Tony_Tarantula on 17/7/2015 at 14:38
Also Blackjack I'm not sure if you've come across this article yet or not. The posting in question is one from a long tie professor who has talked about his problems with the stifling of ideas on college campuses titled "
I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me"
Headline blurb for your benefit:
Quote:
I'm a professor at a midsize state school. I have been teaching college classes for nine years now. I have won (minor) teaching awards, studied pedagogy extensively, and almost always score highly on my student evaluations. I am not a world-class teacher by any means, but I am conscientious; I attempt to put teaching ahead of research, and I take a healthy emotional stake in the well-being and growth of my students.
Things have changed since I started teaching. The vibe is different. I wish there were a less blunt way to put this, but my students sometimes scare me — particularly the liberal ones.
Not, like, in a person-by-person sense, but students in general. The student-teacher dynamic has been reenvisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best.
Here's my personal favorite quote. The guy sums exactly what's wrong with modern, feel good leftism and why it's incapable of producing positive change the way great leaders like Malcom X did.
Quote:
dolph Reed Jr. calls a politics of personal testimony, in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means through which social issues are understood and discussed. Reed derides this sort of political approach as essentially being a non-politics, a discourse that "is focused much more on taxonomy than politics [which] emphasizes the names by which we should call some strains of inequality [ ... ] over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them."
Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, usually through semantics and empty gestures, than with actually working to effect change.(
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid)
Yakoob on 17/7/2015 at 23:06
Tony, just an honest question because you seem to be doing it a lot - why do you always quote other people when trying to make a point? Why not just say it yourself? In the end, it's reading the words of a stranger on the Internet both ways.
bjack on 17/7/2015 at 23:48
There is also "modern 'feel good' rightism" present in the world. Leftists do not hold a monopoly on ridged thinking. Not by a long shot. Hang out on Facebook for a while and see. Invite your buds. Some will be extreme libs, some moderate, and some holy rollers. I still tolerate them all, as I hope they do me. If we didn't, things would get exceptionally ugly fast. What I believe makes me more free thinking, at lead somewhat, is that I will read their posts and try to see their point. I find about 50% truth in everything. Ok, a cop out… just making a point. I find a lot of truth in people's views, but a lot of absolute bull shit too. Far too many cling onto the canard that if the majority feels something is true, it is in all cases. In many cases it may be, but in some it is not at all. I'll use the old chestnut, "Hitler had consensus…" The majority is not always right and never has the absolute right to silence the minority, no matter how ridiculous the minority may sound.
I have a terrible time with that last sentence. I really try my best not to violate it, reminding myself that I must not try to silence fools, for I may be the fool. :cheeky:
Tony_Tarantula on 22/7/2015 at 00:57
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Tony, just an honest question because you seem to be doing it a lot - why do you always quote other people when trying to make a point? Why not just say it yourself? In the end, it's reading the words of a stranger on the Internet both ways.
Because if I quote an avowed liberal, they're a credentialed "good person" and/or "smart person" and people are more likely to listen.
Point 1A is that point 1 display with the whole Trump/McCain fiasco going on in the US right now. Multiple Democrats have said the same thing about McCain that Trump said, and nobody cared. An evil Republican said it and a shitstorm ensued.
Related:
Inline Image:
http://t1.livememe.com/30r1zy_4.jpgYakoob, I know you personally are more rational on that but there's a number of past and present users on here who genuinely do believe that just because someone they don't like make a point that discredits the point itself.
Quoting from leftist sources the more likely they are to respond to the information itself. The more radical the better, hence why I cite huffpost, Young Turks, Salon, et al frequently.
Secondly there's a big difference between an internet pundit and people who are credentialed and know what they're talking about on a relevant topic. The concept of "expert knowledge" shouldn't be a foreign concept. We've had a lot of talk about the current state of the education system on here. A current liberal arts professor would know a lot more about the current state of affairs than any current posters here.
Finally if I post it as quotes then I don't have to deal with people saying "citation needed". This admittedly does get a little bit more difficult when I'm dealing with information that you simply can't find without going through a paywall.
Renzatic on 22/7/2015 at 02:01
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Quoting from leftist sources the more likely they are to respond to the information itself. The more radical the better, hence why I cite huffpost, Young Turks, Salon, et al frequently.
It scares me to think that sites that lean more towards center left are considered radical these days. As a country, we've drifted so far over to the right that the middle looks extreme to some people.
bjack on 23/7/2015 at 00:34
Tony, you cannot convince anyone on the left that your opinions or facts are correct. They are lock step in religious leftism. The same can be said of the extreme right though.
Renzatic, I am curious how you come up with "we have drifted so far to the right?" From my perspective, since Bush 1 took office in '89, things have become much more socialist. All Bushes are RINOs. If we are so "right", why is harvesting aborted fetal tissue for $$$ bids considered OK by the morally bankrupt leftest majority? And why was it OK in the '70s for "sting" operations to expose corporations for malfeasance (a la "60 Minutes" with Dan Rather) , but not PPH?
Center left today is EXTREME left 20 years ago. What you may call extreme right, was considered moderate then too. Whatever. I have zero faith in democracy anyway. Just look at the crying babies in Greece. "Oh, our credit card is maxed out! MOMMIE!!!!!!! GIVE US MORE!!!!!!" We are doomed.
Have a great day and night everyone! :cheeky:
Renzatic on 23/7/2015 at 01:01
Quote Posted by bjack
...If we are so "right", why is harvesting aborted fetal tissue for $$$ bids considered OK by the morally bankrupt leftest majority?
Because I see people say shit like this on the internet more often than not. Maybe it isn't an issue of left vs. right. Maybe it's the fact people are more shrill and stupid. Completely unwilling to spend 5 goddamn minutes verifying something through multiple sources because they're so anxious to point fingers while they saddle up the morality high horse.
I'd say more, but damn I'm tired.
faetal on 23/7/2015 at 13:49
It's kind of cute when people sum up the entire spectrum of political thought is a degree of the attributes left and right. When people start inserting those words as lazy placeholders for in depth examination of something complex, I usually switch off. I believe Noam Chomsky was correct when he said the following:
Inline Image:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/3a/7e/843a7e5a914e5b01c3e9c03ebc6e0d8d.jpgChimpy Chompy on 24/7/2015 at 11:01
Just speaking as an outsider, american politics basically looks like a choice between rather centrist, and very right wing (a variant on the latter being libertarian wackiness).
[edit]there is that Sanders guy who seems leftier than usual, but I dunno if he has realistic chances of the democrat nomination?
demagogue on 24/7/2015 at 12:10
Not a good idea to want a president that isn't in control of their own party, or even in its good graces for that matter. Since you can guarantee no cross-aisle support, you can't afford to have to fight for your own party's votes. Sanders has been fringe since way before being fringe was a thing.
But whatever. People seem to think politics has nothing to do with politics anymore, and then I guess will be shocked to see Hillary get the nomination and wonder why.
I mean you have to give the demographic case for him. The whole thing is scientific. They brand candidates by demographics and districts like McDonald's menus, and I don't see how Sanders' brand hits any numbers.
Edit. I'd say Democrats are a right-of-center party by European standards. Republicans aren't thinking rationally as a party that wants to win, whatever they think they are, but apparently they're still reeling by their own little insurgency that insists on an outsider which, as just stated, is like trying to play politics without politics.
