isnt cool with spending a trillion MORE tax-dollars on a
particularly pointless military conflict?
Or maybe just the one that is like, better looking? or less
irritating? Or just wears a suit really well?
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 11:29PM|#
SIV | April 14, 2008, 11:20pm | #
I do like the idea of a McCain vs Obama race ...
I do too. One reason you didnt offer was, "because at least we wont
have to hear Hilary's voice all the time"
|4.14.08 @ 11:31PM|#
I do like the idea of a McCain vs Obama race because ,despite Obama's technical status by birthdate, and McCain's Vietnam story ,it won't feel like a fucking baby boomer contest.
Gotta agree with you there. Still probably gonna vote for Barr,
though.
However I'm looking forward to the all-Generation X election in
2012, which will be Obama vs. Jindal. Thats probably going to
happen whether McCain is elected or not since hes so old he will be
a one-termer.
|4.14.08 @ 11:35PM|#
Or maybe just the one that is like, better looking? or less irritating? Or just wears a suit really well?
Or doesn't look French, or windsurf, or sigh, or say he invented
the internet...
Yeah that reasoning sure served our Republic well.
Neil|4.14.08 @ 11:41PM|#
"I mean for fuck's sake. I couldnt figure out what "Allahbama"
even meant for like an hour or so."
LOL you dont get it. Think about his background for a minute. His
dad was a muslim jihadist from Kenya, his mother an atheist. And,
liberals think hes the Massiah or God or something (Allah). Its a
play on words!
But it sure will be used in ads a lot against him.
Hey Caesar, those points sure worked out well against the Democrat
Party last time! Better start hummin "Hail to the Cheif" 'round
President McCain. LOL!
GILMORE|4.14.08 @ 11:47PM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 11:41pm | #
LOL you dont get it
No Neil, we all got it, and thought it was really, really fucking
gay.
Daniel Reeves|4.14.08 @ 11:51PM|#
I wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) if he is Daniel.
Wouldnt (sic) be suprised (sic) at all.
Under the assumption that I don't COMPLETELY fail at life, I'm
going to assume that you meant "Daniel" to be a direct address and
not a predicate nominative.
Really Silly Godwin-Rule Alert|4.14.08 @ 11:52PM|#
""His dad was a muslim jihadist from Kenya, his mother an
atheist.""
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323152706AAVFCKf
|4.14.08 @ 11:53PM|#
Ben Stein is a brillliant..
Surely, you're not talking about the same Ben Stein who just
appeared in a film whose entire purpose is to say "nu-uh" to
everything we know about biology, geology, and logic?
-jcr
Elemenope|4.14.08 @ 11:55PM|#
No Neil, we all got it, and thought it was really, really
fucking gay.
Frankly it took me a few minutes the first time I saw him using
that ridiculous name to make the connection. For a little while I
thought he had simply learned how to spell "Allah" from FOX news,
and that that was the problem.
Turns out he fancies himself as someone rather clever. Ah well.
It's good to know he judges people exclusively by who their parents
were.
SIV|4.14.08 @ 11:57PM|#
However I'm looking forward to the all-Generation X election
in 2012, which will be Obama vs. Jindal.
Obama is still technically a boomer. Just not one of those Damn
"the sixties" boomers.
Gilmore,
You seem confident Obama won't spend a trillion or more on some
war, I'm not.
McCain may not "wear a suit well" but he will likely veto the next
Farm Bill and a bunch of other odious stuff.I'm still not voting
for him for a variety of reasons(single issue #1).
Neil|4.14.08 @ 11:58PM|#
Of course you dont get it Gilmore. Thats because you come from
the elite costal America. The America of Manhattan, Massachusettes,
Malibu, and San Francisco. The America of Harlem and Hollywood. The
America of the liberal elites who stick their nose down at everyone
else.
But I come from a bigger America. A REALER America. An America that
has endured. It just staved off surrender in a War! And its surging
to Victory! Our newest generation is rising. The America of the
heartland, of the south, of the rocky mountain west, its an America
thats healthy and vibrant and full of religious feeling and Bible
study and cultural energy and christian rock bands and love of
sports and mom-love and apple pie and normality.
Its an America that won't vote for B. Hussein Obama, an America
that will WIN at home and in the Global War on Terror in 2008!!
Elemenope|4.15.08 @ 12:00AM|#
...mom-love...
MILFs? Yeah, we have those here too, dude.
Oh! You meant our mothers don't love us! I get it. You're an idiot.
And you've insulted my mother.
Daniel Reeves|4.15.08 @ 12:01AM|#
But I come from a bigger America. A REALER America. An America that has endured. It just staved off surrender in a War! And its surging to Victory!
If that America is bigger and realer, why are more people against
the war than for it?
Elemenope|4.15.08 @ 12:01AM|#
And I'm holding you to your promise to win the Global War on Terror before the year is out, Neil.
|4.15.08 @ 12:03AM|#
I hope Kneel Bob has a lot of towels handy, because I think he just came all over his manly photo of General Petraeus.
GILMORE|4.15.08 @ 12:07AM|#
Neil | April 14, 2008, 11:58pm | #
Oh my god.
Dude, you SO stole my "MORE AMERICAN THAN YOU" character.
I bet it's Dhex.
Ok, now please stop. Please. We get it now.
Elemenope|4.15.08 @ 12:11AM|#
I think I just peed my pants.
And hopefully you live in a real enough part of American where your
mom loves you enough to change those pants for you.
Handsome Dan\'s Pants|4.15.08 @ 12:13AM|#
... and cultural energy and christian rock bands
and...
Neil, cut it out already!
Neil|4.15.08 @ 12:18AM|#
Oh, and Gilmore you said my name for B. Hussein Obama was
gay?
Well, BTW, the Democrat Party is the Party of Homosexuals!!
GILMORE|4.15.08 @ 12:23AM|#
Neil | April 15, 2008, 12:18am | #
Well, BTW, the Democrat Party is the Party of
Homosexuals!!
Someone cue up the Donna Summer.
Dude, you lost it at "christian rock". I thought you lost it at the
Factor thing, but you're out now, and the game is over.
FWIW, you did a pretty good job. I liked the jewish thing a few
threads ago. It was shaping up into a decent character, but you
lost control.
Neil|4.15.08 @ 12:36AM|#
When I said the Democrat Party is the "Party of Homosexuals" I
was just quoteing Orrin Hatch.
I wish I couldve come up with a statement like that on my
own!
I AM Jewish but I realize evangelical Christians are the most
stelwart defenders of the State of Israel against Islamofascist
Terror (such Christians as Glenn Beck, John Hagee, Jerry Falwell,
etc, are our best friends).
Mark Foley|4.15.08 @ 12:45AM|#
You tell 'em Neil!!
p.s. Larry Craig's having 'cocktail' night this Fri. Dont forget to
bring your friend "Bob"!
|4.15.08 @ 1:19AM|#
Yeah, well played whoever the fuck you are.
Someone mentioned Marx, Freud, Darwin and Hegel earlier. Innit
interesting how obviously the first three were all influenced by
Hegel, and how that influence turned into enormous amounts of
entirely separate fields of study? It's interesting to me anyway,
because I think idealism is a joke and Hegel was like King
Idealism.
|4.15.08 @ 2:06AM|#
But I come from a bigger America. A REALER
America.
Dude, what you represent is the Crotch of America.
Learn it.
Know it.
And deal with it...
|4.15.08 @ 3:30AM|#
"I trust all of us would agree that it would be inappropriate
for a professor to make romantic advances towards his or her adult
students. The same holds for making ideological advances."
Oh, I don't know. It's how some folks got married.
If we stop infantilizing adult students then that would take care
of some of the problem. As long as there appears to be no link
between scores and Scores then I don't think there should be some
sort of sexual apartheid on the campuses.
|4.15.08 @ 3:36AM|#
I wonder two things, what's the rough proportion of libertarian
(or even libertarian-ish) professors to Marxist (or statist)
professors in the humanities in the top 100 schools in the country.
(should we create some kind of quota system, given that this is
supposed to be a libertarian country? hahaha)
Given that ratio, I'd be interested to see whether or not the
libertarian professors or the statist professors were more fair
with students with opposing views.
Mad Max|4.15.08 @ 6:01AM|#
"Oh, I don't know. It's how some folks got married."
If there was something resembling sexual morality on campus, when
people express romantic interest through courtship with a view to
marriage, then maybe it could be all right to let the profs try and
operate in this field.
However, in the objective circumstances of the typical modern
campus, where "if it feels good, do it," if the profs are permitted
to take a sexual interest in students, that interest will probably
be expressed through fornication and adultery.
Thus, the best thing would simply be to have a flat "hands off"
rule for the profs.
"If we stop infantilizing adult students then that would take care
of some of the problem."
Maybe if we didn't animalize students and promote the hookup
culture, students could be encouraged to show a more adult standard
of behavior in sexual matters.
"As long as there appears to be no link between scores and Scores
then I don't think there should be some sort of sexual apartheid on
the campuses."
It's not just about avoiding grade-tampering.
|4.15.08 @ 7:34AM|#
This was a long thread to read, but I did it. I learned that Neil is a dedicated troll who's getting some pretty good chucks out of wasting everyone's time.
|4.15.08 @ 7:40AM|#
I never knew that Voros McCracken was a
Hit'n'Runner.
I love baseball. I will sit and watch it until my wife pulls her
hair out, and my gaming nerd friends threaten me with death 'lest I
return to the World of Warcraft. Still I will sit and watch,
enjoying my "baseball trance," and I cannot fathom that level of
attention to the minutiae of baseball.
Fluffy|4.15.08 @ 8:36AM|#
We actually haven't had that many all-boomer elections. We're
only had two: 2000 and 2004.
Poppy Bush was a WWII generation guy, not a boomer. As was Dole. So
the Republicans didn't even put a boomer up there until 2000.
Clinton was a boomer, but he never faced a boomer.
Fluffy|4.15.08 @ 8:36AM|#
And two is not that many, considering the run of WWII generation elections we had.
|4.15.08 @ 8:37AM|#
I skipped through a lot of the thread because it looked like a lot of Neil idiocy and people piling on. I have a question regarding "positions of authority". Separating out public universities, how is this different from a boss that rants and raves about politics different than your own? The way I see it, not too much. You suck it up do your job and try to avoid that person as much as you can.
J|4.15.08 @ 8:37AM|#
Heh.
I don't know what schools they are talking about. I went to
Brandeis University, which I would assume is about as liberal as
any other school (with exception that it is also fairly
pro-Israel).
I had only one professor that seemed "marxist" in that he seemed to
think that capitalism was bad - yet at the same time disagreement
and discussion was encouraged - so no indoctrination.
If anything, my experience was that most professors endorse a
pseudo-libertarian viewpoint, expecting students to think for
themselves and act respectful towards different opinions. This
seems liberal to some conservatives who find offense in being asked
to respect (but not agree with) certain anathema concepts. This is
also true of some of the liberal students, but it's always been my
understanding that part of the liberal viewpoint is to at least
pretend to respect the people you disagree with, so this doesn't
come up as often.
|4.15.08 @ 8:40AM|#
Of course you dont get it Gilmore. Thats because you come
from the elite costal America. The America of Manhattan,
Massachusettes, Malibu, and San Francisco. The America of Harlem
and Hollywood. The America of the liberal elites who stick their
nose down at everyone else.
But I come from a bigger America. A REALER America.
Apparently, you have no problem conceding the majority of America's
GDP. Without those states giving federal tax dollars to your "real"
America, they'd turn into socialist havens in a heartbeat.
Fluffy|4.15.08 @ 8:48AM|#
Actually, Max, there are two things you fail to realize:
First, the entire sexual ideology that produced the concept of
"power disparities" automatically leading to evil, bad,
exploitative relationships ALSO denounces just about every
relationship and family structure and more you would endorse. If
the people who think that boss/secretary and professor/grad student
sex is exploitative are right, then the traditional nuclear family
with a husband working and a wife taking care of the kids is ALSO
evil and the source of just about all human misery. The ideology is
of a piece and is not severable.
Second, the last time I checked, nobody really had to care what
anyone else thinks about their fornication and adultery, so why
would "will probably be expressed through fornication and adultery"
have any meaning or relevance to the discussion?
|4.15.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I'd just like to add that Creationism and Evolution both explain
the evidence.
The reason that Evolution is a better theory is that it explains
everything without the need of inserting "God" as something
extra.
In other words, Creationists, in effect, are saying, "God created
the world in such a way that it looks just like it was created by a
force that doesn't need God to work."
So, Creationism is the more needless complicated theory.
That's way it's bad. Not because it contradicts observation.
Nick_M|4.15.08 @ 9:38AM|#
I AM Jewish but I realize evangelical Christians are the
most stelwart defenders of the State of Israel against
Islamofascist Terror (such Christians as Glenn Beck, John Hagee,
Jerry Falwell, etc, are our best friends).
Neil, because, obviously, the existence of the State of Israel has
been a good thing for Jewish people. Certainly, it's really brought
Jews and Muslims together.
ace|4.15.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Neil, because, obviously, the existence of the State of Israel has
been a good thing for Jewish people. Certainly, it's really brought
Jews and Muslims together.
think of it this way: according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions, judaism is the 12th
most popular religion in the world. there are 14 million of us, as
compared to 2.1 billion christians, 1.5 billion muslims, 900
million hindus and 376 million buddhists. 0.23% of the world's
population. after being exterminated en masse in the 40's, when
your dwindling people have one country which happens to be the size
of new jersey, most want to hold onto it.
dhex|4.15.08 @ 10:27AM|#
i got yelled at by a leftist professor once.
thankfully i wasn't one of these modern conservative types because
i'd still be in therapy, apparently.
Seitz|4.15.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I've also never had a SWAT team raid my house in the middle
of the night, nor has this happened to any of the houses on my
street, at least as long as I've lived there.
The difference is that the reports on those are usually real.
Whereas, the reports of students getting crappy grades because of
"Marxist Professors" and their politics usually end up fizzling out
when it's revealed that the student can barely spell his own name.
If a professor asks you to write a paper on, for example, the lack
of a legal justification for the war in Iraq, you don't have to
like the question. But answering "Bush is awesome!" is not really a
good answer, and it's not an example of a teacher grading on
ideology.
For the record, I only had
Seitz|4.15.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Sorry about that. Damn tags.
I've also never had a SWAT team raid my house in the middle of
the night, nor has this happened to any of the houses on my street,
at least as long as I've lived there.
The difference is that the reports on those are usually real.
Whereas, the reports of students getting crappy grades because of
"Marxist Professors" and their politics usually end up fizzling out
when it's revealed that the student can barely spell his own name.
If a professor asks you to write a paper on, for example, the lack
of a legal justification for the war in Iraq, you don't have to
like the question. But answering "Bush is awesome!" is not really a
good answer, and it's not an example of a teacher grading on
ideology.
For the record, I only had one professor
who's ideology was apparent (I was a poli sci major, and later
earned a law degree).
Basis for example:
Horowitz similarly has been accused of making up a story about
a University of Northern Colorado student who was asked to write an
essay on her criminology exam explaining "why President Bush is a
war criminal." When the student wrote instead about why Saddam
Hussein is a war criminal, Horowitz says, she got a failing grade.
Horowitz insists the incident happened: "I located the student and
the exam," he says, but "it's a complicated story. ... The student
was terrified."
|4.15.08 @ 10:32AM|#
It doesn't bother me so much that college professors do this.
The engineering major might have something to do with my view (as
noted above, there's not much room for opinion when doing a Laplace
transform), but even in the softy classes they made us take you
could take or leave the bias. If they make your grade contingent
upon agreeing with them, then that's just plain dereliction, and
the professor should be reprimanded for acting
unprofessionally.
No, what irks me is when kindergarten teachers do this, e.g., the
"Why We Banned Legos" story.
First Little Pig|4.15.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Has Neil been commenting on these posts for a while and I missed
it? What I want to know is:
1) Does Neil have any idea what Reason Magazine is about and who
might be the commentators/readers over here;
2) What brought him over into our sandbox in the first place
and
3) If he "gets" that like the Sunni in Iraq he is in a minority
tribe here in the US (A very vocal tribe, and one that still thinks
that it is not only the majority, but is supposed to be running
things, but still a minority.)
Episiarch|4.15.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Man, I totally missed out on a Neil thread. Whoever plays him is
a genius, because he can't be for real.
I once wrote a report for a cultural anthropology professor of mine
on Alger Hiss. I came across a rabidly leftist book that basically
claimed that Hiss was totally innocent (written well before Verona
was revealed) and that the accusations were based on the average
American's stupidity and hatred of intellectuals.
My teacher was French so I just assumed she would dig the premise
so I based the paper primarily on the book.
When she handed it back to me she gave me a look of "are you
fucking serious?"
I learned a few things that day: don't assume things about people
and don't try to kiss your teacher's ass.
slug|4.15.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Mad Max,
WTF is wrong with fornication? (hee hee). No, but
seriously....
Adultery, yeah, but that's between the prof and his or her spousal
unit.
What Fluffy said.
However, because of the possible danger of conflict of interest
issues though, I would say that at the very least, profs should
tread very very carefully here. While I have no problem with
forneeycatin', I think that the wise prof would do well to not get
into an entanglements just for the fun of it - he or she (as well
as the students and the uni) would be best off pursuing only those
relationships that seem like they have some legs to them (so to
speak).
I'd recommend guidelines, not hard and fast rules (there I go
agin...).
On the other hand, I say let each university make their own rules
and let the competitive process sort it all out.
Nick_M|4.15.08 @ 11:24AM|#
after being exterminated en masse in the 40's, when your
dwindling people have one country which happens to be the size of
new jersey, most want to hold onto it.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they're right to want that. As an
anarchist, it seems to me that forming a government makes your life
safer about as surely as joining the mob would. More violence on
your side, but even more violence inspired against you.
Also, Neil, how do you respond to William of Ockham at 9:31am about
evolution?
|4.15.08 @ 11:32AM|#
"I wonder two things, what's the rough proportion of libertarian
(or even libertarian-ish) professors to Marxist (or statist)
professors in the humanities in the top 100 schools in the
country."
I had an excellent Economics professor who is a liberatarian. Very
intelligent and very good looking (GOD I loved his classes!- too
bad about the no student/teacher hanky-panky)...
It was because of him I decided to pursue a degree in International
Economics (I'm still not sure if should thank him)...
"I'd be interested to see whether or not the libertarian professors
or the statist professors were more fair with students with
opposing views."
This Econ prof would engage the class in heated debate but if your
answer was not entirely thought out, he would pretty much let you
have it with sarcasm- much like many posters at this site ;)
Mad Max|4.15.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"If the people who think that boss/secretary and professor/grad
student sex is exploitative are right, then the traditional nuclear
family with a husband working and a wife taking care of the kids is
ALSO evil and the source of just about all human misery."
Of course - why didn't I think of that before?
I know - because it's silly.
|4.15.08 @ 4:26PM|#
A good place to start would be to go to "Linux Admin" classes
taught at most community colleges. The one i took in Portland was
90% bashing of Microsoft and 10% actual teaching of Linux...after
like the 4th day of this i walked out dropped the class and bought
a book on the subject. And at the time i really hated Microsoft
already. (still really don't like em but my decent into
libertarianism has moderated my views)
An examination of this then applying what is observed to say an
average poli sci class would be an informative study to see how
much is indoctrination and how much is over blown....the "Linux
admin" class being a baseline example of pure indoctrinations.
Paul|4.15.08 @ 6:13PM|#
one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment.
Holy shit!!! I want to have this mans baby! Now... NOW! If he can
just dispossess liberals of the exact same misconception,
we've got a strategy.
|4.15.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Mad Max,
I guess you haven't stepped on or around a women's studies class
lately. Or even on a college campus. It might be obviously silly to
you but some of these people really do believe that traditional
marriage and the nuclear family are evil and exploitive.
You know it's kind of like the environmental movement. The most
extreme view - all humans are evil- don't seep down to the rest of
the populace intact, but nevertheless, a whiff of it does,
influencing issues such as sprawl, etc. This is similar to how a
watered-down version of the extreme left's view on sexuality
(influenced by their general half-baked exploitation theory) has
filtered down into the mainstream - ironically co-mingling with the
puritanical right's view. They both can go fuck themselves (or
masturbate in secret on their repressed fantasies) and leave the
rest of us alone!
Btw, I once had a lefty professor who said point blank that a
tactic he approved of was to argue the most extreme view of a
position - the audience would be shocked, shocked! But this
softened the public up for a more palatable position that was
nevertheless an idea that they weren't prepared to consider before.
Only by presenting a more extreme view does the more moderate
version of the radical's vision seem palatable. Once that moderate
vision is accepted, then you can keep moving the ideas slowly
towards the extreme in this manner described above. That's the
tactic in any case (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). It might not
work all the way or all the time, but to some extent it does work.
The language and ideas of "exploitation" theory have really done a
number on the general public, so that nudity and some
non-traditional displays of sexuality are so often seen as
exploitive, leading to a very regressive set of rules in
institutions and laws on sexuality in this country.
|4.16.08 @ 1:48AM|#
I thought the whole idea of college was to encourage you to
think for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Yeah, I'm just kidding...we know damn well it's about learning to
hold your beer...
|4.17.08 @ 11:22AM|#
The problem lies in the aptly-named liberal arts program of most universities. Even though English is probably my strongest suit, I'd often get a worse grade than everyone in my little discussion group because of my chosen essay topic. The token frat boy would get a B for his half-assed policy change proposal on subjecting serial killers to psychoanalysis instead of lethal injection or imprisonment. I got a C for likening hate crime legislation to thought crime since "hate is ingrained, not a thought". Oh yeah, everyone knows that...stupid cunt. :/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245