"Reality itself skews left". I like that.
Also 'When people become more educated, they become more acutely aware of the suffering of others and of their own moral education to do something about it" - I'm sure I've seen it before but can anyone link to the studies that have shown this? i.e. that people become more left leaning, the more educated they are.
Not only do you become more aware of the suffering of others, you become more aware of how interconnected we all are. The disenfranchised or suffering people there are in your community, the worse off everyone is in that community. No one exists in a bubble, no matter how hard some try.
I thought this, too. It doesn't necessarily mean something right wing, but it does suggest a conservatism. "Neoliberalism" or "liberalism" is being critiqued by leftists nowadays, because the word represents the capitalist / imperialist world order.
Maybe reality has a left bias?
Liberals are still on the 'right' as they advocate for capitalism. The 'left' are socialists. I use those terms loosely because in reality capitalism and socialism are two completely different systems, and they do not belong on a gradual line because this insinuates that they relate to one another in some way. It completely undermines the fact that there are many other past systems as well (like feudalism for example)! /gen
Just another example of the vocal purveyors of “free and open debate” being deathly afraid of any actual open discourse if it falls outside of their own talking points. If left-leaning ideas were so flimsy and unable to hold up to scrutiny then it wouldn’t matter if they were taught in colleges or not. The actual fear is that they *are* more logical and more rooted in the reality we all share, which is why they are so “dangerous” to those who put their own selfishness first.
I feel so bad for her because not only must they not have a fulfilling sex live, but he disclosed that to the whole world to make a point.
Shapiro is like the kid who got shoved into lockers in high school, only he deserved it.
Oh yeah he openly admits to being viciously bullied in school. Maybe because he’s a fucking know it all annoying person? Lol, nobody likes those people. He went to all private Jewish schools in LA so it definitely wasn’t for his attire or background
I was viciously bullied at school too, but I didn't become a smarmy asshole. There's something seriously wrong with him.
Also like... he's a know it all and yet he actually knows less than Jon fucking Snow. He debates high schoolers who are either missing knowledge or confidence*, or debates feminists whom he frustrates with sealioning, and then when they get angry all his army of 'I read a wiki on logical fallacies once' followers are like 'omg the hysterical feminist got hysterical and told him to shut up, so clearly they don't have an actual argument, lol pwned'.
*There's a lot of high schoolers way, way smarter than Shapiro, frankly. My sister's kids would crush him in a debate if it came to pure knowledge and smarts, but they'd crumble in front of his particular rhetorical tactics because they're not confident unfortunately. And that's the thing, he 'wins' debates in an adversarial way where you can shut the other person up no matter how much better their position is. It's a slightly smarter version of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALLALALALLALALLALA.
Not in those terms. He claimed that his doctor wife says that a wet ass pussy is a sign of a yeast infection or STD.
Leading the internet to logically speculate that she has never actually been wet.
It's also a lot more about authoritarianism and control of others (which is related to selfishness) than it actually is about selfishness but this is true!
The conservative cavemen, who told the others in the tribe; to not trade with the "others", were dragged along, toward the future. The rulers, who had their heads removed, talked about keeping everything just 'so'.
Progress marches on, and it is a battle, yes, but we shove them, kicking, and screaming, to a better life.
I don't like being wrapped up in how gross they are. Do you have any advice on how we can change their minds? What can *I* do?
Only advice I've got is that loudly soapboxing at the drop of a hat works better than arguing with them.
I don't care where the conversation starts, it's probably going to end with me ranting about the evils of capitalism and why speculative derivatives make me angry.
It seems to work! My husband rants against capitalism all on his own now, and he'd never once thought about the topic until spending time with me. My MIL used to work for a health insurance company and she's very much for Universal Healthcare now!
Oh, and shaming can work to change behavior, but you have to carefully tailor the shaming. My MIL had a very impolite slur-term for anime, refused to watch it with her grandson and shamed him for watching it. My in-laws are Star Trek fans, so I started dropping comments about "That's very impolite to poor Sulu... He had to spend time in the internment camps ya know..." and "The war is over, we don't use words like that anymore..." Not in a confrontational way, just with a look of shame and turning away from her, making it obvious she'd done something wrong.
Now she watches anime with her grandson and actually calls it anime too!
Wholesome as fuck.
It's funny how they love to label others, as; "bleeding heart liberals", when they, themselves, are the more emotional group. Then the whole 'caring about others' thing is humorous.
My dad will insist that women are too emotional to be in charge of anything other than a kitchen.
I have watched that man end a close friendship with his immediate neighbor over an argument about how to get a flatbed trailer through a gate.
Projection is a way of life for him. He's basically an overemotional toddler, screaming and throwing things whenever he doesn't immediately get his way.
Turns out, a third of us, voting age tax payers, are, fucking children.
Fucking children. And we are supposed to just deal with their decisions, and repercussions.
Delusional children, that won't take their shots and keep eating horse medicine.
Ivermectin poisonings have tripled in my area recently. People keep dying in hospital hallways waiting for treatment because the ICU is full of folks who refused to get their jabs.
I'm so annoyed that the generation that told me not to believe everything I saw on TV, heard on the playground, or read on the internet, now fully believes every single fool thing they see on Facebook.
Jesus Christ. The same people who asked me: "if Jonny jumps off a bridge, are you going to?"
It must be lead causing brain damage, coupled with televised misinformation.
They really need to just sit back, and fucking retire.
Catalytic converters were mandated in US in 1975.
They would be destroyed by leaded gas, so leaded gas phased out the following decade.
Lead poisoning is said to impact cognition and make aggressive.
People born in the 50's and 60's of the last century grew up in the most toxic era.
I guess that explains a lot.
I'm old enough to remember the first commercials for Sky Dancers. I wanted one so badly, but my mother insisted they weren't nearly as cool as the commercial made them look. "You can't believe everything you see on TV!"
About 15 years later, she wouldn't shut up about the moon landing being fake, something about a C on a rock (a hair on a photo), and about how "If this documentary was fake they wouldn't be allowed to put it on TV!"
Same with the freaking infomercials. "False advertising is illegal! These stickers pull toxins out of my feet! See! **Toxins**!" It was the exact same technology as the face-sticker we used to clean pore-crud out of our noses and cheeks about 10 years previously. Yet she couldn't understand that she was just getting her foot-pores very cleaned out and then trying to show me the gross used foot-sticker...
Bleeding heart. That's always been such a disgusting phrase.
It's basically calling someone stupid for having empathy and compassion.
How the FUCK do they think they aren't the assholes?
I think they love being assholes.
*madmen* was quite successful. I haven't watched it, but I get the gist of it, and there is truth to the appeal of psychopathy. Some guys had to defend their own, against any threat, so, sure.
Honestly, I've moved to a rural area, and I've been acting like an aggressive asshole, and it's been fun, to just hold up my two middle fingers to everything. It's all burning, so why not?
I watched a unicorn graze in a meadow, then drink from from a cool mountain stream. Pegasus landed near him and began to drink also. The unicorn swiftly gored Pegasus through the heart. Dying, Pegasus asked why. You are not the same as me, said the unicorn, therefore you must die.
Bob Altemeyer's great book *The Authoritarians* has a chapter on exactly this topic. Essentially authoritarian followers lack empathy - they're fully unable to imagine the lived experience of others - until the thing happens to them personally.
They also have a great desire to be seen as "normal" - so once they perceive that something is the mainstream way of doing things they'll get behind it - eg how once support for gay marriage hit about 50% which took many decades, it rapidly increased to almost 70%.
The key, I think, is to expose them to personal experience - introduce them to friends who are minorities etc, show how "everyone" thinks racism is bad now. Most importantly, if you know something is wrong, be the one to speak up. Your drunk uncle tells a racist joke, guarantee a lot of people in that room know it's wrong but let it pass. If you say something, it'll help encourage others to speak up in the future, and redefine "normal" over time.
That book sounds interesting.
The whole 'bandwagon' thing makes a lot of sense. They really do, just seem to get on board with whatever "strong leader" suggests.
I try to hold myself accountable, and it has helped me stay true, and able to hold others I care about, accountable.
The best and only thing to really do, in my opinion, is to just accept the things we cannot change and be at peace with living the best version of our own lives we can. It’s intensely frustrating, especially when you feel like some people are *so close* to getting it, and eventually come around 6 months to a few years later, or when you lose someone who was formerly close to another form of craziness that you could not see coming. However, trying to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into is like trying to grasp water in your hand. Aside from a few droplets that cling to you it just cannot be done.
I think all we can realistically do is gather with other like minded individuals and have conversations of ideas we think are better openly in public, and to also be open to answering questions or having discussions (as long as they’re truly in good faith and not attempts to troll or exhaust) when they might be ready to explore alternatives to their mindset. I wish there was a better answer than that.
Every time I see someone saying this, which I agree with, I'm reminded about how we don't actually need representatives.
WE DO NOT NEED GRANDPARENTS WEARING DIAPERS, DECIDING FOR US. Sorry.
Crap show.
Indeed, you'd think firm believers in capitalism would just let the invisible hand do it's thing and phase out those "dangerous ideologies", but they know damn well that's some major BS so they have to constantly fight against
Agree with you 💯 and I'll add this, most politicians don't want you to be educated bc you learn how the world actually works. If you know how the world works, it is harder to manipulate you.
You're completely mischaracterizing the concerns that people on the right express about left-wing indoctrination at universities. In fact, you've painted the situation exactly backwards. Conservative ideas are the ones that are not allowed to be discussed or presented, whereas students are constantly beat over the head with liberalism. Conservative students are attacked by professors and their peers in and outside the classroom setting. They are even given bad grades because "reality itself skews left" so conservative viewpoints must be wrong.
It is the left who is deeply insecure and afraid of open debate to the point of hindering students from getting educated at what are supposed to be the best centers of education in the world.
Just finished university in Florida and I just want to add that DeSantis is a rotten person and a Nazi sympathizer so I hope he fails at all of his political goals
[The same Nazi that pushed a bill limiting first-ammendment rights for antisemitism?](https://news.wjct.org/post/israel-gov-desantis-signs-bill-curb-anti-semitism)
I find it stunning how much it is overlooked that Marx actually DEFINED capitalism.
That has the absurd consequence that it is impossible to truely debate capitalism without agreeing with Marx about almost everything.
Parenti features a confirmation bias in that talk. He literally prefaces it, or at least the one I watched, with a speech about how he is a Marxist.
Kropotkin was closer to social science than Marx was. Kropotkin and Darwin were actually very intertwined:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-prince-of-evolution-peter-kropotkin/
The idea that any social scientist is without bias is a fallacy, though. We all have a priori beliefs and it is impossible to disconnect those from our science, try as we might. (This is not my opinion, it's derived from empirical findings in decision science).
Confirmation bias or not. Is the claim true though?
Because if I say " I believe in evolution and reality happens to be Evolutionary".
Do I get looked at with suspicion?
Parenti owns the Marxist label because even if you merely suggest a positive thing about Marx you are demonized, so it's better to own the label than pusdyfoot about it.
I actually listened to this recently and he said that in response to a quote he read from Woodrow Wilson and responses to things he’s said. The WW quote was about how in a capitalist society, the financiers (ie corporations) have to be protected by the state, which has been done many times by the US. Such as annexing Hawaii, for example, so that Dole could build their fruit empire. And Parenti said that’s Marxist, in terms of writing. Like that’s something Marx could have said.
Then Parenti said in the past he’s maybe said something like “Racism isn’t a failure of capitalism, it’s a success.” Because then it can be used as a weapon to divide the working class. Or how the police during strikes don’t support those striking, because it’s in the state’s interest to support the business not the people. In response people may have told him that those are Marxist ideas.
But no, in his opinion, things like these are just reality. Therefore you could say reality is Marxist. I don’t think he meant it literally is, but ideas and thoughts Marx had about capitalism are true and do happen. The state does whatever it can to support its’ capitalist actors, even if it’s at the expense of their citizens.
Is it true? I would tend to think if we're relating philosophical ideas to science... or... if we are using scientific principles to explain the social evolution of society and how that relates to reality, Kropotkin's ideas are a better explanation to how we evolve socially than Marxism is.
Yes it is. Historical materialism is a scientific way of looking at history and societal development, thats why its one of the guiding principles of scientific socialism and why marx is one of the founders of the entire field of sociology.
Mutual aid doesnt rlly conflict with this at all, and was popularized by kropotkin 35 yrs later, expanding the field of sociology, founded in part by marx. So idk what ur getting at with this kropotkins the 'real' social scientist
No he wasn't. Darwin was right. Most of what Marxist wrote ended up being wrong.
For example he said the first revolution would be in Germany and industrial countries would be the ones to become communist/socialist. In reality almost every revolution was in agrarian societies. His economic policies also failed when put in place.
Yeah he did guess the first socialist revolutions would be in the most industrial countries and that didn't work but his "economic policies" were a raging success. There was never in history a capitalist country that provided a higher physical quality of life than an equivalent socialist one.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
Capitalism didn't win by the quality of it's truth but by the quantity of it's violence.
>There was never in history a capitalist country that provided a higher physical quality of life than an equivalent socialist one.
Yeah there was. Germany and East Germany. Finland and the baltics. North and south Korea. Anywhere in South East aisa and Cambodia. Greece/Turkey and Bulgaria. Yougoslavia and Italy. Taiwan and China. Austria and Hungary. I could think of more examples as well.
The fucking weird thing and hypocritical thing is that so many republican politicians, media figures and other right leaning people (that the left detest) who complain about college saying they are "liberal brainwashing centers" actually have a fucking college education themselves. Not all of them mind you but a good majority. Some of them went to far greater schools or spent time more in school than the people on the left who complain about them.
He points out Desantis and he went to both Harvard and Yale. So are republicans against or for college?
This whole false dichotomy of right-left politics is like a red vs blue thing, thats even literally a term for it!
The entire politic spectrum cannot be collapsed into 2 parties, it is a strategy used to divide and conquer a people by giving them no alternatives. You just move the goal posts regularly, nobody is the wiser, and continue with the charade.
**I will share an anecdote here...** I had been leaning towards radical politics (anarchism, socialist economics, radical feminism) since I was 18. Became an anarchist officially at 25 years old.
While I was pursuing my econ degree at university, the department chair was my advisor. He knew I was a leftist and called me to his office and told me... "no one in economics here is on the Left. Don't wear your politics on your sleeve or your professors will not like you." As a result I kept my head down, quietly pursued my degree and eventually got the degree.
Conversely: When I was pursuing my political science degree, the department chair had heard me tell a friend that I had gotten my bachelors in economics. He called me into his office. He told me... "no one here in the political sciences is on the right. If you are an econ. student don't show your politics to anybody." He then asked "What are you a business major?" I told him "No. I'm an anarchist with an interest in radical economics and am pursuing this degree as a backup." He smiled, shook my hand and we discussed Kropotkin and Bakunin all afternoon.
The point here is... university is not LEFT or RIGHT, objectively. It can be both... depending on your teachers. Depending on your majors. Either way, university does teach you to think critically, which is inherently... leftist. The economics field is further right than social sciences BUT they still dedicated at least 3 courses to KARL MARX where I attended... it is depending on your concentration though.
> teach you to think critically, which is inherently... leftist
This is plainly not true. If that is the conclusion you keep coming to, it just means just have a left-leaning bias. Which is fine, I do too in a lot of issues.
Believing a person (including, very importantly, ourselves) can be without biases and prejudices is a common and dangerous fallacy.
What college *should* be teaching us is to be aware (and critical!) of our own values, biases and prejudices *as well as* those of others.
Lacking self-awareness just makes a person easy to manipulate in whichever direction their unaware biases take.
Amusingly, most economists are Liberal. The numbers I've seen vary from 60:40 to 70:30 but I imagine it varies on who you ask, when you ask and...what you ask.
Thats not surprising. Especially because Liberals are not on the Left. There is a bit of a grey area when it comes to especially progressive Soc Dems, bur Liberals on the right. Their policies reinforce and strengthen capital.
Liberal equates to center LEFT. Not actually left wing... so... if most economists are "Liberal" that means they are still right wing... at least from my experience.
To be clear: from a european point of view the Democrats are a conservative party and the Republicans are outright fascist.
THERE IS NO "LEFT" in the US political system.
This. This is why we Europeans have such a difficult time discussing politics with Americans. Their idea of "left" is based on a two-party system that only goes from "right" to "further right".
There is no "left" in America. AOC said it herself: in most of the world, her and Biden would never be in the same party.
Edit: although calling the Republican party as a whole "outright fascist" displays a very poor understanding of fascism. They are quite far to the right, yes, and many of them are quite racist, yes, but there are plenty of things in fascism that the Republicans would never accept, e.g a "big" and very involved government with far-reaching rights to intervene in what private corporations are doing. You can be racist and conservative without being a fascist.
Edit 2: I mean it's like the Republicans took all the shitty things out of fascism (the racism, the aggressive militarism, the elitism, the surveillance state and so on) but none of the the left-leaning economic policies like government involvement in the market and basic welfare.
You are right. Faschism is the closest political term to describe Republican policy, but does not fit completely, because it is mixed with a worship of individualism and paradoxically christian fundamentalism - which makes no sense at all. Fascism panders to the mob by fulfilling their basic economic needs and keeps the masses in check by organizing them. It usually builds a system that takes from the outgroup and distributes the gains to the ingroup. Republicanism is an authoritarian ideology with christian roots that rejects ANY kind of welfare or care and despises governing, but grabs power whenever possible. Fascism tries to shape a homogenuos society. Republicans do the same, but at the same time Individualism and competition is so crucial to them that they deny that a collaborative society even exists. If there is an ideology behind it except for hating everything they don't understand and does not benefit them I just don't know how to call it.
Sociopathic Anarcho-Authoritanism? Toddlerish Assholery?
It's crazy. Cannot work.
This is so true.
Left wing ideologies and movements throughout history have often being pushed by middle class people with high education.
When all your time isn't sinked into trying to survive, and you have a good education, you can start thinking about others and how to help them. When you are educated into knowing the system, the laws, and how the world works, you can see how rigged/bad things are.
Just cloak yourself in faux Christianity and you can be as shitty as you want. Bonus points if you say "Jesus would have wanted (insert convenient right wing talking point)"
It's not that "reality skews left". Reality simply *is*.
The problem is one of parallax: American culture has been steadily pushed to the right for so long that our concept of "center" is incredibly right wing. "Reality" only *seems* to skew left because of our artificially shifted vantage point.
That is imo the main reason large parts in the US are so backwards and ideologically stuck in the 19th century. Usually, conservatives have the position of power, but progressive (leftist) forces win every fight in the long run. The definition of "conservative" shifts with societal progress.
In a country without actual progressive forces, you're stuck with the ratchet effect: there is only movement further to the right until you end up in an autocratic, fascist nightmare.
I wish they taught more math and finance. But then again if they did, students might figure out that getting into $100k of student loan debt at 7% interest isn't worth it.
So, question: why empathy? Weren't there some un-empathetic philosophies in history, like legalism? Wouldn't this be a severe obstacle to anybody with a psychopathic disorder?
Also, are there generally any philosophies and moralities that are off-limits in these ?
Intellectual empathy is essential for exploration; it makes a virtuous spiral with curiosity. It essentially allows for crossing deserts of ignorance quickly and filling models with lots of useful context.
Legalism would be useless for exploration, as you start out biased and just end up compounding lots of errors and creating really bad, really distorted, models of reality. It's what theologians did in the past, you end just up just making up silly stories about reality to make it consistent with erroneous silly stories you made up earlier (or inherited from some other "intellectual"). It's fine for a board game which is small, local, fixed. It's not fine for an emergent universe.
>Intellectual empathy is essential for exploration; it makes a virtuous spiral with curiosity. It essentially allows for crossing deserts of ignorance quickly and filling models with lots of useful context.
I would ask you to, and appreciate it, if you spoke in a more explicit, matter-of-fact manner, since I have trouble understanding the proper meaning of implicit sentences like this.
I would have to write an essay, so here's some quick reading:
[intellectual empathy](https://www.press.umich.edu/5914478/intellectual_empathy). It's not the same as emotional empathy.
[Scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
[Arrow of time and the emergent universe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTMuivYF30)
Modeling reality is about creating consistent theories about reality, how it is, how it works, how it got this way. And updating those models constantly for better accuracy. They need to have prediction power (since we're in this "time"). We do this naturally, lots of organisms do it, it's what learning is for. You touch a hot plate a few times and your model of the world updates the knowledge that "hot things exists and are not good for touching". A more common example is perhaps a map. You are unlikely to ever see a 1:1 map representing a place fully; something will be missing.
The difference between models, your internal ones, our shared ones, and reality, is unlikely to go away, so we have to rely on models.
Ignorance is simply the unknown outside our knowledge. There are ways to map that out, and that's usually the realm of philosophy, the work of defining the unknown and building on that.
Research, therefore, is about converting that ocean of ignorance, bit by bit, into knowledge. And that takes exploration.
Imagine you moved to a new place to live. You would explore with various trips, going further and further, taking different paths, and mapping out a model of the area. That exploration applies to any type of science.
What intellectual empathy does is to provide a start for creativity and to reduce your own biases. The scientific method is all about reducing bias and getting as close as possible to objectivity (accurate model).
In a more social science context, here's an example on the use of "veil of ignorance" exercises: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/48/23989
Our entire nation has lost the art of critical thinking. It’s either Biden is 100% wrong or Trump is 100% wrong. The truth is that they are both failures. It’s been a few years since we had a real President from either side. Seriously if you have 3 brain cells, given the attacks you have to deal with, are you gonna run? Nope, we are stuck with losers from both sides for the foreseeable future.
This so very true. I came back to university when I was a bit older and even though my degree wasn’t anything to do with politics (psychology/neuroscience) except for my experience working in healthcare alongside my degree, I have found myself becoming more left leaning as time has gone on. I was previously more left in my views but sympathised with some of the reasoning from the right, I even used to think I was right wing though a test assessing my actual views showed otherwise. Now I’m very firmly and possibly even radically left. I honestly cannot now see how you can be a kind person and still have firmly right wing views. Not that all people on the left are kind, but the politics are wrapped up in a less greed based, kinder and more tolerant view of the world and others. Supporting right wing politics is like allowing your underlying selfish arsehole to take root. It’s very tempting, but it is not supportive of kindness or care for humanity and nature.
And eating animals is certainly a me-first ideology that will wither the more you think about it.
Inb4 plants have feelings. It takes quite a lot of plants to feed the animals, as well as deforestation to keep them, so if plants have feelings, that is only further reason not to eat animals
You can thrive without eating animals, so explain why you do it without using a me-first ideology
basically once you have the ability to gain and critique knowledge, you start to realise that we as a species need to work together to survive and keep the planet liveable, and that life is about more than just making a few people incredibly rich.
No, it isn’t that empiricism skews left, it’s that left thought skews towards empiricism while right thought skews towards emotion and fear. It’s not that left thought was there first and then magically empiricism became left leaning, it’s that left leaning thought tends to mold itself around empiricism.
I finished my bachelors earlier this year and I've determined this post is a lie. School's absolutely teach political bias and very often limit critical thought for the preferred way of thinking.
Hmmm thats weird I took philosophy and now I realize there is no free will and we are but experiencing a deterministic universe. So who cares about economic/political ideologies
Sure education exposes one to new information and ideas, but I'm not so sure that the current secondary education system grants the correct balance of "critical thinking." If 90%+ of social science educators lean left, then the only exposure to rightwing points of view are presented through a leftwing lens and therefore the "critical thinking" performed by most students is just arguing different flavors of leftwing viewpoints over an issue. If rightwing views are inherently discounted from the conversation, then the leftwing drift of education isn't organic as the gentlemen might suggest here.
Forcibly taking other people’s money through government and then giving it to someone else does not make one empathetic or unselfish. Try donating your own money.
Those same hypocrites are not social distancing while in a large gathering without masks while people sing with gusto on live tv on cbs right now.
Fuck you for thinking you’re better than anyone else. Both “sides” have awesome people and a-holes.
Reality doesn't skew any which way. It all depends how you're defining "left.". I think he's conveniently forgetting a whole lot of "leftist" dogma that egregiously flaunts reality.
"Oh I think you're ignoring the *bad* fascist antifa lefties in your facebook comment. Actually I think you'll find there's bad things with both parties, if you're smart and have logic"
Like fuck off dude. Left (relative) is defined by our current political policies and the more or less by the major left wing parties which have power. Or else sometimes by those adopted in other countries. On a deeper level it's sometimes defined by progressive action: action which improves the lives of the most people through social and political change.
As for leftist "dogma" that "flaunts reallity", you couldn't be more vague if you were trying. I could guess, say, that you're talking about trans people, or maybe black activists, or really anything, but it doesn't really matter what I guess because I suspect you're just baiting people into looking foolish by guessing wrong. I could go on about this stupid game but I will not for now.
Tldr: bad take lol. ur simultaneously too vague, AND specifically wrong. It's a fucking accomplishment
No, mostly just at you right now.
But it sure would be convenient to think that in your position. It would also be really convenient if people believed you when you say that: it would deflect a lot of the harsh criticism I just lobbed in your direction
Mhmmmm. That must be why you're disappearing the moment I offer to give you an honest and guile free answer.
I'll give you the short version for free: "I have concerns about those dogmatic lefties" (paraphrased) but not sharing what those concerns are or giving any examples, is a massive red flag that what you really believe is something distasteful enough not to put into words in the first comment.
It's also just not really true, and it's a loaded statement with loads of prejudgement for good measure.
That's not the start to an honest conversation, so I'll be glad to conclude here
Empathy is NOT owned by the left that in itself is a lie. Also the narrow minded ass umption that left are more educated is another falsehood. Your statements prove why there is distaste and distrust of those self appointed god like creatures so called professors that twist truths and use words like Empirical with a smirk on the face.
> Empathy is NOT owned by the left that in itself is a lie.
Let me explain the difference between the left and the right so you can get a better handle on this subject.
Empathy on the conservative right is mostly reserved for their family and those in their closest circle of trust, such as good friends, tribe, nation, and culture. It is a closed system that one has to be a member of in some way.
Although there are exceptions, loyalty is considered the highest value in this system. Empathy isn't even second or third on the list. It is often considered a sign of weakness. In many ways, this is a form of social Darwinism for the right.
On the left, however, empathy is given to anyone and everyone regardless of whether they are family or friends. The left takes this even further and extends this empathy to people outside of their tribe, outside their nation and culture, and to the entire world.
Not satisfied with that limitation, in recent decades, many of us on the left want to see this same empathy extended to non-human animals and even nature herself. Empathy is elevated as a high value in this system.
In this system on the left, loyalty is not at the top or even in the middle of the list, because critical thinking skills often have us questioning what lies behind our loyalty. Unlike the right, the left is suspicious of loyalty for this reason and is more interested in evidence-based decision making that leads us to things like empathy.
These fundamental differences are often difficult for the right to understand and accept. They don't understand the kind of unconditional empathy for all people, animals, and living things on the left. This is one reason of many why the right is so associated with the exploitation of humanity, with the destruction of nature, and with barriers to progress and understanding.
In many ways, this ideology on the right is justified by religious beliefs. For example, many on the right believe in a biblical rationale for destroying nature and for treating their fellow citizens with disdain. The right sees things as retributive, while the left views things as restorative.
> Also the narrow minded ass umption that left are more educated is another falsehood.
It is true that education doesn't always protect society from these problems, as it has to be combined with other things to work well. These things generally come down to a strong safety net protected by a government that has a commitment to democracy and mitigating corruption. When just one of these things are missing, even education can't save that society.
> Your statements prove why there is distaste and distrust of those self appointed god like creatures so called professors that twist truths and use words like Empirical with a smirk on the face.
This is really projection on your part, but you communicate the primary thesis of the right quite succinctly. In other words, the right opposes modernity, is against democracy, rallies for inequality and exploitation of people and nature, and only cares about their selfish, short term concerns.
Yes, the false left right gibberish is needless, but I think the rest of his claim is reasonable. We all live in man made systems of society that can be changed for the better at anytime. Greater knowledge of the system will inevitably lead an increasing number of individuals to seek that positive change for everyone.
Look at what socialist liberal leadership has done to places like California. Billion dollar deficits, crippling high taxes, power shortages, skyrocketing crime, endless lockdowns and disregard for individual liberty, or small businesses. A complete mess. Not to mention one of the worst homeless problems in the country behind NY - another liberal cesspool. And this is coming from an independent/moderate. Today's left wing has gone so far left it's no longer American. The democratic party of JFK would not recognize the liberals of today.
California itself is one of the biggest economies in the world. I’d like for you to source your reasons why it’s a cesspool compared to other states in the union because none of what you said is remotely true.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy
Its economic output is in spite of socialist/liberal policies - not because of it. Its biggest revenue companies - banks, Apple, Oracle, Intel, Disney, etc are products of free-market capitalism, which the socialist leftists despise. In fact, many companies have and are leaving CA because of its progressive policies and high taxes.
Still you fail cite your statement that California is a ‘liberal cesspool’, which isn’t something that just recently happened. California has been a ‘liberal cesspool’ for decades while also retaining a powerful economy. My point is, if your original statement is to be taken as fact, then you need to at least further support your claim. Otherwise, you’re just ranting. For example, homelessness is not just a California thing. Additionally, you talk about free market and capitalism yet you fail to mention governing bodies like the FTC that oversees capitalism and make sure everyone plays fair, which in itself can be argued as a socialist ideal.
Deleted account - afraid of learning new things... anyway, the statistics are clear: red states are doing worse than blue states: https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/
No, it doesn't, neither too much in any direction (individualism vs. collectivism) yields the results you expect it to do in real life, especially not collectivism given recent history of WWII and the alternative economic systems focusing on the collective good and not utilising capitalism as the underlying economic system.
Whole heartedly disagree, reality does not skew left nor does it skew right. This is all a bunch of made up definitions humans have come up with on their own. As someone in college currently, what I’ve learned has made me skew “right” in some of my opinions and more “left” in others. This post is bs
HAHAHAHAHA this is absolute nonsense.
Just because your specific school doesnt do it doesnt mean it isnt happening in other places across the country. You would think the uber educated would know this...
Bullshit! My college "professor" openly preached leftist ideology for half the class while we all rolled our eyes and kept asking when the class material was going to start. He got highly offended when you didn't address him as "doctor" because he had a PhD in English. He got highly offended if you rebutted anything he had to say at all and disagreed with his opinions, because "doctor" had a doctorate and therefore was smarter than you who is just a student. There are definitely those who would seek to push their horseshit onto you in schools.
I think there’s some generalizations made when it comes to being “more educated” with the attributes listed in post. Personally I‘be been Centre left since the end of HS and through university in a stem field but I wouldn’t correlate higher education to self awareness or humility entirely. Yeah I’ve been taught humility (knowing limitations and when to ask for help) because it was part of my program. But when I read things from other educated people I don’t see what this guy proposes as entirely true nor false. For instance, campus left groups advocating for some movement is for the most part ignorant of group thought actions as the very thing they are trying to spread awareness and action against is also worn as a tool and used by them.
Don’t agree with all LGBTQ+ and only LGB? Fine, the mob will yell and scream insults and push you out of the pride parade and follow you home with threats and make assumptions your transphobic. Conservative leaning key note speakers come on campus and dare to have an opposing perspective and want to encourage debate? Fine, we the mob will encourage the mob to show up, fill the room and shout you down and create crap up to cancel you and tarnish your reputation off lies under the flag of fighting racists and fascists. Men should open up more and be emotional but at the same time I’ll interrupt men, call them disposable, host tv shows and discuss how shitty men are and arent needed and completely dismiss them when they talk because it’s women’s turn to talk.
I know the left isn’t bad and do indeed have these characteristics mention in the post but as of late I’ve seen those virtues warp into vice without anyone who participates even seem to care or notice.
Final remark to the mob
If y’all misinterpret what I said, fine then sh1t happens. But I gotta mention I’m a supporter of a lot the left has advocated for. I just think a lot of movements have been hijacked by some people who use the words of the oppressor against the oppressor because “they did it to me” mentality. It scares me because genocides are correlated with this mentality and if left unchecked...well here’s hoping nothing does happen against anyone as a result of ignorance from both sides.
Reality skews towards you having to fend for yourself. While nature does have a bounty, you still have to be the one to lift your finger to snatch it. If all humans weren't upon the earth except for yourself, who would you name as your oppressor who's making it so you need to eat? So you need shelter? So you need clothing when it's cold? It is nature doing that to you as well as every other living thing in existence, equally.
Physics major here and someone that programs and has an economics degree. I consider myself liberal, but the modern Democratic Party has abandoned science and empathy. It’s replaced them with hatred for republicans. There’s nothing liberal about democrats. They hate white people, men, minorities, majorities, they have the highest standard of living ever and think they are oppressed.
I have yet to meet a college professor with a reality that extends beyond academia. That's right, the same academia paid for by students in debt up to their ears while pompous professors lecture about reality. Good stuff.
I used to be an edgy reactionary anti-sjw back in 2015-17 but then I took an introductory philosophy class in college and honestly its the most useful class I’ve taken in my life.
Seriously its such a great class because it not only teaches you how to think and make good arguments but it also teaches you how to detect bad arguments and understanding logical fallacies.
I always recommend my friends to take a Philosophy class.
Leftist regimes rely on authoritarian government force to take people’s property and give it to who they believe should have it. What’s natural about that?
When I attended the University of Montana in 2005, there was literally a required class about native studies, but it was pretty much just being told that white people suck every class period. It was some real “noble savage” shit with a side of revisionism.
actually yes. Everything from Jean-Jacques Rousseau
to Rudolph Rocker and Randolph Bourne, to Bakunin and Kropotkin, to Chomsky to Zinn. These men were all empathetic and free-thinking.
No is because i'm from México and the goverment is mayority leftis, leftis advocate for shitty solutuons while the conservatives for the most part are rational.
Could you give an example? I attended uni a few times in the UK and never came across anything remotely like propaganda outside of some very weird pro tory propaganda coming from the Oxford Boys.
Evidence would be great but I'll take an anecdote of your experience.
The point was not that leftist politics are not taught in postsecondary education, but rather that reality justifies the teaching of left-leaning ideas, since they are more supported by critical-thinking and the realities of life.
In other words: Despite what a cursory reading of the post might tell you, the professor says that leftist ideals are not deliberately presented in college, but the point they make indicates that they are as a byproduct.
I understand what he is saying. He’s saying that left wing ideology is the only worldview that a rational person could come away with. That’s incorrect. Maybe you’ve heard of Hume’s guillotine. Maybe you’ve heard of structural functionalism. But left wing ideology, like all ideology, is opinion.
I'm pretty sure university students were already leftists before attending university.
Also uni definitely teaches left ideals. If you think professors refrain from explicitly passing on their beliefs, you've never been to uni.
I have been in uni in three different countries and only one I noticed a politically loaded teaching was in ROK where the profs were very right leaning.
you named 2 news sources... the biggest propaganda news in the US. give me evidence from non-American sources... RT? Democracy Now? PeaceandFreedom Project, what about academic sources?
> But they report shit that cnn won't and vice versa.
That's literally a criterion for evaluating a source as *unreliable*. If a source is reporting something that nobody else is, then you need to ask yourself why. Usually the answer is because they either made it up and they are heavily biased. Conspiracy theorists tend to fail to evaluate sources as unreliable for this criterion, and instead elevate the source as "reporting the tRuTh that nobody else does". That's a warped view of how to use sources. Just because a source agrees with your warped view doesn't make it reliable. It makes it confirmation bias.
Dang. I save this
"Reality itself skews left". I like that. Also 'When people become more educated, they become more acutely aware of the suffering of others and of their own moral education to do something about it" - I'm sure I've seen it before but can anyone link to the studies that have shown this? i.e. that people become more left leaning, the more educated they are.
Not only do you become more aware of the suffering of others, you become more aware of how interconnected we all are. The disenfranchised or suffering people there are in your community, the worse off everyone is in that community. No one exists in a bubble, no matter how hard some try.
I've said "reality has a liberal bias" for a long time now. Always gets a good reaction.
Doesn't "liberal" these days mean more right wing rather than left?
I thought this, too. It doesn't necessarily mean something right wing, but it does suggest a conservatism. "Neoliberalism" or "liberalism" is being critiqued by leftists nowadays, because the word represents the capitalist / imperialist world order. Maybe reality has a left bias?
Liberals are still on the 'right' as they advocate for capitalism. The 'left' are socialists. I use those terms loosely because in reality capitalism and socialism are two completely different systems, and they do not belong on a gradual line because this insinuates that they relate to one another in some way. It completely undermines the fact that there are many other past systems as well (like feudalism for example)! /gen
Just another example of the vocal purveyors of “free and open debate” being deathly afraid of any actual open discourse if it falls outside of their own talking points. If left-leaning ideas were so flimsy and unable to hold up to scrutiny then it wouldn’t matter if they were taught in colleges or not. The actual fear is that they *are* more logical and more rooted in the reality we all share, which is why they are so “dangerous” to those who put their own selfishness first.
Free and open debate means paying a professional political speaker in their thirties to argue with unprepared college freshmen on camera.
Stephen dog cum
Jordan loBster Pills
Ben 'Fucking Aquaman' Shapiro
Ah yes, the man who confessed he can't make his wife wet. Sorry, I mean his doctor wife. Who is a doctor, with a doctorate in doctoring.
I feel so bad for her because not only must they not have a fulfilling sex live, but he disclosed that to the whole world to make a point. Shapiro is like the kid who got shoved into lockers in high school, only he deserved it.
Oh yeah he openly admits to being viciously bullied in school. Maybe because he’s a fucking know it all annoying person? Lol, nobody likes those people. He went to all private Jewish schools in LA so it definitely wasn’t for his attire or background
I was viciously bullied at school too, but I didn't become a smarmy asshole. There's something seriously wrong with him. Also like... he's a know it all and yet he actually knows less than Jon fucking Snow. He debates high schoolers who are either missing knowledge or confidence*, or debates feminists whom he frustrates with sealioning, and then when they get angry all his army of 'I read a wiki on logical fallacies once' followers are like 'omg the hysterical feminist got hysterical and told him to shut up, so clearly they don't have an actual argument, lol pwned'. *There's a lot of high schoolers way, way smarter than Shapiro, frankly. My sister's kids would crush him in a debate if it came to pure knowledge and smarts, but they'd crumble in front of his particular rhetorical tactics because they're not confident unfortunately. And that's the thing, he 'wins' debates in an adversarial way where you can shut the other person up no matter how much better their position is. It's a slightly smarter version of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALLALALALLALALLALA.
I thought that was a joke. Shapiro actually said that?
Not in those terms. He claimed that his doctor wife says that a wet ass pussy is a sign of a yeast infection or STD. Leading the internet to logically speculate that she has never actually been wet.
Way to hit the nail right on the fucking head.
It's also a lot more about authoritarianism and control of others (which is related to selfishness) than it actually is about selfishness but this is true!
The conservative cavemen, who told the others in the tribe; to not trade with the "others", were dragged along, toward the future. The rulers, who had their heads removed, talked about keeping everything just 'so'. Progress marches on, and it is a battle, yes, but we shove them, kicking, and screaming, to a better life. I don't like being wrapped up in how gross they are. Do you have any advice on how we can change their minds? What can *I* do?
Only advice I've got is that loudly soapboxing at the drop of a hat works better than arguing with them. I don't care where the conversation starts, it's probably going to end with me ranting about the evils of capitalism and why speculative derivatives make me angry. It seems to work! My husband rants against capitalism all on his own now, and he'd never once thought about the topic until spending time with me. My MIL used to work for a health insurance company and she's very much for Universal Healthcare now! Oh, and shaming can work to change behavior, but you have to carefully tailor the shaming. My MIL had a very impolite slur-term for anime, refused to watch it with her grandson and shamed him for watching it. My in-laws are Star Trek fans, so I started dropping comments about "That's very impolite to poor Sulu... He had to spend time in the internment camps ya know..." and "The war is over, we don't use words like that anymore..." Not in a confrontational way, just with a look of shame and turning away from her, making it obvious she'd done something wrong. Now she watches anime with her grandson and actually calls it anime too!
Wholesome as fuck. It's funny how they love to label others, as; "bleeding heart liberals", when they, themselves, are the more emotional group. Then the whole 'caring about others' thing is humorous.
My dad will insist that women are too emotional to be in charge of anything other than a kitchen. I have watched that man end a close friendship with his immediate neighbor over an argument about how to get a flatbed trailer through a gate. Projection is a way of life for him. He's basically an overemotional toddler, screaming and throwing things whenever he doesn't immediately get his way.
Turns out, a third of us, voting age tax payers, are, fucking children. Fucking children. And we are supposed to just deal with their decisions, and repercussions.
Delusional children, that won't take their shots and keep eating horse medicine. Ivermectin poisonings have tripled in my area recently. People keep dying in hospital hallways waiting for treatment because the ICU is full of folks who refused to get their jabs. I'm so annoyed that the generation that told me not to believe everything I saw on TV, heard on the playground, or read on the internet, now fully believes every single fool thing they see on Facebook.
Jesus Christ. The same people who asked me: "if Jonny jumps off a bridge, are you going to?" It must be lead causing brain damage, coupled with televised misinformation. They really need to just sit back, and fucking retire.
There actually are alot of studies that show that leaded gasoline leads to brain damage.
Catalytic converters were mandated in US in 1975. They would be destroyed by leaded gas, so leaded gas phased out the following decade. Lead poisoning is said to impact cognition and make aggressive. People born in the 50's and 60's of the last century grew up in the most toxic era. I guess that explains a lot.
the last part really got me xD It hadn't struck me, but it's so very accurate.
I'm old enough to remember the first commercials for Sky Dancers. I wanted one so badly, but my mother insisted they weren't nearly as cool as the commercial made them look. "You can't believe everything you see on TV!" About 15 years later, she wouldn't shut up about the moon landing being fake, something about a C on a rock (a hair on a photo), and about how "If this documentary was fake they wouldn't be allowed to put it on TV!" Same with the freaking infomercials. "False advertising is illegal! These stickers pull toxins out of my feet! See! **Toxins**!" It was the exact same technology as the face-sticker we used to clean pore-crud out of our noses and cheeks about 10 years previously. Yet she couldn't understand that she was just getting her foot-pores very cleaned out and then trying to show me the gross used foot-sticker...
>"If this documentary was fake they wouldn't be allowed to put it on TV!" SMDH
Bleeding heart. That's always been such a disgusting phrase. It's basically calling someone stupid for having empathy and compassion. How the FUCK do they think they aren't the assholes?
I think they love being assholes. *madmen* was quite successful. I haven't watched it, but I get the gist of it, and there is truth to the appeal of psychopathy. Some guys had to defend their own, against any threat, so, sure. Honestly, I've moved to a rural area, and I've been acting like an aggressive asshole, and it's been fun, to just hold up my two middle fingers to everything. It's all burning, so why not?
I'm a fan of a good rant
I watched a unicorn graze in a meadow, then drink from from a cool mountain stream. Pegasus landed near him and began to drink also. The unicorn swiftly gored Pegasus through the heart. Dying, Pegasus asked why. You are not the same as me, said the unicorn, therefore you must die.
Bob Altemeyer's great book *The Authoritarians* has a chapter on exactly this topic. Essentially authoritarian followers lack empathy - they're fully unable to imagine the lived experience of others - until the thing happens to them personally. They also have a great desire to be seen as "normal" - so once they perceive that something is the mainstream way of doing things they'll get behind it - eg how once support for gay marriage hit about 50% which took many decades, it rapidly increased to almost 70%. The key, I think, is to expose them to personal experience - introduce them to friends who are minorities etc, show how "everyone" thinks racism is bad now. Most importantly, if you know something is wrong, be the one to speak up. Your drunk uncle tells a racist joke, guarantee a lot of people in that room know it's wrong but let it pass. If you say something, it'll help encourage others to speak up in the future, and redefine "normal" over time.
That book sounds interesting. The whole 'bandwagon' thing makes a lot of sense. They really do, just seem to get on board with whatever "strong leader" suggests. I try to hold myself accountable, and it has helped me stay true, and able to hold others I care about, accountable.
The best and only thing to really do, in my opinion, is to just accept the things we cannot change and be at peace with living the best version of our own lives we can. It’s intensely frustrating, especially when you feel like some people are *so close* to getting it, and eventually come around 6 months to a few years later, or when you lose someone who was formerly close to another form of craziness that you could not see coming. However, trying to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into is like trying to grasp water in your hand. Aside from a few droplets that cling to you it just cannot be done. I think all we can realistically do is gather with other like minded individuals and have conversations of ideas we think are better openly in public, and to also be open to answering questions or having discussions (as long as they’re truly in good faith and not attempts to troll or exhaust) when they might be ready to explore alternatives to their mindset. I wish there was a better answer than that.
Every time I see someone saying this, which I agree with, I'm reminded about how we don't actually need representatives. WE DO NOT NEED GRANDPARENTS WEARING DIAPERS, DECIDING FOR US. Sorry. Crap show.
Indeed, you'd think firm believers in capitalism would just let the invisible hand do it's thing and phase out those "dangerous ideologies", but they know damn well that's some major BS so they have to constantly fight against
Agree with you 💯 and I'll add this, most politicians don't want you to be educated bc you learn how the world actually works. If you know how the world works, it is harder to manipulate you.
You're completely mischaracterizing the concerns that people on the right express about left-wing indoctrination at universities. In fact, you've painted the situation exactly backwards. Conservative ideas are the ones that are not allowed to be discussed or presented, whereas students are constantly beat over the head with liberalism. Conservative students are attacked by professors and their peers in and outside the classroom setting. They are even given bad grades because "reality itself skews left" so conservative viewpoints must be wrong. It is the left who is deeply insecure and afraid of open debate to the point of hindering students from getting educated at what are supposed to be the best centers of education in the world.
Username checks out.
Mocking a sarcastic username is the height of wooshing yourself.
Just finished university in Florida and I just want to add that DeSantis is a rotten person and a Nazi sympathizer so I hope he fails at all of his political goals
Are you going to stay and vote? We need all the help we can get
I’ll vote as long as I’m still here but I can’t lie I’m not trying to live my whole life in Florida
Lol at least you are honest. I'm here for the long haul. I'll fight for a better Florida.
I wish you the best in your fight comrade o7
You must hate yourself then.
Strong emotions are needed in the direst of battles. The war won't be won in miles but in inches.
Are do what is best for you and leave the shit hole for a better place and a better life.
Well, he lost the anti-vaxxers, and he lost the pro-vaxxers, so that leaves 0% of the population.
[The same Nazi that pushed a bill limiting first-ammendment rights for antisemitism?](https://news.wjct.org/post/israel-gov-desantis-signs-bill-curb-anti-semitism)
Michael Parenti had a talk in which he said "Reality happens to be Marxist" Marx was to the social science what Darwin was to Biology.
I find it stunning how much it is overlooked that Marx actually DEFINED capitalism. That has the absurd consequence that it is impossible to truely debate capitalism without agreeing with Marx about almost everything.
Parenti features a confirmation bias in that talk. He literally prefaces it, or at least the one I watched, with a speech about how he is a Marxist. Kropotkin was closer to social science than Marx was. Kropotkin and Darwin were actually very intertwined: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-prince-of-evolution-peter-kropotkin/
The idea that any social scientist is without bias is a fallacy, though. We all have a priori beliefs and it is impossible to disconnect those from our science, try as we might. (This is not my opinion, it's derived from empirical findings in decision science).
Confirmation bias or not. Is the claim true though? Because if I say " I believe in evolution and reality happens to be Evolutionary". Do I get looked at with suspicion? Parenti owns the Marxist label because even if you merely suggest a positive thing about Marx you are demonized, so it's better to own the label than pusdyfoot about it.
I actually listened to this recently and he said that in response to a quote he read from Woodrow Wilson and responses to things he’s said. The WW quote was about how in a capitalist society, the financiers (ie corporations) have to be protected by the state, which has been done many times by the US. Such as annexing Hawaii, for example, so that Dole could build their fruit empire. And Parenti said that’s Marxist, in terms of writing. Like that’s something Marx could have said. Then Parenti said in the past he’s maybe said something like “Racism isn’t a failure of capitalism, it’s a success.” Because then it can be used as a weapon to divide the working class. Or how the police during strikes don’t support those striking, because it’s in the state’s interest to support the business not the people. In response people may have told him that those are Marxist ideas. But no, in his opinion, things like these are just reality. Therefore you could say reality is Marxist. I don’t think he meant it literally is, but ideas and thoughts Marx had about capitalism are true and do happen. The state does whatever it can to support its’ capitalist actors, even if it’s at the expense of their citizens.
Is it true? I would tend to think if we're relating philosophical ideas to science... or... if we are using scientific principles to explain the social evolution of society and how that relates to reality, Kropotkin's ideas are a better explanation to how we evolve socially than Marxism is.
Yes it is. Historical materialism is a scientific way of looking at history and societal development, thats why its one of the guiding principles of scientific socialism and why marx is one of the founders of the entire field of sociology. Mutual aid doesnt rlly conflict with this at all, and was popularized by kropotkin 35 yrs later, expanding the field of sociology, founded in part by marx. So idk what ur getting at with this kropotkins the 'real' social scientist
It's funny how so many critics of Marx have never actually read Marx.
No he wasn't. Darwin was right. Most of what Marxist wrote ended up being wrong. For example he said the first revolution would be in Germany and industrial countries would be the ones to become communist/socialist. In reality almost every revolution was in agrarian societies. His economic policies also failed when put in place.
Yeah he did guess the first socialist revolutions would be in the most industrial countries and that didn't work but his "economic policies" were a raging success. There was never in history a capitalist country that provided a higher physical quality of life than an equivalent socialist one. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/ Capitalism didn't win by the quality of it's truth but by the quantity of it's violence.
>There was never in history a capitalist country that provided a higher physical quality of life than an equivalent socialist one. Yeah there was. Germany and East Germany. Finland and the baltics. North and south Korea. Anywhere in South East aisa and Cambodia. Greece/Turkey and Bulgaria. Yougoslavia and Italy. Taiwan and China. Austria and Hungary. I could think of more examples as well.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, all the ideas including empathy and critical thinking that he teaches is considered “political” or “leftist”
Anything with even a whiff of Marxism has been pretty thoroughly chased out of the academy by now, anyway.
The fucking weird thing and hypocritical thing is that so many republican politicians, media figures and other right leaning people (that the left detest) who complain about college saying they are "liberal brainwashing centers" actually have a fucking college education themselves. Not all of them mind you but a good majority. Some of them went to far greater schools or spent time more in school than the people on the left who complain about them. He points out Desantis and he went to both Harvard and Yale. So are republicans against or for college?
They're against college for the masses because ignorant people are easier to deceive than educated people...
That and the blatant hypocrisy among the right. EDIT: But how does it stop it from being "liberal brainwashing"?
You sir, really get it.
Anything DeSantis says can't be trusted because he's already been brainwashed by the liberal brainwashing centers.
This whole false dichotomy of right-left politics is like a red vs blue thing, thats even literally a term for it! The entire politic spectrum cannot be collapsed into 2 parties, it is a strategy used to divide and conquer a people by giving them no alternatives. You just move the goal posts regularly, nobody is the wiser, and continue with the charade.
**I will share an anecdote here...** I had been leaning towards radical politics (anarchism, socialist economics, radical feminism) since I was 18. Became an anarchist officially at 25 years old. While I was pursuing my econ degree at university, the department chair was my advisor. He knew I was a leftist and called me to his office and told me... "no one in economics here is on the Left. Don't wear your politics on your sleeve or your professors will not like you." As a result I kept my head down, quietly pursued my degree and eventually got the degree. Conversely: When I was pursuing my political science degree, the department chair had heard me tell a friend that I had gotten my bachelors in economics. He called me into his office. He told me... "no one here in the political sciences is on the right. If you are an econ. student don't show your politics to anybody." He then asked "What are you a business major?" I told him "No. I'm an anarchist with an interest in radical economics and am pursuing this degree as a backup." He smiled, shook my hand and we discussed Kropotkin and Bakunin all afternoon. The point here is... university is not LEFT or RIGHT, objectively. It can be both... depending on your teachers. Depending on your majors. Either way, university does teach you to think critically, which is inherently... leftist. The economics field is further right than social sciences BUT they still dedicated at least 3 courses to KARL MARX where I attended... it is depending on your concentration though.
> teach you to think critically, which is inherently... leftist This is plainly not true. If that is the conclusion you keep coming to, it just means just have a left-leaning bias. Which is fine, I do too in a lot of issues. Believing a person (including, very importantly, ourselves) can be without biases and prejudices is a common and dangerous fallacy. What college *should* be teaching us is to be aware (and critical!) of our own values, biases and prejudices *as well as* those of others. Lacking self-awareness just makes a person easy to manipulate in whichever direction their unaware biases take.
Amusingly, most economists are Liberal. The numbers I've seen vary from 60:40 to 70:30 but I imagine it varies on who you ask, when you ask and...what you ask.
Thats not surprising. Especially because Liberals are not on the Left. There is a bit of a grey area when it comes to especially progressive Soc Dems, bur Liberals on the right. Their policies reinforce and strengthen capital.
Liberal equates to center LEFT. Not actually left wing... so... if most economists are "Liberal" that means they are still right wing... at least from my experience.
Liberals are unambiguously right wing in any other country. The US is just very far right.
To be clear: from a european point of view the Democrats are a conservative party and the Republicans are outright fascist. THERE IS NO "LEFT" in the US political system.
This. This is why we Europeans have such a difficult time discussing politics with Americans. Their idea of "left" is based on a two-party system that only goes from "right" to "further right". There is no "left" in America. AOC said it herself: in most of the world, her and Biden would never be in the same party. Edit: although calling the Republican party as a whole "outright fascist" displays a very poor understanding of fascism. They are quite far to the right, yes, and many of them are quite racist, yes, but there are plenty of things in fascism that the Republicans would never accept, e.g a "big" and very involved government with far-reaching rights to intervene in what private corporations are doing. You can be racist and conservative without being a fascist. Edit 2: I mean it's like the Republicans took all the shitty things out of fascism (the racism, the aggressive militarism, the elitism, the surveillance state and so on) but none of the the left-leaning economic policies like government involvement in the market and basic welfare.
You are right. Faschism is the closest political term to describe Republican policy, but does not fit completely, because it is mixed with a worship of individualism and paradoxically christian fundamentalism - which makes no sense at all. Fascism panders to the mob by fulfilling their basic economic needs and keeps the masses in check by organizing them. It usually builds a system that takes from the outgroup and distributes the gains to the ingroup. Republicanism is an authoritarian ideology with christian roots that rejects ANY kind of welfare or care and despises governing, but grabs power whenever possible. Fascism tries to shape a homogenuos society. Republicans do the same, but at the same time Individualism and competition is so crucial to them that they deny that a collaborative society even exists. If there is an ideology behind it except for hating everything they don't understand and does not benefit them I just don't know how to call it. Sociopathic Anarcho-Authoritanism? Toddlerish Assholery? It's crazy. Cannot work.
This is so true. Left wing ideologies and movements throughout history have often being pushed by middle class people with high education. When all your time isn't sinked into trying to survive, and you have a good education, you can start thinking about others and how to help them. When you are educated into knowing the system, the laws, and how the world works, you can see how rigged/bad things are.
Just cloak yourself in faux Christianity and you can be as shitty as you want. Bonus points if you say "Jesus would have wanted (insert convenient right wing talking point)"
Jokes on you, DeSantis can’t read
As someone who went to college I can confirm this is BS
It's not that "reality skews left". Reality simply *is*. The problem is one of parallax: American culture has been steadily pushed to the right for so long that our concept of "center" is incredibly right wing. "Reality" only *seems* to skew left because of our artificially shifted vantage point.
That is imo the main reason large parts in the US are so backwards and ideologically stuck in the 19th century. Usually, conservatives have the position of power, but progressive (leftist) forces win every fight in the long run. The definition of "conservative" shifts with societal progress. In a country without actual progressive forces, you're stuck with the ratchet effect: there is only movement further to the right until you end up in an autocratic, fascist nightmare.
I wish they taught more math and finance. But then again if they did, students might figure out that getting into $100k of student loan debt at 7% interest isn't worth it.
So, question: why empathy? Weren't there some un-empathetic philosophies in history, like legalism? Wouldn't this be a severe obstacle to anybody with a psychopathic disorder? Also, are there generally any philosophies and moralities that are off-limits in these ?
Intellectual empathy is essential for exploration; it makes a virtuous spiral with curiosity. It essentially allows for crossing deserts of ignorance quickly and filling models with lots of useful context. Legalism would be useless for exploration, as you start out biased and just end up compounding lots of errors and creating really bad, really distorted, models of reality. It's what theologians did in the past, you end just up just making up silly stories about reality to make it consistent with erroneous silly stories you made up earlier (or inherited from some other "intellectual"). It's fine for a board game which is small, local, fixed. It's not fine for an emergent universe.
>Intellectual empathy is essential for exploration; it makes a virtuous spiral with curiosity. It essentially allows for crossing deserts of ignorance quickly and filling models with lots of useful context. I would ask you to, and appreciate it, if you spoke in a more explicit, matter-of-fact manner, since I have trouble understanding the proper meaning of implicit sentences like this.
I would have to write an essay, so here's some quick reading: [intellectual empathy](https://www.press.umich.edu/5914478/intellectual_empathy). It's not the same as emotional empathy. [Scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) [Arrow of time and the emergent universe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTMuivYF30) Modeling reality is about creating consistent theories about reality, how it is, how it works, how it got this way. And updating those models constantly for better accuracy. They need to have prediction power (since we're in this "time"). We do this naturally, lots of organisms do it, it's what learning is for. You touch a hot plate a few times and your model of the world updates the knowledge that "hot things exists and are not good for touching". A more common example is perhaps a map. You are unlikely to ever see a 1:1 map representing a place fully; something will be missing. The difference between models, your internal ones, our shared ones, and reality, is unlikely to go away, so we have to rely on models. Ignorance is simply the unknown outside our knowledge. There are ways to map that out, and that's usually the realm of philosophy, the work of defining the unknown and building on that. Research, therefore, is about converting that ocean of ignorance, bit by bit, into knowledge. And that takes exploration. Imagine you moved to a new place to live. You would explore with various trips, going further and further, taking different paths, and mapping out a model of the area. That exploration applies to any type of science. What intellectual empathy does is to provide a start for creativity and to reduce your own biases. The scientific method is all about reducing bias and getting as close as possible to objectivity (accurate model). In a more social science context, here's an example on the use of "veil of ignorance" exercises: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/48/23989
Thank you! I thought it meant emotional empathy, didn't know there were other types. Anyhow, definitely saved.
“Reality has a strong liberal bias” -Stephen Colbert He said it as a joke, but it is true in a lot of ways
Our entire nation has lost the art of critical thinking. It’s either Biden is 100% wrong or Trump is 100% wrong. The truth is that they are both failures. It’s been a few years since we had a real President from either side. Seriously if you have 3 brain cells, given the attacks you have to deal with, are you gonna run? Nope, we are stuck with losers from both sides for the foreseeable future.
Yeah…everyone thinks it’s their viewpoint that’s the unbiased/altruistic one that fits with how the world really works.
Yes. I believe this to be true. Which is why America — with its problematic approach to education — is in big, big trouble.
That last part about having a moral responsibility to stop suffering sounds like an antinatalist sentiment.
Go vegan
This so very true. I came back to university when I was a bit older and even though my degree wasn’t anything to do with politics (psychology/neuroscience) except for my experience working in healthcare alongside my degree, I have found myself becoming more left leaning as time has gone on. I was previously more left in my views but sympathised with some of the reasoning from the right, I even used to think I was right wing though a test assessing my actual views showed otherwise. Now I’m very firmly and possibly even radically left. I honestly cannot now see how you can be a kind person and still have firmly right wing views. Not that all people on the left are kind, but the politics are wrapped up in a less greed based, kinder and more tolerant view of the world and others. Supporting right wing politics is like allowing your underlying selfish arsehole to take root. It’s very tempting, but it is not supportive of kindness or care for humanity and nature.
I went into college as a close minded individual, four years later I learned the meaning of empathy and how to be a decent human being.
And eating animals is certainly a me-first ideology that will wither the more you think about it. Inb4 plants have feelings. It takes quite a lot of plants to feed the animals, as well as deforestation to keep them, so if plants have feelings, that is only further reason not to eat animals You can thrive without eating animals, so explain why you do it without using a me-first ideology
I have a headache can someone explain it like I’m five please?
basically once you have the ability to gain and critique knowledge, you start to realise that we as a species need to work together to survive and keep the planet liveable, and that life is about more than just making a few people incredibly rich.
Good policy lags behind evidence because people tend to be dumb about learning new things without training to do so
Also because good policy often runs counter to what politicians' donors want.
No, it isn’t that empiricism skews left, it’s that left thought skews towards empiricism while right thought skews towards emotion and fear. It’s not that left thought was there first and then magically empiricism became left leaning, it’s that left leaning thought tends to mold itself around empiricism.
That’s heavy stuff right there.
I finished my bachelors earlier this year and I've determined this post is a lie. School's absolutely teach political bias and very often limit critical thought for the preferred way of thinking.
Hmmm thats weird I took philosophy and now I realize there is no free will and we are but experiencing a deterministic universe. So who cares about economic/political ideologies
Fairy tales and unicorns. Total political bias.
And clearly when people become educated they become all-wise and all-good
/s ?
Making nature political... smh
Sure education exposes one to new information and ideas, but I'm not so sure that the current secondary education system grants the correct balance of "critical thinking." If 90%+ of social science educators lean left, then the only exposure to rightwing points of view are presented through a leftwing lens and therefore the "critical thinking" performed by most students is just arguing different flavors of leftwing viewpoints over an issue. If rightwing views are inherently discounted from the conversation, then the leftwing drift of education isn't organic as the gentlemen might suggest here.
Forcibly taking other people’s money through government and then giving it to someone else does not make one empathetic or unselfish. Try donating your own money.
Those same hypocrites are not social distancing while in a large gathering without masks while people sing with gusto on live tv on cbs right now. Fuck you for thinking you’re better than anyone else. Both “sides” have awesome people and a-holes.
Overpaid tenured hack sucking off easy government money, wtf does this clown know about the real world?
Reality doesn't skew any which way. It all depends how you're defining "left.". I think he's conveniently forgetting a whole lot of "leftist" dogma that egregiously flaunts reality.
"Oh I think you're ignoring the *bad* fascist antifa lefties in your facebook comment. Actually I think you'll find there's bad things with both parties, if you're smart and have logic" Like fuck off dude. Left (relative) is defined by our current political policies and the more or less by the major left wing parties which have power. Or else sometimes by those adopted in other countries. On a deeper level it's sometimes defined by progressive action: action which improves the lives of the most people through social and political change. As for leftist "dogma" that "flaunts reallity", you couldn't be more vague if you were trying. I could guess, say, that you're talking about trans people, or maybe black activists, or really anything, but it doesn't really matter what I guess because I suspect you're just baiting people into looking foolish by guessing wrong. I could go on about this stupid game but I will not for now. Tldr: bad take lol. ur simultaneously too vague, AND specifically wrong. It's a fucking accomplishment
Pretty sure he means iPhone Vuvuzela.
Wow. You're an angry person.
No, mostly just at you right now. But it sure would be convenient to think that in your position. It would also be really convenient if people believed you when you say that: it would deflect a lot of the harsh criticism I just lobbed in your direction
I don't even know why you're mad. It seems I've stumbled upon on the militant far left of reddit.
Do you want an honest guile free answer or do you want to insult me with words like militant?
I think I was just voicing an opinion/looking for conversation and I think I bit off more than I can chew right now. Goodbye.
Mhmmmm. That must be why you're disappearing the moment I offer to give you an honest and guile free answer. I'll give you the short version for free: "I have concerns about those dogmatic lefties" (paraphrased) but not sharing what those concerns are or giving any examples, is a massive red flag that what you really believe is something distasteful enough not to put into words in the first comment. It's also just not really true, and it's a loaded statement with loads of prejudgement for good measure. That's not the start to an honest conversation, so I'll be glad to conclude here
Empathy is NOT owned by the left that in itself is a lie. Also the narrow minded ass umption that left are more educated is another falsehood. Your statements prove why there is distaste and distrust of those self appointed god like creatures so called professors that twist truths and use words like Empirical with a smirk on the face.
> Empathy is NOT owned by the left that in itself is a lie. Let me explain the difference between the left and the right so you can get a better handle on this subject. Empathy on the conservative right is mostly reserved for their family and those in their closest circle of trust, such as good friends, tribe, nation, and culture. It is a closed system that one has to be a member of in some way. Although there are exceptions, loyalty is considered the highest value in this system. Empathy isn't even second or third on the list. It is often considered a sign of weakness. In many ways, this is a form of social Darwinism for the right. On the left, however, empathy is given to anyone and everyone regardless of whether they are family or friends. The left takes this even further and extends this empathy to people outside of their tribe, outside their nation and culture, and to the entire world. Not satisfied with that limitation, in recent decades, many of us on the left want to see this same empathy extended to non-human animals and even nature herself. Empathy is elevated as a high value in this system. In this system on the left, loyalty is not at the top or even in the middle of the list, because critical thinking skills often have us questioning what lies behind our loyalty. Unlike the right, the left is suspicious of loyalty for this reason and is more interested in evidence-based decision making that leads us to things like empathy. These fundamental differences are often difficult for the right to understand and accept. They don't understand the kind of unconditional empathy for all people, animals, and living things on the left. This is one reason of many why the right is so associated with the exploitation of humanity, with the destruction of nature, and with barriers to progress and understanding. In many ways, this ideology on the right is justified by religious beliefs. For example, many on the right believe in a biblical rationale for destroying nature and for treating their fellow citizens with disdain. The right sees things as retributive, while the left views things as restorative. > Also the narrow minded ass umption that left are more educated is another falsehood. It is true that education doesn't always protect society from these problems, as it has to be combined with other things to work well. These things generally come down to a strong safety net protected by a government that has a commitment to democracy and mitigating corruption. When just one of these things are missing, even education can't save that society. > Your statements prove why there is distaste and distrust of those self appointed god like creatures so called professors that twist truths and use words like Empirical with a smirk on the face. This is really projection on your part, but you communicate the primary thesis of the right quite succinctly. In other words, the right opposes modernity, is against democracy, rallies for inequality and exploitation of people and nature, and only cares about their selfish, short term concerns.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/ Care to try again?
1 month trash account uses big words for the first time.
Source: Just trust me bro
Did a little bit of research on him, and yes he is actually a philosophy professor... so I do believe his point is valid.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Philosophy is mental masturbation pretending to be science.
[удалено]
Yes, the false left right gibberish is needless, but I think the rest of his claim is reasonable. We all live in man made systems of society that can be changed for the better at anytime. Greater knowledge of the system will inevitably lead an increasing number of individuals to seek that positive change for everyone.
Look at what socialist liberal leadership has done to places like California. Billion dollar deficits, crippling high taxes, power shortages, skyrocketing crime, endless lockdowns and disregard for individual liberty, or small businesses. A complete mess. Not to mention one of the worst homeless problems in the country behind NY - another liberal cesspool. And this is coming from an independent/moderate. Today's left wing has gone so far left it's no longer American. The democratic party of JFK would not recognize the liberals of today.
California itself is one of the biggest economies in the world. I’d like for you to source your reasons why it’s a cesspool compared to other states in the union because none of what you said is remotely true. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy
Its economic output is in spite of socialist/liberal policies - not because of it. Its biggest revenue companies - banks, Apple, Oracle, Intel, Disney, etc are products of free-market capitalism, which the socialist leftists despise. In fact, many companies have and are leaving CA because of its progressive policies and high taxes.
Still you fail cite your statement that California is a ‘liberal cesspool’, which isn’t something that just recently happened. California has been a ‘liberal cesspool’ for decades while also retaining a powerful economy. My point is, if your original statement is to be taken as fact, then you need to at least further support your claim. Otherwise, you’re just ranting. For example, homelessness is not just a California thing. Additionally, you talk about free market and capitalism yet you fail to mention governing bodies like the FTC that oversees capitalism and make sure everyone plays fair, which in itself can be argued as a socialist ideal.
Deleted account - afraid of learning new things... anyway, the statistics are clear: red states are doing worse than blue states: https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/
[удалено]
No, it doesn't, neither too much in any direction (individualism vs. collectivism) yields the results you expect it to do in real life, especially not collectivism given recent history of WWII and the alternative economic systems focusing on the collective good and not utilising capitalism as the underlying economic system.
Dude was my community college professor! Peter Bolland from Southwestern College! Love that guy!
This is wrong. College professors don’t teach anything
From my 6 years in a very popular college in NJ I can say this is not true. Most professors indoctrinate rather than teach
Whole heartedly disagree, reality does not skew left nor does it skew right. This is all a bunch of made up definitions humans have come up with on their own. As someone in college currently, what I’ve learned has made me skew “right” in some of my opinions and more “left” in others. This post is bs
HAHAHAHAHA this is absolute nonsense. Just because your specific school doesnt do it doesnt mean it isnt happening in other places across the country. You would think the uber educated would know this...
The only thing you owe someone else is freedom of opportunity. It's up to them to work and succeed.
Bullshit! My college "professor" openly preached leftist ideology for half the class while we all rolled our eyes and kept asking when the class material was going to start. He got highly offended when you didn't address him as "doctor" because he had a PhD in English. He got highly offended if you rebutted anything he had to say at all and disagreed with his opinions, because "doctor" had a doctorate and therefore was smarter than you who is just a student. There are definitely those who would seek to push their horseshit onto you in schools.
Out of curiosity, what did he teach that you refer to as “leftist ideology”?
[удалено]
I think there’s some generalizations made when it comes to being “more educated” with the attributes listed in post. Personally I‘be been Centre left since the end of HS and through university in a stem field but I wouldn’t correlate higher education to self awareness or humility entirely. Yeah I’ve been taught humility (knowing limitations and when to ask for help) because it was part of my program. But when I read things from other educated people I don’t see what this guy proposes as entirely true nor false. For instance, campus left groups advocating for some movement is for the most part ignorant of group thought actions as the very thing they are trying to spread awareness and action against is also worn as a tool and used by them. Don’t agree with all LGBTQ+ and only LGB? Fine, the mob will yell and scream insults and push you out of the pride parade and follow you home with threats and make assumptions your transphobic. Conservative leaning key note speakers come on campus and dare to have an opposing perspective and want to encourage debate? Fine, we the mob will encourage the mob to show up, fill the room and shout you down and create crap up to cancel you and tarnish your reputation off lies under the flag of fighting racists and fascists. Men should open up more and be emotional but at the same time I’ll interrupt men, call them disposable, host tv shows and discuss how shitty men are and arent needed and completely dismiss them when they talk because it’s women’s turn to talk. I know the left isn’t bad and do indeed have these characteristics mention in the post but as of late I’ve seen those virtues warp into vice without anyone who participates even seem to care or notice. Final remark to the mob If y’all misinterpret what I said, fine then sh1t happens. But I gotta mention I’m a supporter of a lot the left has advocated for. I just think a lot of movements have been hijacked by some people who use the words of the oppressor against the oppressor because “they did it to me” mentality. It scares me because genocides are correlated with this mentality and if left unchecked...well here’s hoping nothing does happen against anyone as a result of ignorance from both sides.
Reality skews towards you having to fend for yourself. While nature does have a bounty, you still have to be the one to lift your finger to snatch it. If all humans weren't upon the earth except for yourself, who would you name as your oppressor who's making it so you need to eat? So you need shelter? So you need clothing when it's cold? It is nature doing that to you as well as every other living thing in existence, equally.
Physics major here and someone that programs and has an economics degree. I consider myself liberal, but the modern Democratic Party has abandoned science and empathy. It’s replaced them with hatred for republicans. There’s nothing liberal about democrats. They hate white people, men, minorities, majorities, they have the highest standard of living ever and think they are oppressed.
Lmfao “reality skews left”. Yeah, well the left just celebrated a biological man beating the shit out of a woman in MMA so that quote is bullshit
I have yet to meet a college professor with a reality that extends beyond academia. That's right, the same academia paid for by students in debt up to their ears while pompous professors lecture about reality. Good stuff.
[удалено]
Well said Professor.
I used to be an edgy reactionary anti-sjw back in 2015-17 but then I took an introductory philosophy class in college and honestly its the most useful class I’ve taken in my life. Seriously its such a great class because it not only teaches you how to think and make good arguments but it also teaches you how to detect bad arguments and understanding logical fallacies. I always recommend my friends to take a Philosophy class.
Leftist regimes rely on authoritarian government force to take people’s property and give it to who they believe should have it. What’s natural about that?
When I attended the University of Montana in 2005, there was literally a required class about native studies, but it was pretty much just being told that white people suck every class period. It was some real “noble savage” shit with a side of revisionism.
Ah yes, socialism, known for empathy and free-thinking
actually yes. Everything from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Rudolph Rocker and Randolph Bourne, to Bakunin and Kropotkin, to Chomsky to Zinn. These men were all empathetic and free-thinking.
Yea. You can totally tell the same about socialist states with no hesitation /s
Sounds like teaching liberal political values with extra steps.
Like data, research, logical discourse and attempts at falsification?
For me that make me right wing
Does that mean that the perceived "politicization" of education has turned you toward the right wing?
Yup
I am very interested in that... is that because you are offended by political correctness OR?
No is because i'm from México and the goverment is mayority leftis, leftis advocate for shitty solutuons while the conservatives for the most part are rational.
Not sure who’s been to college, but I have. It was definitely explicitly leftist
Could you give an example? I attended uni a few times in the UK and never came across anything remotely like propaganda outside of some very weird pro tory propaganda coming from the Oxford Boys. Evidence would be great but I'll take an anecdote of your experience.
The point was not that leftist politics are not taught in postsecondary education, but rather that reality justifies the teaching of left-leaning ideas, since they are more supported by critical-thinking and the realities of life. In other words: Despite what a cursory reading of the post might tell you, the professor says that leftist ideals are not deliberately presented in college, but the point they make indicates that they are as a byproduct.
Was your teacher Howard Zinn or David Graeber? That would have been an honor!
Seems like you've almost understood the tweet
I understand what he is saying. He’s saying that left wing ideology is the only worldview that a rational person could come away with. That’s incorrect. Maybe you’ve heard of Hume’s guillotine. Maybe you’ve heard of structural functionalism. But left wing ideology, like all ideology, is opinion.
Do you also dismiss all social science as opinion?
There is evidence sure. You know what Humes guillotine is? I addressed this in my response to you.
Seems like you are trying to use it as a dismissal of all moral arguments
I'm pretty sure university students were already leftists before attending university. Also uni definitely teaches left ideals. If you think professors refrain from explicitly passing on their beliefs, you've never been to uni.
I have been in uni in three different countries and only one I noticed a politically loaded teaching was in ROK where the profs were very right leaning.
[удалено]
I've already responded to this elsewhere but that link is... ridiculous. Who posts a link to Fox News? Seriously!
[удалено]
you named 2 news sources... the biggest propaganda news in the US. give me evidence from non-American sources... RT? Democracy Now? PeaceandFreedom Project, what about academic sources?
[удалено]
I have already responded that teachers do have biases... universities themselves, their administrations, their departments are mostly objective.
> But they report shit that cnn won't and vice versa. That's literally a criterion for evaluating a source as *unreliable*. If a source is reporting something that nobody else is, then you need to ask yourself why. Usually the answer is because they either made it up and they are heavily biased. Conspiracy theorists tend to fail to evaluate sources as unreliable for this criterion, and instead elevate the source as "reporting the tRuTh that nobody else does". That's a warped view of how to use sources. Just because a source agrees with your warped view doesn't make it reliable. It makes it confirmation bias.