LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Cekoviu]

Um, what?? The vast majority of my professors in a state that Trump won by 20 points have been liberal or moderate.

Social science (with the exception of economics, for instance) and humanities professors are more likely to be liberal or moderate, as you say, than professors in the agricultural schools. However, overall, the popular stereotype of the leftist professor was, it seems to me, made by someone who was not an academic.

Well, I think the stereotype was mostly informed by sociologists and some other social sciences and humanities. But the vast majority of my professors, at least the ones who've expressed any sort of political views, were socially liberal at the least. Especially in biology.

[Cekoviu]

Every ideologue must come to terms with the fact that most people on their side will never be as rigorous as they are, regardless of what ideology they follow. But sure, you leftists are the exception; I am sure you will all be brilliant academic warriors fighting for The Party. =^)

That is rhetoric, not evidence, which is what I asked for.

Rhetoric = evidence, prove me wrong.

[Conserative Morality]

That is rhetoric, not evidence, which is what I asked for.

How many studies, do you think, have been done on the matter of how many self-professed Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or Leftists fully understand the material they champion?

You know, for someone who claims that academia is not filled with leftists, you don't seem to comprehend how fringe and irrelevant you lot are. Academia doesn't generally focus on the fringe and irrelevant.

[Geneviev]

UCLA. Every UC. Mostly UCLA.

Also, UC absolutely represents most of American academia.

Um. Actually, it doesn't.

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

[Torrocca]

Um. Actually, it doesn't.

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

Unless they go to the TP USA booths strategically placed around college campuses first.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Well, I think the stereotype was mostly informed by sociologists and some other social sciences and humanities. But the vast majority of my professors, at least the ones who've expressed any sort of political views, were socially liberal at the least. Especially in biology.

I am basing what I wrote on survey data, not on anecdotal reports.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Rhetoric = evidence, prove me wrong.

Huh? You actually believe that empirical evidence is rhetoric?

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

How many studies, do you think, have been done on the matter of how many self-professed Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or Leftists fully understand the material they champion?

You know, for someone who claims that academia is not filled with leftists, you don't seem to comprehend how fringe and irrelevant you lot are. Academia doesn't generally focus on the fringe and irrelevant.

Now, you are changing the subject to your view that academics are irrelevant. When all else fails ...

[Proctopeo]

Um, what?? The vast majority of my professors in a state that Trump won by 20 points have been liberal or moderate.

Social science (with the exception of economics, for instance) and humanities professors are more likely to be liberal or moderate, as you say, than professors in the agricultural schools. However, overall, the popular stereotype of the leftist professor was, it seems to me, made by someone who was not an academic.

Yeah, not really.
Though this is less "professors are reds" and more "few professors are conservative", the point stands.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

Getting a higher education tends to make people tolerant, less traditional, and more open other views. I would interpret that as liberal or progressive, not necessarily leftist (though leftists should also be tolerant, critical of traditions, and open to other views).

[Conserative Morality]

How many studies, do you think, have been done on the matter of how many self-professed Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or Leftists fully understand the material they champion?

You know, for someone who claims that academia is not filled with leftists, you don't seem to comprehend how fringe and irrelevant you lot are. Academia doesn't generally focus on the fringe and irrelevant.

Now, you are changing the subject to your view that academics are irrelevant. When all else fails ...

Oh? Where did I say academics were irrelevant? I thought you lot weren't all Marxists and leftists? Funny how quickly your views change when it becomes convenient to your argument. =^)

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Oh? Where did I say academics were irrelevant? I thought you lot weren't all Marxists and leftists? Funny how quickly your views change when it becomes convenient to your argument. =^)

Here is what you wrote:

You know, for someone who claims that academia is not filled with leftists, you don't seem to comprehend how fringe and irrelevant you lot are. Academia doesn't generally focus on the fringe and irrelevant.

I interpreted "you lot" as academics. If you meant leftists, then you are correct.

[Geneviev]

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

Getting a higher education tends to make people tolerant, less traditional, and more open other views. I would interpret that as liberal or progressive, not necessarily leftist (though leftists should also be tolerant, critical of traditions, and open to other views).

Tolerant, less traditional, open to other views, and despising the free market.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh? Where did I say academics were irrelevant? I thought you lot weren't all Marxists and leftists? Funny how quickly your views change when it becomes convenient to your argument. =^)

Because that is what you wrote:

You know, for someone who claims that academia is not filled with leftists, you don't seem to comprehend how fringe and irrelevant you lot are. Academia doesn't generally focus on the fringe and irrelevant.

Yes, I would think that a college professor would be able to parse simple English sentences. I suppose I was wrong, and standards have declined since I was in college. A shame, really.

[Ostroeuropa]

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

Getting a higher education tends to make people tolerant, less traditional, and more open other views. I would interpret that as liberal or progressive, not necessarily leftist (though leftists should also be tolerant, critical of traditions, and open to other views).

Tolerant of other views is lol. There's studies showing the left wing tend to block and isolate themselves from opposing views more than conservatives do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d81dc74ab0

The left place themselves in echo chambers socially and in their browsing choices.
The right don't, they just don't properly engage with information when presented to them.

[Cekoviu]

Social science (with the exception of economics, for instance) and humanities professors are more likely to be liberal or moderate, as you say, than professors in the agricultural schools. However, overall, the popular stereotype of the leftist professor was, it seems to me, made by someone who was not an academic.

Yeah, not really.
Though this is less "professors are reds" and more "few professors are conservative", the point stands.

Maybe it's because conservatism doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. =^)

It does now.

Seriously, though, college makes people leftists.

Unless they go to the TP USA booths strategically placed around college campuses first.

I'm thinking of collaborating with my campus's DSA to set up booths right next to TPUSA's whenever they think of putting one up.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Yes, I would think that a college professor would be able to parse simple English sentences. I suppose I was wrong, and standards have declined since I was in college. A shame, really.

I immediately edited that statement to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are quoting my first draft.

[Cekoviu]

Rhetoric = evidence, prove me wrong.

Huh? You actually believe that empirical evidence is rhetoric?

Not necessarily, but I'm interested in your rationale for believing rhetoric can't be evidence.

[Ostroeuropa]

Huh? You actually believe that empirical evidence is rhetoric?

Not necessarily, but I'm interested in your rationale for believing rhetoric can't be evidence.

Depends, evidence of what?
If someones rhetoric is routinely skirting around anti-semitism, or lightly dabbling in it, then regardless of their stated positions, if they refuse to change their approach when it's pointed out to them what their rhetoric implies and so on, it's evidence of anti-semitism, as an example.

[Torrocca]

Yeah, not really.
Though this is less "professors are reds" and more "few professors are conservative", the point stands.

Maybe it's because conservatism doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. =^)

Unless they go to the TP USA booths strategically placed around college campuses first.

I'm thinking of collaborating with my campus's DSA to set up booths right next to TPUSA's whenever they think of putting one up.

Niiiceee. Set it up with a mini-bakery and s h a r e t h e b r e a d

The left place themselves in echo chambers socially and in their browsing choices.
The right don't, they just don't properly engage with information when presented to them.

lolwut

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe it's because conservatism doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. =^)
I'm thinking of collaborating with my campus's DSA to set up booths right next to TPUSA's whenever they think of putting one up.

Niiiceee. Set it up with a mini-bakery and s h a r e t h e b r e a d

The left place themselves in echo chambers socially and in their browsing choices.
The right don't, they just don't properly engage with information when presented to them.

lolwut

It's been studied mate. Do we have to go through this fucking again with you? Because no, go do your own research, i'm bored of walking you through things and you being so hostile the whole time to learning anything that goes against your preconceived ideas while acting so incredulous, and then not even admitting you've been proven wrong. If someone else asks for a source i'll give it to them.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Not necessarily, but I'm interested in your rationale for believing rhetoric can't be evidence.

Evidence is based on empirical observation. Rhetoric is a branch of linguistics. They are unrelated.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not necessarily, but I'm interested in your rationale for believing rhetoric can't be evidence.

Evidence is based on empirical observation. Rhetoric is a branch of linguistics. They are unrelated.

Disagree. Rhetoric is evidence of motivations on behalf of the speaker. One could even argue that's part of the point of rhetoric, to communicate that information.

[Torrocca]

Niiiceee. Set it up with a mini-bakery and s h a r e t h e b r e a d



lolwut

It's been studied mate. Do we have to go through this fucking again with you? Because no, go do your own research, i'm bored of walking you through things and you being so hostile the whole time to learning anything that goes against your preconceived ideas while acting so incredulous, and then not even admitting you've been proven wrong. If someone else asks for a source i'll give it to them.

I guess places like Stormfront, Breitbart, Infowars, etc. aren't echo chambers then lmao

[Ostroeuropa]

It's been studied mate. Do we have to go through this fucking again with you? Because no, go do your own research, i'm bored of walking you through things and you being so hostile the whole time to learning anything that goes against your preconceived ideas while acting so incredulous, and then not even admitting you've been proven wrong. If someone else asks for a source i'll give it to them.

I guess places like Stormfront, Breitbart, Infowars, etc. aren't echo chambers then lmao

You seem to think those people only view those sites. Any evidence for that? Or is this you, once again, jumping to conclusions on your own not supported in the original assertion and pretending that's your opponents argument? That right there? That's why i'm sick of walking you through things. Learn to understand how claims work before contesting them, or it's totally pointless to engage with you. Learn the boundaries of a claim and what SPECIFICALLY is being asserted. If you are lazy with your words, that does not mean everyone else is.

Conservatives routinely complain about liberal media because they're watching it.

I've seen nobody who accepts the daily mail here out of hand reject the guardian or left-leaning papers, but rejecting right wing papers a priori without investigating their claims is routine among the left, etc.

Know what? Fuck it. I'm just going to mirror your own traits in responses to you until you get it.