40 Percent of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding
A new survey from FIRE reveals rampant illiberalism and self-censorship among young faculty.

As the academy gets younger it grows more authoritarian, according to a new survey of over 1,400 faculty members conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The free speech group's findings portend a dark future for higher education if this course isn't reversed—and if faculty minds don't become more open to dissenting viewpoints.
Over the past decade or so, many academic departments embraced ideological views in their teaching and research, promoting social justice–laden scholarship as a way of correcting the wrongs of the past. Unsurprisingly, many departments developed left-of-center academic monocultures, becoming unfriendly to differing opinions. Young faculty entering the profession are only adding to this academic echo chamber.
As a professor, I'm on the younger side for faculty members. My cohort is much more illiberal than their older colleagues. Two-thirds of faculty over 55 years old said students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable. That number plummets to 37 percent for faculty 35 and under.
Shockingly, younger faculty report more acceptance of violence to combat speech. While 97 percent of older faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech, only 79 percent of younger faculty agree. That one in five younger professors show any level of acceptance for violence to stop speech should alarm all of us.
Mixing age with ideology reveals even more pronounced support for illiberal attitudes. Among liberal faculty 35 and under, only 23 percent indicated that students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable, compared with 88 percent of conservative faculty. Moderate faculty in this age group were also much more likely than their conservative colleagues to endorse the acceptability of these tactics.
Perhaps most alarming of all, only 64 percent of young and liberal faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech.
Illiberalism runs deep among young liberal faculty members, and their views regrettably resemble those of their students rather than their more senior peers. As newer and far less tolerant numbers of professors replace older faculty, colleges and universities may be in a true crisis if the higher education enterprise destroys its core values.
The research also finds that faculty members are self-censoring at higher rates. In 1955, at the end of the second Red Scare after World War II during the age of McCarthy and deep anti-communist fear, 9 percent of social scientists said they toned down their writing for fear of causing controversy. Today, 25 percent say they're very or extremely likely to self-censor their writing in academic publications.
More than half of faculty—52 percent—say they're afraid they'll lose their job or reputation over a misunderstanding of something they said or did, or because someone posted something from their past online. While almost three-quarters of conservative faculty expressed this year, 40 percent of even liberal faculty agree. That's staggering: two in five professors who are a part of the prevailing orthodoxy on campus are fearful of losing their jobs over a misunderstanding.
As the report says, this "speaks volumes about the climate of fear, intimidation, and censorship on campus."
This cannot be the environment of the future. Our society cannot thrive when opposing voices are met with fists rather than facts. And as a professor, I know that what starts on campus rarely stays there. This fear will continue to grow and infect our neighborhoods, our workplaces, and our communities.
There is still time to course correct. But students, trustees, donors, alumni, and the public must demand better from the faculty today before these young authoritarians run higher education tomorrow.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody expected Mao to be this welcomed into Marxism.
Those pushing Marxism need to study the USSR and Red China. The revolution must continue forever to defeat the counter revolution. The means of doing that is “terror”. They think as supporters they will be safe, but history tells us in the “terror” supporters fare no better than those that resist. Children denounce their parents. Heroes of the Revolution are a threat to the “Dear Leader” and must be eliminated, and the entire populace is told, threatened and mandated to denounce their family, friends and coworkers. I wonder where these lib professors that are supposed to be so smart thought of how this lunacy would end?
As a healthcare provider, I, Dr. Shoaib Malik, aim to offer comprehensive medical services to the family practice center of NJ, including primary care, weight loss management, IV infusion therapy, and chronic disease management. He offers patient-centered care to help patients achieve optimal health and well-being.
Read more about us: https://primehealthofnj.com/
As a healthcare provider, I, Dr. Shoaib Malik, aim to offer comprehensive medical services to the family practice center of NJ, including primary care, Weight Loss Management Clinic, IV infusion therapy, and chronic disease management. He offers patient-centered care to help patients achieve optimal health and well-being.
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information——————
——>>>http://www.dailypro7.com
Our society cannot thrive when opposing voices are met with fists rather than facts.
You mean discussing ideas instead of people? Nobody does that anymore. If you don't like what someone says you relentlessly attack them as a person until they are silenced. It's not about a quest for knowledge. It's about owning the other side.
Problem is that this isn't just in the victim studies departments anymore. Science and engineering have to kowtow to the puritans as well. Medicine is already crumbling, and forced to teach non-Western woo and crankery. Only a matter of time before Physics is required to teach non-Western "energy" as well.
Science and engineering have to kowtow to the puritans as well.
How so? There's no subjectivity to argue over in math.
Math is racist, or haven't you heard?
Woke math lesson for today.
2 + 2 = ___
a) white patriarchal oppression
b) any whole number close to 4
c) the emotional response of your choice, based on your lived experience
d) ask the Asian kid
e) The square root of 16... Butt that, in turn, equals whatever "feels right" to YOU! And NO ONE has ANY feelings that one is unwise to express, or, Government Almighty forbid, counterproductive or INVALID!
(In the fine print... Unless your feelings are NOT liberal, in quite the correct way!)
Tim the Enchanter says 2+2= a magical flute.
Sure... Butt how do you FEEEEL about that? And, did Government Almighty treat you right, ass you grew up, or are there lingering resentments, on your part, perhaps, about how Government Almighty raised you?
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say this, butt none of us are Perfect in Every Way... PERHAPS not even Government Almighty itself! (That's the edgy part of it, and I hope not to lose my tenure ass a Reason.com poster for writing that. Please don't go "Karen" on me for that! Don't spread it on ANY social media! It's just between you and me, now, PLEASE!)
Butt anyway... If Government Almighty was kinda mean to ya at times ass you grew up, try to recall, Government Almighty didn't really MEAN to be mean to ya! Don't forget... Government Almighty LOVES us all!!! (I hope that helped.)
Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers
Government loves me, This I know,
For the Government tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
And gives me all that I might need!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
DEA, CIA, KGB,
Our protectors, they will be,
FBI, TSA, and FDA,
With us, astride us, in every way!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
Oh joy, it's more copypasta from Sqrlsy Copypasta himself.
Butt it's all TRUE! WHO (even among conservaturds) can dispute that Government Almighty LOVES us ALL!?!? (Conservaturd Government Almighty in this head-case, to be sure.)
#MeInTheAss’CauseI’maGullibleLowBrowBlowHardConTard
or ...
#BeenTrumpledUnderfootForFarTooLong
Take your pick!
Sqrlsy, you are definitely a unique wonder to behold. A one-of-a-kind nut.
Us nuts... When we #BeenTrumpledUnderfootForFarTooLong...
SOME few of us, when we get worked down SOOOO far into the shit, and into the mud... We will then SPROUT and turn into MIGHTY OAKS (and other nut-trees), such that the birds will come from near and far, and NEST in us... And then these birds will...
Cast their Deep and Mighty bird-turds upon YOU!!! ... (A prophecy from Nostril-Dame-Us!)
And he even eats his own shit!
Case in point. Square root of 16 is wrong since it could be either -4 or 4. And you accuse US of going what "feels right"? Blarney.
-4 cheers be bestowed upon and befestered unto YOU, then! To the head of the ass-class!
(What about +/- 4"i" (imaginary root of negate "one") also, though, or in other dimensions?)
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
I think math will do better than other disciplines. Mathematicians tend to be a bit odd and focused on their work. But there is plenty of room to cram bullshit in around the edges, which I worry will harm primary/secondary math education.
And you do sometimes hear people actually trying to argue that logic and reason are western cultural products that are therefore problematic.
And excessively white or Asian. But trust me, there are winds of change coming through that are gonna remedy that inequity.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Probability theory is the pinch-hitter making up for the appalling want of subjectivity in math--that and shrieking "post hoc, ergo..." The probability of a clock pointing to exactly noon is zero, yet there is nothing impossible about such an event. The tricky part is proving to a physicist that you can ascertain the position and momentum of the clock pointer to satisfactory exactitude.
“How so? There’s no subjectivity to argue over in math.”
More evidence that a certain someone doesn’t have an education.
Science and engineering have to kowtow to the puritans as well.
Which is one of the reasons why I'll probably never go back for my Master's degree in engineering (that and I'm too old now anyway). Should have done it 10+ years ago, or just gone straight through from undergrad to grad school without going into the workplace first. Oh well, missed opportunities.
I have a friend who is number two in the chemistry department at one my state’s universities. He’s told me they’re under pressure to do all kinds of idiot things. Like making testing easier by structuring all tests as multiple choice. All because students whine and scores aren’t higher in courses that are difficult by design.
The left is a cancer.
> The left is a cancer.
If left unchecked it will grow astronomically, and it will kill the host. Ok, checks out.
shows how much things have changed.
20 years ago in freshman chemistry our prof pretty much opened the course by saying "20% of you WILL fail out and that's intentional"
And 20 years ago (I graduated 2001) it seemed like higher education was already going off the rails with grade inflation and woke (or whatever it was called back then) nuttery . I can't imagine what it's like now.
Those weed-outs were always the best classes. Data Structures comes to mind.
Not a weed out class at a university. Maybe at community College.
You mean discussing ideas instead of people? Nobody does that anymore. If you don’t like what someone says you relentlessly attack them as a person until they are silenced. It’s not about a quest for knowledge. It’s about owning the other side.
Kinda lazy, or dishonest, or a combination of the two (and more) to declare all opposing arguments as fallacious ad hominems up front.
When every sentence contains the word "you" then it's fair to say that the argument is against the person, not what was said.
Did I use the word 'you'? Did Mr. Abrams use the word 'you'?
Did I accuse either of that?
They/them
So, then, whom is making the fallacious ad hominem argument(s)?
I say "fallacious" as, sometimes, the person is the problem.
Do you see the irony in your statement?
It's pretty clear that one of us doesn't.
"Did I accuse either of that?"
Then what was the point of
"When every sentence contains the word “you” then it’s fair to say that the argument is against the person, not what was said."
Given that nobody involved (either OP or person you're replying to) did that?
It was an example of the toxic argument I'm talking about. If you want examples just look to the people I never respond to, no matter how many turds they leave on my comments.
Dude, you used the word "you" in your original comment.
No shit Sherlock. It was the euphemistic you that doesn't mean anyone in particular. As opposed to, say, a comment from Marshal where every sentence contains the word "you" and it isn't euphemistic. Are you being pedantic or stupid?
As opposed to, say, a comment from Marshal where every sentence contains the word “you” and it isn’t euphemistic. Are you being pedantic or stupid?
Nope. Normal, non-telepathic humans who can't know that you're still butthurt about Marshal, for whatever reason, without referencing him by name. Especially given that he didn't post on this thread except in reply to you.
Then why do you get so pissy over the use of the term?
You seem to have a rather nasty habit of picking fights with darn near every commenter here, and I really don't know why. I can understand picking a fight with someone who posts something just plain wrong and picking apart the argument and even the past behavior of the person involved (i.e. Pluggo's posting of CP and his denial of being banned), but you seem to enjoy being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, even if it means going all White Knight and defending Pluggo of Mike (ironically, the White Knight himself). I really don't get it.
Disagreement is only a fight when defending the tribe is more important than finding the truth. That’s when the word “you” comes out to declare the person as being wrong for being other, not for being incorrect. I'm not perfect. No one is. But I try to be aware of it in myself as well as others.
A thread in which Sarc disagrees with shrike then starts attacking others disagreeing with shrike as lying. In the very same thread.
https://reason.com/2023/01/25/doj-antitrust-suit-seeks-to-end-google-ad-dominance-the-market-is-already-taking-care-of-that/?comments=true#comment-9895670
He literally switches because those he sees as others attack shrikes idiocy.
Yeah, I remember that exchange. It was...strange to say the least. Like I said, he's contrarian for the sake of being contrarian at times.
Calling out Pluggo for not reading his own links (which Pluggo never does):
sarcasmic 1 month ago
And if you bother to read your own link, you’ll see that it is not enforced. So it doesn’t matter.
Then attacking JesseAz and defending Pluggo (even though Sarc has Jesse on mute):
sarcasmic 1 month ago
Why do you bother having conversations with him? All he does is lie. What’s the point?
It had to be one of the more bizarre moments I've seen in the comment section.
Lol. Happens all the time with him and Mike.
The only thing I find bizarre is any conversation with JesseAz. He takes things out of context, outright lies, lies by omission, and gives blame for things done by someone else. I must give him credit in that I have never read an honest statement from him in reply to one of my posts. Every sentence contains a deliberate untruth. Something he knows to be false. That takes talent. You know? To never slip up and tell the truth?
I keep him on mute so I am not tempted to correct him. He's master baiting. I'm not gonna stroke him.
Out of context? I posted the fucking thread dumbass.
Of course you’ll stroke him. You’re in love with Jesse.
It is okay to admit you're a raging hypocrite.
You mean discussing ideas instead of people?...If you don’t like what someone says you relentlessly attack them as a person until they are silenced.
How meta of sarc to attack other commenters in a comment decrying attacking people. Remember sarc's standards are tools to criticize other people, they are never applied to himself.
Over time I have observed that some people cannot differentiate between what someone says and who the person is. So if someone says something that is wrong, then they are wrong as a person. It is fair and logical to then attack the person, because conversations aren’t about finding the truth. They’re about owning others. My conclusion is that those people are not very bright.
So when you claimed to fuck another commenter's mother you were searching for truth? What about when you claimed they blow each other? Don't these statements fit better with your explicit admission you're only here to troll others than with this fantasy you're interested in truth? If you were interested in truth wouldn't you apply to yourself the same standards you apply to others?
My conclusion is that those people are not very bright.
Find yourself a mirror.
What about when you....
*yawn*
Go ahead and deflect, you fucking hypocrite.
Thank you for providing a great example of my point. Rather than respond to what I said, you respond to me as a person. Your comment ignores the point I'm trying to make while focusing on something I said ages ago that hurt your feelings. The logic of your post is that I did such-and-such, and because of that whatever I said was wrong. Textbook example of attacking the person to discredit what they say with the goal of the conversation being to own the other side instead of seeking the truth.
You couldn't have done a better job if you did it on purpose. Thanks again.
Ironic how you are free to discuss the behavior of others but rage when someone calls out yours. Hypocrisy is the term you are looking for.
The logic of your post is that I did such-and-such, and because of that whatever I said was wrong.
Stupidly wrong as usual. The logic of my post is that you assert a standard - people should engage in ideas rather than engage in personal attacks - that you have never and will never live up to. Nevertheless you continue to lie that other people fail this standard rather than yourself.
Folks, this is a lying pile of lefty shit. turd gets a copy paste response from me as that is all that ass-clown deserves.
Why any of you engage this steaming pile of lefty shit, white mike and lefty-jeffy with anything other than copy-pastes is a mystery to me; do you really think any of those lying piles of lefty shit are willing to learn? How long have you been here?
Suggested reply to all three of those:
"Fuck of and die, asshole"
On the (assumed) idiotic response from (yes, all three) reply with:
"Fuck of and die, asshole"
If you assume an alternative reply is more appropriate, please offer some support; nothing I've seen suggest such.
These are not honest or competent people; they are lying lefty shits claiming otherwise but revealing the truth.
"Fuck off and die, asshole" is more than any of them deserve.
No. He means being willing to use violence to silence opinions they don't like. He's not talking about engaging in ad hominems--he's talking about actual physical violence.
We already know sarc doesn't actually understand what an ad hominem is.
One thing leads to another.
It's not even limited to that.
The Reason commmentariat is a good example that there are two very different spirits in which people can engage in debate. The positive spirit is with intention to learn, solve mutual problems, make the world better. The negative spirit is to score points against the other team.
Even when commenters here with the negative spirit are correct about some fact they don't use it positively. They use it to belittle people, or they bundle up the correct facts with b.s. and try to sell the whole bundle of mixed truth.
The other pernicious aspect of the negative spirit is that it makes it impossible for them to talk to someone who isn't on a team. They are only prepared for debate against an enemy, so they necessarily have to force someone anyone who is neutral into the role of enemy.
Cite you learning?
We have posters here that like to have discussions. Then we have sea lions trying to fit libertarianism to the narrative of the day.
The only time I have ever seen you admit to learning something is when you tried to defend transgender surgery by citing the AMA as an appeal to authority, being told it represents a small percentage of doctors, then reluctantly admitting you didn't know that before just switching to another tactic to defend surgeries.
Even when commenters here with the negative spirit are correct about some fact they don’t use it positively.
It's hard to concede a point to someone who is constantly putting you on the defensive by accusing you of things you both know to be false.
Cite?
You regularly obfuscate, lie, debate in bad faith, sea lion, etc.. yet you expect to be taken seriously and respected?
Fuck off.
P.S. I discussed you with the other CHUDs, and they said fuck off too
Folks, this is a lying pile of lefty shit. turd gets a copy paste response from me as that is all that ass-clown deserves.
Why any of you engage this steaming pile of lefty shit, white mike and lefty-jeffy with anything other than copy-pastes is a mystery to me; do you really think any of those lying piles of lefty shit are willing to learn? How long have you been here?
Suggested reply to all three of those:
“Fuck of and die, asshole”
On the (assumed) idiotic response from (yes, all three) reply with:
“Fuck of and die, asshole”
If you assume an alternative reply is more appropriate, please offer some support; nothing I’ve seen suggest such.
These are not honest or competent people; they are lying lefty shits claiming otherwise but revealing the truth.
“Fuck off and die, asshole” is more than any of them deserve.
That is certainly the leftist (totalitarian) tactic du jour.
As if I can speak openly at work? Whatever.
The real problem is too many people in college who don't need to be there.
You don't need a college degree to serve coffee.
You get more of what you subsidize. Subsidizing student loans generates students who have no real aptitude for college and have to fish around for studies which require no intellect. Subsidizing science generates “scientists” who have no real aptitude for research and fish around for fields which require no intellect. The perfect combination of ineptitude is why academia is full of Marxists and wokists.
But you do need some college degrees to serve coffee while feeling superior and hoping to ascend into the social elite.
Back in my restaurant days I worked with a woman who was going to college for some stupid liberal arts degree, and I asked her why. She said her goal was to be a bartender at a swanky place that catered to the wealthy. The purpose of the degree was to give her a smattering of different subjects to enable her to have intelligent conversations with the clients and get better tips. For all I know she's a barista.
Joining a book of the month club would have been a far less expensive way to accomplish the same thing.
Pretty much.
I knew a guy who wanted to go to a small college in Texas to learn film. He wanted to be a director. I suggested buying a decent camera and actually write and shoot small films. It will cost less and has a better shot at getting him a job in film than a degree from a small school in Texas would. His plan was to either get a career in film or commit suicide (when committing suicide is a part of your financial strategy, it's not a good one)
...he was then, a year later, imprisoned for possession of a lot of kiddie porn. Dude was a useless shit.
Perhaps he was in jail because he took your advice. The films were ‘small’ I suppose.
Was his name Shrike Sr.?
Joining a gym and being hot would have been more cost effective.
Being hot is always a good strategy.
That's probably not a bad plan if she's good at bartending. Or a bad use for a liberal arts degree. Kind of goes back to the days when women would go to college to make themselves more appealing mates for upper class and academic men.
...they still do. The sexual revolution has done little for women but it has been a godsend for wealthy men. Women will hoe it up hard to get a man nowadays.
Where do I find these women? Maybe I'm just not flash enough.
Women think men are bad because they tend to want the SAME man.
Tall (above 6')
Good-looking.
Rich.
95% of women (minimum) want these traits. And they're all held by only a small group of men. So, those few men have women willing to do almost anything to "land" them as their boyfriend/husband/whatever.
Like letting them grab them by the pussy.
Goal of being a bartender for rich people. Seems like she's trying to become an appealing mate for the upper class. Some things never change I guess.
That actually makes a tiny bit of sense, but there are way better ways to train for the goal of being able to have intelligent conversations and tell stories than attending college.
Swanky in Maine. Yeah ill need a cite.
And close to 100% are probably afraid they'll be fired if they're mistaken for a conservative (with conservative defined in this case as "anyone to the right of Mao Zedong").
I still love that fact that the arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried really exposed. Whereby he specifically explained that you have to give to both parties to protect yourself and buy favor, but you can't publicly show that you're giving money to Republicans, otherwise the media and pop culture will try to destroy you.
Famous quotes from History:
General Custer '.....There is still time to course correct. ...'
My favorite Custer quote "Never seen so damn many Indians.."
Goes right along that famous one from Geronimo when he leapt out of an airplane and yelled "Meeeeeeeeeeeee...."
And 100% of greivence studies professors deserve to be fired... Out of a cannon... Into a wall
If we aimed them at the border wall, at least they would die trying to achieve another progressive value.
Why should that be shocking to anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the last ~10 years or so? Once people (mostly academics) started equivocating speech with violence, it was a short jump from there to justifying violence to shut people up for expressing an opinion you disagree with.
And if the older academics are wondering who to blame, I suggest they find a mirror. They're the ones who taught the younger generation to think this way. If you create a monster you can't be that shocked when it starts destroying all your stuff.
It started long before ten years ago. What we are seeing is the tree that was planted half a century ago. Once academia turned it's back on the pursuit of truth, the rest was downhill. Changing the world via one Big Ass Authoritarian Purge is far more important than changing the world one life at a time.
How did the Stalinist pogroms happen? How did the Killing Fields come about? Because people have turned political ideology into a religious crusade. They are fanatically determined to save the world no matter how many lives they must shed. The new Killing Fields are just around the corner.
Well said.
They are fanatically determined to save the world no matter how many lives they must shed.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
They had no good intentions whatsoever.
Just because you are intellectually dishonest and argue with bad intentions doesn't mean everyone else is also piece of shit. Most people in fact have good intentions. They don't wake up all excited to go and be mean to people or worse. You should really stop projecting yourself onto everyone else.
Have you never heard of bad intentions? Are you really so blinded by usage that you think all intentions are good?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
Oh how responsive. Let me repeat:
Are you even aware that bad intentions are a real thing and can outweigh good intentions?
You're still confusing intentions and results. The Holocaust was eugenics being played out to its logical conclusion. It wasn't bad intentions. Quite the opposite. They believed they were cleaning up the gene pool for the good of the human race. Prohibitionists had good intentions, despite all the unintended consequences. It's possible to recognize that evil deeds can be done with good intentions in the mind of the person doing them without condoning the deeds or agreeing with the ideas.
Weren't you complaining about You statements above?
Most authoritarians do have good intentions. Fuck, remember when Saddam Hussein was executed? The guy was bewildered. His last words were along the lines of "My children, what are you doing?" Because he had good intentions. Even Hitler had good intentions. He thought he was creating a better world. The problem with such people is they think good intentions create good results. They do not. And when bad things happen they find others to blame. Couldn't be their fault. They had good intentions.
You are similarly equating intentions with results. You are saying that bad results must be caused by bad intentions. That's the argument they use when they purge their enemies. I think you'd be right at home in an authoritarian regime. You sure think like one.
That's really the scarier part of it. If someone was purely evil out to specifically do evil things, the response to it is easy and the draw to it would be limited. The insidiousness is that people rarely choose to do wrong, they actually want to do right. And in that doing right, they are able to justify horrific behavior. I'm vastly more concerned about people doing right than people purposefully doing wrong. One can take over and subjugate a continent, the other robs a liquor store.
That assumes that the slightest good intention outweighs all the evil intentions in the world. It is false.
No, it doesn’t assume that at all. The idea is doing good allows you to justify doing bad to get there. The point is that the end good is more important than the means that get you there. Thus, they are not doing bad, because the overall good is what they are trying to achieve.
If someone says to you "2 plus 2 is 5", do you attribute that to his good intentions?
This comment doesn't make any sense. I can't tell if you're being purposefully contrarian or you really don't understand the concept of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Did you watch the Marvel Avengers movies? Did you understand that Thanos was engaging what he thought was good?
The 2+2=5 statement is in regards to dumbing down math and removing the need to be right as part of math. It is part of the cultural marxist push. Teaching kids they are fine if they get the answer wrong as long as they could explain the methods used.
The good intentions here are to make kids feel less bad about their ignorance. In reality the internation is to push the subjective over the objective to control kids. It is a bad intention masked under good intentions.
See also Maos cultural revolution.
The public intention of a person does not matter if it is ultimately harmful. So cries of good intentions should be lambasted and dissuaded from use. Any form of control is a reduction of an other person's will or actions. You can't make that under a theory of it benefitting others of they just did what you wanted them to do.
I’m quite surprised at the inability of so many people to understand the concept of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
This understanding has nothing to do with approving of the goal or means to get there. The idea is if you simply ascribe to someone evil intentions, you blind yourself to the reality of what is taking place. The scary thing is people doing good who in doing good justify doing bad. That’s the whole point.
It doesn’t mean that just because someone thinks they are doing good that they get a pass. It’s actually quite the opposite. It’s a warning that the more insidious of bad out there is done in the name of good. It’s understanding the reality of life rather than falsely labeling someone bad or evil to fit into a nice box, but going further in that someone may not be pursuing evil, but allowing or justifying evil to occur because of their pursuit of what they believe is good.
And this pursuit of good leading to bad is hyper-prevalent in our society. It's rare to find people doing bad for the purpose of doing bad. That's not really within the human instinct. Instead, we all want to be right. We want to be the good guys. We are the protagonists of our own stories. So, understanding that allows us to understand bad better than pretending that people who do bad are doing simply because they want to do bad because they are evil.
That statement is a poorly thought euphemism.
It should be that "the way tonhell is masked under good intentions."
It is a means to forgive people of bad actions. Actions should always be prioritized over masked words.
No, it was a fine statement. You're just so infatuated with hating sarc at this point that you're now strangely challenging a fairly obvious statement on my part.
And why you keep running with this concept that the goal is to forgive bad actions is just tired. It's not about forgiving anything, it's about actually understanding how bad occurs.
"I reject the filthy slogan 'The end justifies the means.' ... The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means." (Ayn Rand)
Much agreed. Either the means were good, or the end result is tainted with evil means, no matter how good the result may be.
Exactly. No matter the good intention, if evil means are employed to get there, the end result is not good.
We’re talking about what is in their mind. Evil deeds done with good intentions are still evil. Yes. However in the mind of the person doing them they were for a good end, so the intentions justify it. In that person’s mind. Not in my mind. Not in yours. But in theirs.
That's what "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" means.
If you take it to mean that we must all honor good intentions and ignore bad intentions, then you are as crazy as the lunatic who says with good intention that two plus two is five.
I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people do bad things with good intentions. That doesn't absolve them. Most terrorists believe they are doing good. Doesn't mean they're not guilty of murder.
Every time you defend a bad act as being done with good intentions you are attempting to defend or deflect the bad act. The self declared intention is meaningless. Yet you and Mike continue to utilize it to excuse bad acts.
I don't see sarcasmic saying that, honestly. It all boils down to everybody is the hero in their own story. THEY think they are right. Even if they, by everybody else's view, are not, by THEIR view, they are. And people will move Heaven and Earth to do what they feel is right.
Hitler would have been the hero in his telling of World War II. It would not justify the incredible evil he committed simply because he was delusional. Even people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab think they are bettering the world. They clearly are not and they are utterly useless piles of shit, but they think they are best and most noble of all creatures. And they won't rest until they accomplish what they feel is necessary.
The problem is an act claimed to be in good faith done to control someone else is never good faith, it is done to control. They can claim they have your best interests, but it is a lie. They have theirs. The belief if you do what they ask it will ultimately benefit them. This can be applied to societal asks as well. See all the private jet flying green activists. Their intentions are selfish. But they claim it is for others.
Jackass!
If a robber shoots me to collect my wallet, are you saying his good intention of enriching himself outweighed his bad intention of shooting me?
If a dictator murders his own people and impoverishes them to enrich his own bank account, are you saying his minuscule good intentions outweigh his bad intentions?
Are you seriously claiming there is no such thing as bad intentions, or that the slightest good intention outweighs the most awful bad intentions?
Good grief you are stupid.
If a robber shoots me to collect my wallet, are you saying his good intention of enriching himself outweighed his bad intention of shooting me?
In his mind, probably.
If a dictator murders his own people and impoverishes them to enrich his own bank account, are you saying his minuscule good intentions outweigh his bad intentions?
I said "most" and gave examples. Sure there are dictators with bad intentions. Africa is full of them. There are also authoritarians with good intentions. History is full of them as well.
Are you seriously claiming there is no such thing as bad intentions, or that the slightest good intention outweighs the most awful bad intentions?
No. You’re deliberately misconstruing what I say or stupid. Since you’re not stupid I must conclude that you’re being dishonest as usual.
That's about as useful as any statist's good intentions.
When you accuse someone of bad intentions you're not going to get anywhere. A better idea is to find some result you can both agree upon and then argue over how to get there.
.
It is post modernism justification of bad acts.
"I said “most” and gave examples. Sure there are dictators with bad intentions. Africa is full of them. There are also authoritarians with good intentions. History is full of them as well."
I'd argue most of them ALSO think they are doing the "right" thing which justifies (to them alone) all of their excesses in achieving it.
Mugabe was "fighting colonialism"...he felt he was justified in utterly eradicating the Zimbabwean economy and ability to feed itself since he was doing a "good" thing in "fighting colonialism". The current inept leadership of South Africa is obliterating their country for "fairness" over the evils of apartheid.
Nobody in existence does things because they are "evil". Worst case scenario, people do not care what they do. But I do not believe anybody views themselves as evil. Even though quite a few people ARE evil is almost beside the point.
Goes to the point I tried to make above. I think people can do things purely to be bad. But those actions are things like petty vandalism. And even then, there are a lot of people who justify things like vandalism as a way of doing good.
But yes, humans want to be right and to do the right thing. The concern is what they believe the right thing is, and how invested they are in getting to the right thing. That's what leads to the bad.
Very much so. Few things are worse than people who think they are doing the right thing, in spite of being detestable.
Totally. And convincing them of the harm of their good is a herculean task.
I don't think many robbers have any illusions that what they are doing is good. A lot of commie true believers do. Though not the leaders. I don't think Stalin, for example, had any illusion that he was working for the good of humanity either.
Do you think someone going into the military has good intentions? A very likely outcome will be that they will be asked to kill someone who has done them no harm.
Many people celebrate Robin hood. Many criminals think of others as takers abd are justified to rob and loot. Just look at CNN or MSNBC during the BLM looting.
Many people don't understand that Robin Hood was taking from the government and giving back to the people.
Many criminals think of others as takers abd are justified to rob and loot.
I don't buy that. It's just a convenient excuse. People out there mugging people just don't give a fuck about good or bad.
Why I provided the many instances of pro looting on news channels. They justified the looting. See also the panels on reparations.
Many people can subjectively create a reason why their bad act is actually in good faith. But it is a just that, a means to justify.
Some people are blatant enough to not so so, they are just being honest.
Greed and envy are some of the biggest motivators of crime. Why do they have something i deserve. Green energy, welfare, etc etc.
You don't dip someone into a vat of acid and then claim good intentions.
Dude, many slave owners believed that they were doing the slaves a favor. They treated people like property and felt good about it. In their minds they had good intentions. That doesn't mean they were right.
A whole mythology/philosophy was intentionally built up in the South to justify slavery as a moral good:
https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-slavery-and-racism/
This isn't entirely unique to Southerners, prior to that slave owners thought that they were giving their slaves proper punishment in the name of justice. Good intentions there, doesn't mean that's how it should go.
When commenters here demonize groups of people I sometimes point out those people have good intentions. Then I get yelled at for defending them. What they don’t get is that when I say someone has good intentions that doesn’t mean I’m absolving them or giving them praise.
It's almost baffling the inability of people to see the difference between simply understanding that people who do bad might be doing it under the auspices of good intentions, and defending people's actions.
I mean, simply understanding that people do bad things with good intentions is by no means attempting to absolve them of their actions.
It a appears to be a pretty obvious nuance that many can't grasp.
Uh, but what if it's a counter-revolutionary? Or a racist?
(This is how these people think. Fucking monsters...)
I certainly don't. But that doesn't mean no one does.
What about locking someone in prison or executing them? Can there be good intentions behind that? I don't recall what you think about the death penalty. But if that is justified as a deterrent to crime, isn't vat of acid an even better deterrent?
Depends on who "they" was. I don't think Stalin or Mao or any communist leaders like that had good intentions. But I think a lot of commie academics have good intentions, even if their standard of the good differs from yours or mine. At least some of them. There also seem to be a lot who are just angry, broken people.
Their intention is control of thought and politics. Doing it behind a veil of utilitarian principles doesn't change that.
That's where their standard of what is good differs.
I happen to believe that human thriving and individual liberty are the goods worth pursuing. Many people seem to disagree. That doesn't mean they have bad intentions, it just means they are wrong. Of course there are also many willing to exploit those good intentions for their own power and I don't give those people the same charity. They are just gangsters.
But do you agree with forcing others to act in the manner you believe increases liberty and goods? Those academics believe in forcing of others to join them.
“Hell uses asphalt and concrete for its roads just like everyone else. This ‘good intentions’ thing is just an urban legend. I really don’t know where people are getting this.”
-Satan, setting the record straight
Once academia turned it’s back on the pursuit of truth, the rest was downhill.
When politicians cite academics, academics become politicians.
It started long before ten years ago.
True but it seems to have really accelerated into overdrive the last ~10 years or so (I was really using 10 years as more an approximation). Admittedly I haven't been on a college campus since graduating with a BS in Aerospace Engineering a little more than 20 years ago and that was from a university that specialized in science and engineering where the humanities department was an afterthought. Maybe more traditional universities were just as bad back then as they are now but it seems like you hear a lot more horror stories (the Evergreen College bullshit, the Yale furor over "offensive" Halloween costumes for two examples) over the last decade or so.
I suppose it could just be recency bias or just hearing about these things more often now.
What accelerated it wasn't necessarily trends in academia, but the deep race and gender marxism movements that immediately appropriated Occupy Wall Street shortly after those protests started. Academia merely provided the intellectual foundation, but those protests are what actually mainstreamed them.
'Appropriated' Occupy Wall Street?
How do you appropriate yourself?
It actually started off just focusing on the unfairness of bankers getting bailouts from the government while everyone else had to eat shit. About 3 or 4 days in was when the "down-twinkles" race and gender-baiters moved in and immediately took over the protest, similar to what Weatherman did with SDS.
ERAU?
Yep. Prescott, AZ campus.
Did a year at the Daytona campus before deciding engineering wasn't what I wanted to do.
It started long before ten years ago.
Yeah, it really goes back 50 years when the New Left, who were steeped in Herbert Marcuse’s teachings and the popularity amongst this set of the Cultural Revolution in China, began taking over professorships. Academia’s obsession with intellectual fashion led what we would have considered fairly bog-standard political correctness related to ideas of equitability and race-blindness, and morphed them into the current “woke” religious mania that began on campus in more earnest after Peggy McIntosh published her dumb essay on white privilege.
What Abrams is referencing here was already getting inculcated in academia through the 1990s and into the 2000s. Gen-X professors ended up being far more radical than their Boomer mentors, and subsequently have created a generation of Millennial professors who are yet more radical still. The Zoomers going through college and grad school right now are, for all intents and purposes, full-blown communists, and people like Abrams are becoming unicorns, because the Gen-Xers and Millennials deliberately weed out anyone at this point who isn’t ideologically in lockstep with them, either for grad school admissions or when being considered by hiring committees.
Modern academia is really nothing more than a seminary for marxist priests at this point, and an expensive one at that. The thing is, they primarily get their influence from the mere social fact that getting a college degree is considered a requirement to get a lot of professional jobs. The only way to really neuter their influence now is to nerf their aura of authority by outlawing college degrees as a hiring requirement, save for STEM occupations where more rigor is needed.
When people don’t see the need to attend college because they can still get a decent job without a degree, the influence of academia is going to start plummeting along with college attendance. Ironically, guys like Larry Hogan and Josh Shapiro have already started this precedent by eliminating the degree requirement for several state jobs, albeit for dumb reasons like “equity” because so many minorities either don’t attend college, or fail to finish when they do start.
The next step is going to have to be laws that forbid state schools from requiring students to pay for any class that isn’t directly applicable to their major or minor. That will not only force the colleges to cut down their graduation requirements and ultimately save the students money, it will end up killing a lot of these race and gender marxism departments that are being propped up by students who wouldn’t take their classes otherwise.
And that's the weird thing, because according to most surveys, Gen X tend to be the most independent, conservative age cohort currently living. Maybe it's just those of us who have to actually work rather than live in Ivory Towers of Academia.
Generations aren't uniform. The most left wing and useless 1% of GeX became professors. This is also true of millennials.
But I think you're right about the mechanism that pushes people away from leftism as they age is their work. If you spend any time in a free world you understand the academic utopia is unworkable as you can see from the waste and bloat it generates. But there are so many more people today working in controlled environments - government, academia, nonprofits - they no longer learn as they age simply because they are never exposed to reality.
It is. Academia tends to attract those who are the most socialist and radical amongst the bunch.
Pretty much everyone I went to grad school with was either a Democrat, Green, or actual CPUSA member (no shit on that last one, he even used all the dumb commie catchphrases like "bourgeois democracy"). I think me and an older Mormon guy were the only non-left grad students in the program.
Oh, I think many of us leaned left (I did more than my parents but still right of center) when we were younger, but we grew up, at least most of us did. We had kids, got jobs and mortgages and lived through the turbulence of the late 1990s and early 2000s (which was often the result of Government fuck ups) and we changed. The first WTC attacks, USS Cole, Waco, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Iraqi Freedom, Somalia, etc. We saw how the end of the Cold War didn't result in the Utopia we had been promised. I think many of us were already cynical, but our early adult years made us even more cynical. Except those who never left the university cloistered halls.
Oh, I think many of us leaned left . . . when we were younger, but we grew up
As an undergrad in the early '90s I considered myself a communist, but mostly because my dad would have been a Bircher if he were more of a joiner.
And then I got involved with activist groups and realized that to a person they were all crazy. The more conversations I had about how I couldn't give them money or go to the protest because I had to go work the graveyard shift to pay my tuition the more I started to question how well these people actually understood the things they were outraged about vs how much they simply wanted to be outraged about something.
We didn't have as many of the activist groups at my college (public university focused on engineering) in the late 1990s. Hell, we didn't even have a branch of the College Democrats. The opposition to the College Republicans at the time was a small 3-4 person College Libertarians.
But, thinking of the angry activist groups, I now realize that the movie PCU is about 30 years old, and probably still relevant as to the nuts on campus.
I literally watched PCU about two weeks ago and was astounded how well it still holds up. I mean, other than no cell phones, it’s still very applicable today, if not more so.
Yeah, it really goes back 50 years when the New Left, who were steeped in Herbert Marcuse’s teachings and the popularity amongst this set of the Cultural Revolution in China, began taking over professorships.
^
And they took the class-based Marxist revolutionary impulse and turned it on its head by taking to it's logical conclusion the Leninist argument that the workers are incapable of organizing so that the Revolution needs to start from the top down and framing the over-privileged bourgeois college students as the Vanguard of the Revolution.
When you mixed a good solid dose of misunderstood Deconstruction where "there is no absolute truth" morphs into "you have no right to question my truth" you get today's upside-down-world 'Marxism' where the wealthy protest their cultural victimization by the working class.
Really, "marxism" in and of itself (and if you want to broaden it out a bit more, Hegelian dialecticism) is something of a red herring, because it allows the academic left to frame such issues as "oh, Marxism is strictly economic, CRT isn't real Marxism!" like several lefty commenters here have asserted.
James Lindsay has argued that this overall philosophy is ultimately a modern form of hermetic gnosticism, but using "marxism" as the descriptor is good enough because 1) it's a known philosophical quantity, unlike the earlier Hegelianism which tends to be incredibly opaque, and 2) so many current academic theories are steeped in Marx's "oppressor/oppressed" social dichotomy as their intellectual keystone. Calling these movements "race marxism" or "gender marxism" ultimately makes them easier to understand, because they're really all arguing for the same basic utopian vision and same social dynamic that Marx was from the labor perspective.
Really, “marxism” in and of itself (and if you want to broaden it out a bit more, Hegelian dialecticism) is something of a red herring
Can't resist linking this.
But totally agree - "marxism" as an actual thing is so removed from the equation at this point as to be essentially irrelevant. I think Hegel is more relevant, really, as most of the problems with Marx and a lot of political philosophy for the last couple of centuries have roots in whackadoodle metaphysics from Hegel, including the 'fascism-light' we currently live under.
Calling these movements “race marxism” or “gender marxism” ultimately makes them easier to understand, because they’re really all arguing for the same basic utopian vision and same social dynamic that Marx was from the labor perspective.
I get that, but the trouble is that you wind up in situations like the Peterson-Zizek debate in which you have a card-carrying Marxist like Zizek who in no way recognizes this "world-taken-over-by -Marxism" that Peterson is talking about, which then leads to exactly what you're saying about "oh, Peterson just doesn't understand what Marxism is!" And that's exactly what happened - both sides claimed victory, because on the one hand Zizek pretty much straight-up admitted that Marxism is dead but all the Marxists could see plain as day that Peterson's critiques of Marx weren't based in any actual knowledge of Marxist theory, and so they dismissed him.
This is why I personally prefer two terms drawn from Marx himself - "Bourgeois Socialist" and "Aristocratic Socialist."
We're to a point where Marx has this weird mystical moral authority for people on the left even though I find that almost no self-identified socialist actually knows anything about Marx's actual writings. You can know this automatically because Marx is really, really clear that he considers socialism a much greater evil than capitalism (and this is from the Manifesto, which is like a 30 minute read). Anyone who does not know this about Marx only knows Marx through excerpts and summaries presented by interested parties.
This is why I personally find it much more useful when confronting socialists and progressives rather than calling them "Marxists," which ultimately won't be taken as an insult by them, to point out that Marx disagrees with them and has already explained in detail why their system sucks and actually exploits rather than saves the working classes.
Because, let's face it, the elephant in the room (heh heh) is the fact that the 'Marxists' lost the support of the working classes a long time ago. Call them what they are - socialist aristocrats.
Yeah, one thing I'll concede here is that Marx was always clear that socialism was just another system of exploitation, but that it was necessary in order to bring about communism--which Lenin then engaged from accelerationist perspective, because he was trying to literally bring about the communist utopia in his own lifetime.
The cultural marxists have actually adopted this stance themselves in a fashion, at least when you look at Paolo Freire and his acolytes, who argued that communism was literally a perpetual revolution that constantly needed to destroy the status quo--because anything that had become the status quo was automatically oppressive in some way. It's a really sinister, destructive, apocalyptic ideology when you get to the heart of what these guys believe. No wonder they're incapable of building anything that lasts.
"Apocalyptic" is a really good word for it. A visionary drive to continually destroy and renew society.
I'm reminded of that ancient Egyptian cult that was trying to accelerate the Christian apocalypse by committing every possible sin because they thought it would speed us up toward the end of time.
Red, Square: This was a great exchange, enjoyed reading it.
I second Commenter_XY's comment.
"...communism was literally a perpetual revolution that constantly needed to destroy the status quo–because anything that had become the status quo was automatically oppressive in some way..."
With the Cultural Revolution, Mao showed that constant destruction was at least equally oppressive.
Very well said; unfortunately, sarcasmic took the rest of the thread off the rails by niggling about whether authoritarians [who occasionally killed a few million here and there] have good intentions or not.
Excuse the fuck out of me if I think it’s important to understand where someone else is coming from, especially if you disagree with them. Simply labeling them as having bad intentions is not only intellectually lazy, but it rules out debate. The argument becomes about the person and their intentions, rather than what might be a shared goal. For example we all want healthcare. Some want it provided by government, and others by the private sector. Same goal. But if each accuses the other of bad intentions (free marketers defend the rich, socialized medicine is backdoor communism) then instead of debating the merits of each system they attack each other as people. Nothing productive can be gained from that.
(Cue the usual suspects with comments starting with “Well what about when you…?”)
Beyond this point [of the discussion] there be bad intentions.
Amazing how one can defend BLM riots as being done with good intentions and then celebrate the shooting of an unarmed woman while calling her a terrorist.
Perhaps we should stop calling them liberals and call them what they are: authoritarian Marxists.
I stopped calling them liberals years ago.
I've embraced the term "progressive" rather than liberal, because they aren't liberal. Ironically, we are painfully devoid of actual liberals anymore. It would be great to get some back.
Progressive is still too kind, unless you support the direction of their desired "progress".
That’s a good point. They are fairly regressive at this point. I guess I stick with progressive because it’s accepted as a descriptor of who I am referring to and I get irritated with the use of the term “liberal” for people who are clearly not.
They do often strongly object to my preferred term: "psychotic retards".
Progressive is still too kind, unless you support the direction of their desired “progress”.
To really drive it home you have to put "Progressive" in quotation marks, the way you do "anti-Racist."
I completely agree with IS, though, where I really shy away from calling them "liberals" anymore. "Progressive" conveys that notion that they believe they know what's right for everyone and how everything should be and are going to move things that way over the objections of the ignorant.
Funny thing but many of American conservatives are closer to European liberals, while American "liberals" (cough progressives cough) tend to be closer to the European conservatives. Although this is shifting even in Europe. Actually it's the problem with the whole right left spectrum. Progressives tend to be defined as leftists, but they are very conservatives (classically speaking) in their worship of the state and authoritarianism for the greater good. It's actually a very Medieval mind set, it's okay if the King is a tyrannical asshole if he keeps the peace and enforces justice.
The horseshoe theory rings too true.
You can drop the "authoritarian", it's a defining characteristic of all statists, including Marxists.
Fair point.
Seriously, what is this hyper-selfish, self-centered, overt and demanded cynicism that is so prevalent with the younger generations?
Perhaps, like those afflicted with TDS, they focus too much on personality rather than actions.
No, personality is actually a huge part of the problem. Trump was just another symptom of that.
Personality is YOUR problem, TDS-addled shit-pile.
Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.
And your normal, tired response. You would think at some point that you yourself would grow weary of parroting the same lines over and over again.
"And your normal, tired response..."
In response to your normal, TDS-addled adolescent bullshit. Grow up, asshole.
Yawn. Back on mute you go.
I honestly believe Sevo is going to make headlines someday. I just hope the body count is small.
You're probably not wrong on that.
You are full of shit, adolescent shit pile.
I used to believe that it was possible for lying piles of left shit like you might one day grow up.
Not a chance: Fuck off and die – make the world a better place, asshole.
Oh NO!
Muted by a TDS-addled shit-pile! How will I ever survive?
Fuck off and die - make the world a better place, asshole.
Let me post this again:
What else can you get from people who have no work ethic to generate any self-esteem, who are bored out of their skulls, frightened to death every time they realize how unskilled they are, and so spoiled by parent and student loan largesse that living in any lifestyle less than what they see of youtube influencers terrifies them?
* Federal research grants subsidizes researchers who have no real aptitude for research and fish around for fields which require no intellect.
Or for areas of research that can never be proven, like String Theory.
At least they don't cause any harm beyond wasting money, and they have forced other physicists to tighten up their own theories. But yeah, not something that would persist if they had to rely on private funding.
IMO much is a result of the continuing trend to extend childhood. Through both culture and commerce we keep trying to postpone "real life", when people are responsible for their own lives--and generally happy about it.
Of course one political party is more responsible for this than the others.
Starts with "D" for diploma?
from Get Out Now: Why You Should Pull Your Child from Public School Before It's Too Late (2018):
Seems like nearly 100% should lose their jobs.
Eliminating all government education subsidies would solve the problem almost overnight. Hardly anyone could afford unsubsidized college; colleges would have to fire half their faculty and most of their woke admins just to cut costs. K-12 would have to get back to basic 3R’s because parents would never pay for all those drag stripper shows and CRT and gender fluidentify nonsense. Employers would have to stop demanding four year degrees for receptionists.
Government subsidies are the root of the problem.
You have to eliminate these institutions' credibility and authority as the certifiers of the elite and upper-middle class before you can even think about eliminating government subsidies for higher ed. Take away their power as a gatekeeping institution for the Cathedral, and it subsequently becomes a lot easier to justify not subsidizing their existence anymore.
I have zero expectations of government subsidies of any kind ever disappearing.
Grants become entitlements, and entitlements become "human rights."
Yeah, it's a shame that they're only afraid they'll lose their job over a misunderstanding.
It sure is, liberals should never have to deal with this. Only conservatives should. And keep in mind most liberals don't distinguish between libertarians and conservatives.
Most of the commentariat can't distinguish between libertarians and leftists.
You most prominently.
Bunk. Most of the progressives claiming to be "libertarians" here are actually just libertines.
Either you don't understand progressives or I'm missing something. The goal of progressivism is an administrative state where everything is government by rules. Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders. I don't get that from the people I see accused of being progressives.
I see conservatives getting emotional about the culture war and accusing anyone who disagrees with them on xyz culture issue of being a leftist on everything.
The result is "You disagree with me on xyz culture issue, and that means you're a leftist who supports abc other issue! I'm going to attack you for that! If you disagree with me you're a liar!"
It's stupid.
Then somehow you missed the last three years of people who are progressives, such as JFree, Jeffy, and Mike, pushing every Covid mandate from on-high as if we should follow it to the letter. These are the exact same folks who go for the statist approach but want their sex work, weed, and other libertine pursuits over the libertarian pursuits of defending the Constitution (from both right and left) and protecting the rights of the individual against the state. Part of this regarding the culture war is about not having this crappola stuffed down everyone's deep throat. If some dude wants to dress as a chick, I don't care. I do care when it is forced on everyone, we are told to affirm someone's delusion, and prepubescent kids are told that they are sexual beings who are "gender fluid".
Then somehow you missed the last three years of people who are progressives, such as JFree, Jeffy, and Mike, pushing every Covid mandate from on-high as if we should follow it to the letter.
During that time I was constantly accused of being a progressive who supported those things. Every day I'd be accused, say no I didn't support those things, and then be called a liar. Wash, rinse, repeat. The people who did that are on mute. They know who they are.
I don't engage JFree much. He's a bit of an idiot. I do recall jeff and Mike repeatedly saying they did not support mandates, and every such comment would have a dozen responses saying they were liars who really did support mandates.
The rest of your post kind of proves my point. People can disagree on culture issues while also wanting more freedom and less government.
Huh, I am Mike and I missed my pushing of COVID mandates. It's really interesting that there's this false memory of something I didn't do.
Repetition becomes fact. That's what the trolls do. They say the same false bullshit every day until everyone believes it, and then nobody believes what you say because it's contrary to what they "know" about you.
You defended loss of employment and OSHA requirements for vaccines regarding employment lying shit.
Sarc, you are the biggest, whiniest crybaby I’ve encountered in my adult life. You run your goddamn mouth constantly talking big shit. Then whine and cry that everyone is oh, so unfair to you.
Seriously, either step off or fuck off. Everyone has had more than enough of your bleeding vaginal cavity.
You defended Australian covid camps as just quarantine camps. Even after told they were locking up those testing negative.
You attacked posters against mask mandates even though they were correct.
You justified loss of employment if someone refused a vaccine.
You defended j6 protestors facing 10 years over non violent acts.
Initially you applauded the student loan bailout until you found out you didnt qualify.
You defended 4 years of IC lies against the president because you didn't like him.
How were you not a statist?
Occam's razor, if the majority accuse you of something, it's far more likely they are correct than you are. Just saying.
Or they’re gaslighting.
It's kind of amusing now that I think about it. Because certain people accuse others of doing what they do while they are doing it. So when the accusations of gaslighting ramped up in the comments, so did the gaslighting. Except it was being done by the ones making the accusations.
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. We meet secretly at Denny's to discuss how we all are going to gaslight you, ChemJeff and Mikey. Sorry guys, I'll get the check next time.
Maybe you should read what people say instead of what is said about them.
We do. That’s why you’re all treated as you are. You are a drunken (by your own admission), raging asshole. None of us making you that way, and it isn’t our job to put up with you.
So quit your bitching, straighten up, fly right, or get the fuck out.
If this lying pile of lefty shit determines to 'fly right', we are going to be subject with tons of posts whining that the shit is doing so.
No. Fuck off and die and please never again pollute the comments.
@ the slimy piece of lefty shit sarc. Fuck off and die, asshole.
Like you did in this comment thread buddy.
If someone calls you a horse, you can tell them to get lost. If twenty people call you a horse, you should probably get a saddle.
That sounds an awful like the "scientific consensus" argument.
So we all must be crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists.
A number of commenters here go way to quickly to accusing people of being progressives or leftists. There is a lot of room between libertarian conservatives and far-left progressive.
Or, the person being called progressive could have a history of supporting, defending laws and policies and positions that trample on individual liberty and push state as mother.
And lying about it; see sarc, turd and several others.
Yeah, when Sevo calls you a lying pile of lefty shit, Sevo might be wrong.
When Sevo and thirty others do, you're a lying pile of lefty shit, no matter what your momma says.
When AI replaces Middle-Management this issue will be moot. The problem will be millions of degreed morons with nothing to do.
The problem will be millions of degreed morons with nothing to do.
Not just degreed morons with nothing to do, degreed morons who have been coddled, subsidized, and told their entire lives that they're the BESTEST EVAR despite never actually achieving anything. And who have been taught that anyone who thinks otherwise is an oppressor and they're some kind of victim if you don't just give them whatever they want (which to be taken care of their whole life). Oh, and last but not least, words are violence, "truth" is a racist/ sexist/ patriarchal construct, and the "four olds" must be destroyed by force in order to create the perfect utopia. What could possibly go wrong?
The other part of this is that the malignant influence of youth worship is going to have to be eliminated. I see even neocon dingdongs indulge in the dumb pretense that young people today are supposedly far smarter than most adults, which as anyone who has watched teenagers and college students in action, know that this is in fact the exact opposite.
For millennia, no matter the civilization and around the world, the most respected members of society were the elders, because they had years of experience behind them to at least serve as counsel on the wisdom gained from experience. Society really shouldn't be taking cues from people whose prefrontal cortex hasn't even fully developed yet, and think getting drunk and high on the weekends is the peak of personal accomplishment.
When I was TAing in grad school (about a decade ago) it really woke me up to the myth that today's youth are smarter, more educated than we were. Spelling, sentence structure etc was almost absent (even among the smart kids) while most couldn't even perform simple extrapolation, they wanted everything spoon fed, and I was TAing science classes where extrapolation from data given is pretty much the definition of what you're supposed to do.
I TA'ed in grad school as well, for a basic 101 course, and it was a hell of a splash of cold water to realize that at least 80% of the students taking the class shouldn't have been there. I wrote better essays as a high school senior than some of these morons were doing as college freshmen and sophomores, either because they were too lazy to bother, or too stupid to know. This was the late 90s-early 2000s, too, not now or even ten years ago.
That experience was also the realization that we're making these people take too many courses to graduate. College is largely 13th-16th grade now, and we aren't doing these kids any favors by forcing them to pay thousands to take classes they have no actual interest in taking. The type of educational model that college has operated under for most of this country's existence simply doesn't work in a hyper-democratized environment where everyone and their brother can get in regardless of their actual ability to learn the material, and the whole purpose of the curriculum is to create marxist activists, not members of a stable society.
College is largely 13th-16th grade now, and we aren’t doing these kids any favors by forcing them to pay thousands to take classes they have no actual interest in taking.
^
I was in grad school TA'ing the same time you were, Freshman Comp (required course), and was shocked at how you just couldn't count on any knowledge at all. You had to explain everything from step one as if 80% of the students had just wandered out of a cave with rudimentary language skills and nothing else. And this school was in the top 40 nationally.
I myself did my first couple of years at a community college and have long advocated for that as the standard. You look around the big universities and you're not going to see a professor until you're a junior embedded in a major program. Your GE is going to be all graduate students, and there's going to be a whole lot of it because you're going to find that your high school didn't teach you jack shit.
Why pay $20k a year to be taught by graduate students when you can pay $1,500 a year to be taught by experienced and degreed professors?
Yeah, making me take an art appreciation course was a complete waste of my time, the professors (aren't all art professors just pissed off artists who don't make it big?) and tax payer money (as I went to school on the GI Bill). That was three hours every Monday night that was completely wasted. Oh yay! Another video about how painting black rectangles on a white background is "art".
Also, let's face it, you can't teach "art appreciation". It's not something that can be taught. And what one person appreciated may not be what another appreciates. One of my favorite works of art are the Wild Horses at Vantage, Washington. Although the huge wind farm they put in on the bluffs completely destroyed the aesthetics of the place. One of the best examples of high desert bluffs in the world and the Columbia gorge and let's place hundreds of windmills in it to save the environment. Did anyone think that the Columbia Plateau and Gorge is some of the most fragile ecosystems in this country before putting up those eyesores in the name of saving the environment?
Also, let’s face it, you can’t teach “art appreciation”.
Aspects you can, but too often it does just become a teacher imposing their own subjective values or, like you say, those sorts of mental-masturbation exercises where your art is you explaining why you not having done anything is "art."
I'm not really a visual arts guy, so I don't speak that language, but in music, for example, you can teach what a sonata is and show examples of ones that are particularly well-crafted apart from whether or not it's a style of music that one likes (or maybe for me a better example would be bebop, where I can appreciate the skill and craft involved in developing the ability to improvise complex harmonies, I just don't like it).
I imagine the visual arts must be similar - there are principles of composition, line, form, color, etc. There are definite times where you can say "this looks terrible on purpose because the artist is trying to evoke feelings of being disturbed" and "this looks like this person didn't know what they were doing."
"Also, let’s face it, you can’t teach “art appreciation”. It’s not something that can be taught..."
Disagreed. A tour through Rodin's studio and garden made a lasting impression on me; that man knew how to express sensuality. If you left without lust in your mind, you weren't looking.
You had to explain everything from step one as if 80% of the students had just wandered out of a cave with rudimentary language skills and nothing else. And this school was in the top 40 nationally.
Yeah, it was absolutely disgusting. The school I TA'ed at wasn't some podunk community college, either, this was a major state university stuffed with kids from the middle and upper middle classes. These are the ones who supposedly had very good public educations at suburban and even private schools in high school, and should have been taught the basics of writing even a paragraph for an essay, much less what should have constituted the essay itself. We're talking really simple shit like a paragraph needs to be at least 3 full sentences, and an essay at least 4-5 paragraphs, depending on the format of the question. I saw 3-line "essays" getting turned in for tests and immediately gave them "F"s, although I'm sure the professor inflated their grades after the fact. Smart guy, but he was a shitty professor to work for.
These are the ones who supposedly had very good public educations at suburban and even private schools in high school, and should have been taught the basics of writing even a paragraph for an essay, much less what should have constituted the essay itself.
Not to mention things like "these are the three branches of our government and their roles" or "these several countries are in a place called Europe."
This is the boomer influence, they assume that youth grants some special insight. You can see it in the way they often latch on to any youth movement.
This is why DEI exists, to create jobs for otherwise unemployable leftists. They are a new aristocracy sucking up the production of others while providing negative value themselves. And because they believe they earn their money there is no limit to their demands.
A typical college campus has 100 DEI admins plus another 100 for Title IX.
Which is the primary reason post secondary education has become so expensive. Dead wood.
Which is the primary reason post secondary education has become so expensive. Dead wood.
Have to disagree. Government backed student loans dumping so much money into the system is why education is so expensive.
Chicken/egg; I believe the outcome is the same.
Government backed student loans make it a sure thing, like renting through Section 8 whereby you get a guaranteed check the first of every month. Bad part is the tenant invariably trashes the premises and you have to rebuild everything, because it just doesn't matter to them [because they aren't paying for it].
Right. Schools love it though because they create jobs for the 200 craziest leftists on campus and stick the bill to taxpayers and other enemies. Why would they care about keeping costs down when those costs weaken their enemies?
AI can't dig ditches yet. Unemployed zoom workers, useless positions in companies, lawyers, administrators -all jobs that can be accomplished better by software can be put to work on road crews.
It can't even answer phone calls.
The real problem: 95% of professors have no skills that would allow them to earn a decent living outside university.
Exactly. It's those government subsidies for student loans and research grants generating marginal (at best) research fields and marginal students.
vis a vis 100% of conservatives who are afraid they'll be fired for a misunderstanding.
A conservative would be fired (or, rather, not hired in the first place) for being a conservative.
40 Percent of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding
...
Shockingly, younger faculty report more acceptance of violence to combat speech.
I'm not expert, college-edumacated logistical professor or anything but, seems to me, that the obvious solution is to make yourself more clearly understood.
"As a professor, I'm on the younger side for faculty members. My cohort is much more illiberal than their older colleagues. Two-thirds of faculty over 55 years old said students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable. That number plummets to 37 percent for faculty 35 and under."
So, the jihad is nearly complete.
There is still time to course correct. But students, trustees, donors, alumni, and the public must demand better from the faculty today before these young authoritarians run higher education tomorrow.
What a useless recommendation. Only one of these groups has any authority and Reason uniformly objects to any action on their part.
In fact, none of them have any authority. That's why DeSantis' war with these people is causing so much heartburn, because if people in red states realize that it's actually possible to put a leash on these bitches, they're going to start electing politicians who will do exactly that.
Trustees have power, but to your point DeSantis is using that to Reason's full opposition.
On the bright side this is probably going to make DeSantis the next POTUS which means shortly thereafter his reforms will be adopted by every red and moderate state in the country. We've been waiting a decade for someone to fight for academia and we finally have him. Naturally Reason is objects because they're more interested in opposing the right than in rectifying political oppression.
I mean, why not all 50 states? We've already seen that there's almost nothing that can't be achieved with Executive Orders...
Schools are state entities and as such directly control the trustees of state institutions. This means they can replace the administration, which further means they determine who sets hiring and other standards. For example, anyone shouting down an arranged speaking event should be expelled and barred from campus. Feds can't do this to the same degree.
Federally the best step for a President DeSantis is to review all education institutions for compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits racial and sex based discrimination in education and employment. Any administrator or faculty violating any student or employee's Civil Rights should be prosecuted and any institution receiving federal funds barred from hiring them either directly or indirectly.
The Libertarians are honestly just a marginal voice in that regard. What's far more concerning are the left-symps on the neocon right like the Dispatch crowd, who never met a foreign country they didn't want to bomb, and a left-wing domestic fight they never fled from in asshole-puckering terror. The latter are a lot more numerous than the former and will undermine those efforts at every opportunity, because the right using its inside voice and being about "ideas" is more important to them than actually using political power to advance an agenda.
Basically, someone like DeSantis needs to be a lot more concerned about those types stabbing him in the back than he does the actual leftists he's fighting. That's why the neocons are so optimistic about Nikki Haley--they know she scares absolutely nobody on the left, but in their blinkered "don't do anything to spook the leftists and wake them up!" mindset, they think that her being an inoffensive empty suit is the best thing about her.
Nobody other than DeSantis or Trump is going to win the nomination. DeSantis is doing what Trump should have done: fight the left. That's why Reason and the left commenters here hate him. Over time people who want to fight will migrate to DeSantis. Haley's best bet to ever be president is to become more like DeSantis, not less.
Yeah, but I don't think she has it in her. I've seen neocons tout her record, but she suffered no risks being a right-center governor in a deep red state, and "UN ambassador" is basically a window-dressing position for people looking to burnish their lobbying firm resume. DeSantis, meanwhile, took a deep purple, long-time swing state like Florida and turned into an established red state overnight, largely by interdicting the left's election-day reindeer games and picking political battles that he can turn to his advantage even if he nominally loses them. No wonder the left is terrified of this guy.
Honestly, I think they fear DeSantis more than they ever feared Trump, and for the reasons you state above. Where Trump did a lot of talking and mean tweets, DeSantis seems to be able to produce some real results such as turning Florida red. If those processes and ideas are taken to just a handful of states, that would make the Democratic Party a long-term second party overnight with minimal hope of gaining the Presidency and no hope of dominating Congress (either house). Remember, all it took for Trump to get into the White House was winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Should the reindeer games be terminated in all four of those states (to use an example), the road to the White House becomes very difficult for any Democrat after Biden.
Where Trump did a lot of talking and mean tweets, DeSantis seems to be able to produce some real results such as turning Florida red.
Oh sure, the marginally center-left have written in-depth articles about it, stating that he's not only much smarter than Trump, he has a deep understanding of policy, experience as a Congressman, and did JAG duty in Iraq, although the whole veteran thing is basically played out now that GWOT's over. They're basically sounding the alarm to their allies that they can't underestimate this guy, and confuse his culture war belligerence for stupidity. Depending on how things play out, he could represent a new breed of GOP politician that puts cultural issues way above fiscal ones, is going to be a lot more skeptical about overseas military adventures, but still might be a lot more palatable to the Chamber of Commerce crowd than Trump was because of his funding connections.
Reason has been full on pro political oppression as long as it is being pushed by marxist authoritarians.
Remember, almost all universities with long histories began as religious institutions. As we abandon Enlightenment principles we should expect things to return to the default human state.
40 Percent of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding
It's interesting that you specify "over a misunderstanding" - i.e. not because somebody did or said something wrong but because the right thing that they did was misinterpreted or misreported as the wrong thing. In other words, they're not afraid of being guilty of wrongthink, they're afraid that they'll be wrongfully accused of wrongthink. If you're paranoid of being SWATted in this manner, you already know words have been weaponized and anybody with an axe to grind with you can wield the weapon. Better to keep your mouth shut and your head down, except that's not going to save you when they come at you with the "silence is consent" bullshit. You've been parachuted into a minefield and you're fucked no matter which way you step. But maybe you should have thought of that when you helped lay the mines.
Yes, the issue isn't "misunderstanding", but rather intentional misrepresentation of their beliefs and the impact of their comments. The benefit of controlling the academy and media is that you get to define your enemies beliefs. That's how it becomes racist to support equal and fair treatment, and punishing people by race becomes equity. Safetyism, claiming that words make you unsafe, is the key tool. It's weaponized fragility to borrow a concept.
Exactly. "Liberal professors" my ass...
You’ve been parachuted into a minefield and you’re fucked no matter which way you step. But maybe you should have thought of that when you helped lay the mines.
Yep. Like I said in an earlier comment, the older academics pretty much created this monster and let it loose. Now they're shocked that it's destroying all their shit instead of just everyone else's.
You’ve been parachuted into a minefield and you’re fucked no matter which way you step. But maybe you should have thought of that when you helped lay the mines.
People who entered academia determined to change the culture there never thought that the culture would continue changing, even as they fetishized the concept as an inherent good, thanks to their dumb beliefs in historic determinism and scientific socialism.
Just so we are clear - there are only two genders.
No, there are two sexes. Gender isn't even a thing.
I was just trying to get fired before any misunderstandings happen. Misunderstandings are the worst.
60% of Central Committee members afraid they'll end up in a gulag over a misunderstanding with Beria's NKVD.
Exactly right.
In his book The Technology of Power, Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov describes how, as Stalin was taking over, ideological (or even policy) differences among the Party began to be treated as ideological crimes, with real, increasingly severe, punishments.
(Of course, the Party had long since accepted the "necessity" of so treating other, non-Party political opponents.)
Reagan ran as an optimistic anti-communist ('We can defeat the evil empire'). Desantis is going to run as an optimistic anti-wokist (aka, new gen communist). It'll probably work. He is much more likely to win purple places like VA and such where 'liberal' suburbs are freaking out about schools (and their princesses losing admission points to trans athletes). And some moderately urban defection due to collapse of schools (like the NJ bullying to death, and the 270 special needs KOing an aide).
The thing is, there are a lot of 'quiet' liberals and conservatives who don't like confrontation conflict ('Off the record, you are right, but I can't take the risk!' aka cowards), but will back a winner against the crazy. It worked against Hillary, Trump and will work against Biden. The Disunity, Inequity and Exclusion party has overplayed it's hand, and is SEEN to be f'ing with kids (TY Covid look downs! "Oft evil will, will evil marr!") Economic and education populists, not elites, will likely win the day.
I feel compelled to point out that indoctrinating k thru 12 in CRT eliminates any possibility that "it's not too late". And Reason fully supports that indoctrination. Because Florida man bad or something. The push back is coming from evil populists not Reason libertarians. Not sure why this guy is here.
They architected this shit tower, so I don't really have a lot of sympathy here.
I have slowly come to the conclusion (agreement, really, because I'm not the first one to posit this) that these institutions are lost to us. There will be no way to "fix" them. This isn't a black pill to say "all is lost". It is, however, an opportunity to simply do an end-run around the institutions. And to some degree, that's already happening. The American University system is dead, so we just start the long, slow process of building new institutions, making the old ones irrelevant.
I have slowly come to the conclusion (agreement, really, because I’m not the first one to posit this) that these institutions are lost to us.
I don't think this is true at all. We're at a disadvantage because we're inherently skeptical of joining institutions. You know the saying that anyone interested in being in charge is the last person who should be.
But there are tools we can use if we put our efforts into it. While many people think leftism is effectively unopposable because it has successfully cowed so many in large part that's because there is no credible alternative. If we are able to create one we will find there is much more support for it than most believe. I live in a very blue state and I constantly come across people who are skeptical of the left's plans even though they identify themselves as on the left. The far left controls our institutions but they don't have much popular support.
I don’t think this is true at all. We’re at a disadvantage because we’re inherently skeptical of joining institutions. You know the saying that anyone interested in being in charge is the last person who should be.
But this isn't a battle between "
Llibertarians" andcommunistsleftists, this is a battle between normal people who thought universities were places of learning and truth seeking... and committed leftists. The Long March has been won. And it was won, not because they won the battle, but because of a kind of dual set of circumstances within the institutions. 1. We allowed it to happen. 2. We didn't really even know or admit it was happening. We thought that it was liberal to allow illiberal forces to not only speak, but to allow them to control the levers of power.Again, I say there's nothing wrong with admitting defeat and moving on. But to move on... one needs to, you know, move on. Shaking your fist at the castle isn't going to do anything. Just move on down the road and build your own castle.
Shaking your fist at the castle isn’t going to do anything. Just move on down the road and build your own castle.
Just make sure it's not in a swamp.
1. We allowed it to happen. 2. We didn’t really even know or admit it was happening.
This is true, we lost that war with these contributing factors. But that was a generation ago and now people realize the new rulers suck. They're ready to revolt. Since we're starting the revolution this time neither 1 nor 2 will be true in this war.
Shaking your fist at the castle isn’t going to do anything. Just move on down the road and build your own castle.
Building your own doesn't work. First it is not possible, it will be branded as second rate regardless of whether it is to protect the leftist monopoly. And starting fresh means it will be miniscule and without the scale necessary to challenge the establishment. But more importantly we need to deprive the left of the resources control of the education system provides. They are able to use these resources to fund their political activity to a degree others cannot match. One of the big reasons the left is so successful is that their activists understand any loss they endure in furtherance of left wing radicalism will be made whole by the institutional left. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn didn't join the education establishment by happenstance. This is why leftists are willing to challenge even their employers in bringing politics into every facet of life.
Building your own doesn’t work. First it is not possible, it will be branded as second rate regardless of whether it is to protect the leftist monopoly.
I disagree. First off, of course it will be branded as second rate. That's how the old, dying first-rate institutions react to being sidelined. We know they'll brand the response as second rate, but it doesn't matter, you just keep pushing forward. At some point, Brian Stelter or Don Lemon with their 75,000 viewers are screaming that the podcaster with 11 million viewers is "second rate"... who cares? Let them scream it.
But going back to how this happened, vis-a-vis us letting it happened, it goes back to what I call the Douglas Murray thesis: No one in the West can quite work out when the Left goes too far. This cannot be understated. It's everywhere you look, even in completely innocent circumstances where the the stakes are low or don't matter, it just can't be worked out.
And when I say it's everywhere, I really mean it's everywhere.
If you can work out when the Far Right leads to a gulag, but trying to figure out when the Far Left leads to a gulag results in 20 minutes of chin-scratching, hemming, hawing, foot shuffling and shoe-gazing, then you're gonna have a real problem with far left people taking over your institutions.
But going back to how this happened, vis-a-vis us letting it happened, it goes back to what I call the Douglas Murray thesis: No one in the West can quite work out when the Left goes too far.
Probably because it varies from situation to situation. In Spain it resulted in civil war, in Germany it resulted in Hitler coming to power, and in Indonesia and Chile it resulted in Suharto and Pinochet conducting coups with the assistance of the CIA, but the reasons for that were incredibly varied. In other places, like Nasser in Egypt, “going too far” was basically getting stomped repeatedly by your worst international enemy before dropping dead from a heart attack. In America, the excesses, violence, and cynicism of the New Left led to the Nixon blowout of 1972 and eventually Reaganism in the 1980s.
It's really just a question of when the anti-left decides it's had enough.
The far left controls our institutions but they don’t have much popular support.
I kind of forgot to address this, but I think it's more complicated than that. They don't, nor did they need popular support. They just needed a burning, constant and unflagging commitment.
If you want some insight into the mentality of the committed leftist, check out some interviews with Christopher Hitchens, a former Trotskyist who will go into detail as to what makes them tick.
The left will be the death of us.
Come to think of it, it always is. Wherever it takes hold like the malignant cancer it is, that society is destroyed.
40% fired professors is a good start.
But the 40% that fears the woke mob is not a good 40% to start with.
Yeah, you want to start with the other 60% because they probably are the woke mob.
The 40% are the woke mob that have just enough working brain cells to realize what they created. The 60% are the woke mob that doesn't care.
"40 Percent of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding"
And the remaining 60% believe themselves to be beyond reproach.
I would be interested to see what this data looks like if moved form universities to the military. Torgether they tend to be the best indicators of where our country will be in the future.
"As newer and far less tolerant numbers of professors replace older faculty, colleges and universities may be in a true crisis if the higher education enterprise destroys its core values."
It is going to have to get worse, much worse to the point of breaking down, before there will be any chance of a snowball in hell of getting better.
I liked school, to the extent that I earned two post grad degrees. I believed that a liberal arts education was a value in itself. If I were young now I would choose between enlisting and going to a trade school [most likely both, in that order].
Today in trans celebration news,
Tiffany Newell, trans female runner just won the Canadian Masters 1500 meter race. Beat her nearest competitor by over one minute... in a five minute race.
Take that, haters.
And people say women can't compete with men.
I say let them wreck everything; it's the only way the world will see the insanity for what it is. Call me an optimist, but I really do believe that the average citizen, once they are directly affected, will tire of living in a Gilbert and Sullivan light opera.
This is not High Opera in Milan, it is low burlesque on the banks of the Thames.
"Illiberalism runs deep among young liberal faculty members"
I'm falling down laughing.
There's nothing "liberal" about these assholes.
Cool story bro.
Let us know how the conservative hostile take-over of higher education, such as what's currently going on in Florida, works out for you in ten years.
"Let us know how the conservative hostile take-over of higher education, such as what’s currently going on in Florida, works out for you in ten years."
Thank you for visiting our theme park; this is the Fantasyland stop.
LOL, no kidding. As if Ben Sasse and Ron DeSantis are going to wholesale fire and replace every marxist professor in the state of Florida.
Don't worry, Escher, your side will still control 95% of all tenured and part-time faculty, and 98% of all administrators. You'll just have to watch the proslytizing for your dumb gnostic religion.
Well, my cynical side says that we already KNOW what happens when the Marxists control higher education so yeah, let's try something else for a change.
A real and central problem is that on the whole Humanities-Social Sciences spectrum you have people who get their knowledge of economics from Marx because he’s actually quite literary and readable. I forced my way through Friedman’s Monetary History and man is that thing a freakin’ slog. It’s as dry as the Sahara in August. But once you’ve done it and then read Marx, the problems in Marx’s economic thinking are immediately obvious.
But Marx is fun and clever, and full of righteous outrage, and he’s good at explaining simple economic concepts like how money works. He’s also unfortunately full of convoluted rationalizations for theories that sound nice on the surface but are far removed from reality.
I work at the intersection between a University and the private construction sector, which is an interesting view, since the construction sector is heavily dominated by Democrats (we like us some public spending and union support).
On the private side, all of the Democrats I know are all about ‘managed market Capitalism.’ They like government-driven spending on projects, but recognize that competitive markets need to be involved in project delivery.
On the academic side, especially in the Humanities, it’s pretty much taken for granted in the community culture that you’re a Marxist, and this is because in that context Marx is convenient one-stop-shop for feeling like you have some knowledge of economics without having to engage in any math beyond simple arithmetic.
On the private side, all of the Democrats I know are all about ‘managed market Capitalism.’ They like government-driven spending on projects, but recognize that competitive markets need to be involved in project delivery.
You know who else?
I bet you won't find evidence of more than 5% of professors being Marxists.
Before we assume these things, ought we not recognize "Marxist professors" as the Nazi conspiracy theory it is? If it's used as a pretext to purge universities, as is actually going on in Florida right now, then we can be certain of that.
Keep this in mind when considering any response to shit-bag, here:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
"I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."
Thank you for reminding me of my pithiness.
Note the idiocy of shit-bag's claim to logic:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
“I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”
BTW, shit-bag, "pithiness" =/= equate to stupidity, asshole.
I bet you won’t find evidence of more than 5% of professors being Marxists.
Sure you will--just ask them their beliefs, and if they spout a variation of the oppressed/oppressor false dichotomy, they're a marxist.
The problem started with Executive Order 10925; convince me I am wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925
Self propagating. This is the real feedback loop.
It's to late. The millennials are destroying this country from the inside. They are the weakest and least intelligent generation in modern American history.
Wait'll you get a load of the Zoomers.
Yeah, the Millennials might actually go more center-right as they age, like Gen-X did, now that they are moving to the suburbs and raising families, although I suspect they’re going to remain generationally Democrat for a good long time like the Depression-era twenty-somethings were--the Iraq war, Great Recession, and Obama's run ensured that. The Zoomers are really the ones to watch out for because their mental illness levels, especially on the left, are absolutely off the charts.
The most formative aspect of political reality is the radicalization of the Republican party. I can't find a millennial or younger who has anything nice to say about Democrats. It's incredibly uncool to like Democrats.
But we're united in our fear and hatred of the fascists.
Shit-bag revels in self-hate:
"...But we’re united in our fear and hatred of the fascists."
You democrats are the fascists, you vapid faggot.
I can’t find a millennial or younger who has anything nice to say about Democrats.
This is the biggest lie you've ever posted, and that's saying something.
But we’re united in our fear and hatred of the fascists.
Yes, for marxists, anyone who resists their political agenda is a fascist. Has been since the end of World War II.
if only those liberal professors knew people in positions of authority at universities who could help put a stop to this mindset instead of validating it at every opportunity.
40% are afraid of losing their job and the other 60% are kidding themselves.
Question: How the hell does anyone under the age of 35 have the nerve to call themselves a Professor of anything? Under 35, the ONLY experience you have is in the classroom, i.e. Theoretical. You have ZERO real world experience. Additionally, just because you have a sheepskin on your wall does not mean you understand the subject matter, let alone have any ability to TEACH others.
Depends on the subject. There is a lot more than classroom instruction going on in many departments at big universities, particularly in lab sciences.
Commie-Education..... Well; Commie-Anything.....
The hive's of worthlessness pretending to be an asset with Gov-Guns.
It's not the faculty, it's the administrators.
When the number of DIE admins are close to equaling the number of tenured professors you know there's a problem.
It's both admin and faculty. Departments with actual subject matter to master are generally free of this. But the those that don't are staffed almost completely with activists. Obviously this includes the grievance studies, but some departments the public might not suspect are nevertheless completely overrun like English and History.
I don't think it's a problem.
We went through this with MeToo. What's happening is not a new regime of illiberalism. It's just that instead of straight, white men having all the power and everyone else getting "canceled" for life, from everywhere, straight white men are sometimes, occasionally, held responsible for their actions now.
Naturally, this necessitates a decade-long tantrum on the right. The right, who never even pretend to be liberal, so it's no problem that their universities require professors to believe in the tooth fairy and wear ankle-length skirts.
It's possible that wokeness has cringily infested too much scholarship. I do not trust right-wing politicians to fix this problem. They can keep their disgusting paws off of higher education and let the community itself sort it out. If it's all so exhausting, they'll get tired of it.
"I don’t think it’s a problem..."
Yeah, right:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
"I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."
There is an easy solution to the woke problem. Just cleanse the source of the problem.
Social "science" is bullshit. Gender studies is bullshit. All those departments should be shut down. Marxism is the problem in US universities and has been for decades..my "prestigious" research university was infected with them in 1985 but for the most part their hate was kept in check but today this hate is acceptable even considered normal by the media and college administrators. When my son graduated from Ithaca College a few years ago the President (a convicted sexual offender who later resigned)..droned on about how she is a proud Latina intellectual and praised the "marginalized" students. The Italian kids from working class families who were there were just pieces of shit. She was a moron, a diversity hire like most had a chip on their shoulder and a huge inferiority complex. And was a convicted sexual felon...these are the "leaders" in academia today. Fakes who hate...
Well they just hate you now, as you have hated them your whole life. I'm not in favor of revenge, but I am in favor of growing the fuck up and having some perspective.
Note shit-bag's level of logical discussion:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
"I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."
"Social “science” is bullshit. Gender studies is bullshit. "
Some of it is a worthwhile academic pursuit but much amounts to intellectual busy work. Same can be said of any university department, STEM included. You should familiarize yourself with gender studies. Falling back on anti-Marxist red baiting doesn't do you any favors.
"Falling back on anti-Marxist red baiting doesn’t do you any favors."
Where though? On WaPo?
A little late professor.
For decades the left has pushed authoritarian marxism in academia. Was there the Cornell in the mid 80s. The low numbers of academic conservatives (often Italian, Irish and ethnic Americans) versus the overrepresentation of liberal Jews who pushed this narrative and led to the hiring of "marginalized minorities"..essentionally non-white folks who agreed with them turned universities into the cess pools of DIE today. Federal Student loans ensured there was a pile of cash for the DIE administrators and hate mongers in bullshit departments like gender studies..
What to do? First Govt should not provide any student loans for kids majoring in "woke" departments. Only for hard science, engineering, computer science and business. Second, colleges have to backstop 50% of govt loans. These two drivers will effectively shut down the breeding ground for the DIE authoritarians: Social "Science" and English Lit. There is no reason for those fields to exist anyway. End them and you end the creeping bolshevikism. Hiring a few more profs with last names like Rizzo and Murphy would also be helpful.
Seriously, your posts are word-for-word from Mein Kampf. I urge everyone to read it, actually. Maybe it will shock some of you to learn just how much mainstream conservative rhetoric is literally Hitler.
Note the level of shit-bag's ability to express reality:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
“I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”
Seriously, your posts are word-for-word from Mein Kampf.
Feel free to cite the actual text, Poindexter.
Why not recommend the February 1920 National Socialist 25-Point Program? That established current Republican policies and platforms all the way down to the paeans to Positive Christianity! (https://tinyurl.com/3k65fvnd)
98 Percent of Conservative Professors Have Lost Their Jobs Over a Liberal Misunderstanding Them
The libs created the snowflake students that can't deal with someone having even a bit of a different opinion. We see conservation professors fired or driven off campus. We see conservative speakers protested and rioted against. I find it hard to feel sorry for the libs that created this monster.
"98 Percent of Conservative Professors Have Lost Their Jobs "
You mean they have to get real jobs? The horror!
yeah, 4-6 hours (MAYBE) a week in a lecture and the rest reading and blabbing with other doughy academics. not sure if that's a job
“When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts...”
-George Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L87w2yVir8o
I don't have much sympathy for liberal professors who encouraged the current lynch mob mentality without much thought given to the consequences.
I taught Math and Engineering at a junior college for about 5 years. You will feel pretty out-of-place if you're not continually blathering about being woke, intersectionality, acknowledging your white privilege, and rooting-out microaggressions lurking in your syllabus.
I just wanted to provide kids an opportunity to learn the math they needed to successfully complete whatever course of study they were following.
Schools and colleges are not in the business of teaching anymore. We see that in declining test scores every year, especially since the Common Core nonsense was introduced. Schools and colleges are just in the business of political indoctrination in Marxism and socialism and are trying to destroy the family so the "government can raise the children". When they say it takes a village to raise a child, they mean the Federal Government is the village.
Note to Reason editors: Aren't you relieved that Dilbert creator Scott Adams never had the guts to endorse Gary Johnson? Everyone else take note: Scott Adams did officially endorse Donald Trump. Later, when The Don changed his middle name to "Pussy-Grabber," Scott Adams endorsed Hillary Clinton.
hey, that's my middle name too!
i'll not be shedding tears for these kooks. you reap what you sow so don't sow kudzu you retards
Society is something freely entered into and may be freely departed from. If you can’t live your life or if you are not free to take your life and leave, it’s a prison.
“This cannot be the environment of the future. Our society cannot thrive when opposing voices are met with fists rather than facts.”
This has not been our society since 1862 when Lincoln murdered the Republic and founded the democratic, socialist, Union. As a whole, our society has not been thriving since the property tax was first enforced “with fists” and the facts were twisted into the current narrative.
You cannot choose to be part of any society if you, your life, and your property are owned by the government.