Current Events > When did colleges and universities become liberal indoctrination centers?

(+) Yeah! (+)

averagejoel posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

"stupid" no; "harmful to already vulnerable people" yes

Define harmful and define vulnerable.

And explain how censoring conservatives doesn't then them into a marginalized minority also.

Mal_Fet posted...

It's quite simple: Education, Administration, Student Counseling, and Early Childhood majors are the lowest-IQ college majors.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

First, those majors have very little to do with professsors. Secondly, that link is so fucking flawed it's hilarious that you'd have the balls to post it.

Just a joke of a post.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

It's quite simple: Education, Administration, Student Counseling, and Early Childhood majors are the lowest-IQ college majors.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

So is it any wonder why leftists dominate these positions?

lol

I don't see any actual date. I see when it was collected but can't find any actual date.

I apologize but do you know where it is. My mobile phones not helping with the terrible format of that site.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Why doesn't someone make a moderate college or a conservative university, and get all the kids and professors who don't want politics in their learning?

Because it wouldn't make them enough money. Same thing when you ask those same people why they don't become teachers, when they spend all their time bitching about how teachers are overpaid and do very little work. You would think they would jump at the chance, but they turn around and say they wouldn't get paid enough if they were to teach.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.

It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.

If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.

I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.

Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?
---

Callixtus posted...

Yes, I do actually think it happens. Look at the link I posted.

I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.

"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

TradPaladin01 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.

It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.

If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.

I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.

Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?

Basically Antifa for the 60s and 70s, but more violent. You probably remember the scandal in 2008 about Obama's associatons with Bill Ayers.

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

Wait was that towards me or the guy below?

YOU

Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.

I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid shit to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.

If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid shit.

He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a fucking idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.
---

Capn Circus posted...

I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.

"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”

Sounds like someone who's never even actually ran any studies, nevermind submitted anything for peer review.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

"stupid" no; "harmful to already vulnerable people" yes

Define harmful and define vulnerable.

And explain how censoring conservatives doesn't then them into a marginalized minority also.

by "vulnerable" I mean marginalized groups. poor people, people of colour, women, LGBT+ people, disabled people, etc.

by "harmful" I mean that conservative policies disproportionately hurt those marginalized people.

as for your last demand, conservatives are not being censored - though they sometimes have a platform taken away. even if they were being harmed by others, that harm would be a reaction against their harmful ideology.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

TradPaladin01 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

The third one I actually agree with. I remember the case. That ones a stickler I'll definelty give you that. His points are extremely good but even he agrees it's an issue of both sides.

It would be like saying liberals are being weeded out and cite a few cases of harassment by pro-lifers or something.

If there were any former abortion clinic bombers with tenure, I would agree with you, because you can't say the same about the Weather Underground.

I'm not familiar with the Weather Underground. Never heard it before and just keep finding weather sites that pop up when I search it.

Can you sum it up for me if you don't mind?

Basically Antifa for the 60s and 70s, but more violent. You probably remember the scandal in 2008 about Obama's associatons with Bill Ayers.

I do. I know exactly what you're talking about now.

Thanks for the help.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

Wait was that towards me or the guy below?

YOU

Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.

I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid shit to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.

If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid shit.

He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a fucking idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.

First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.
---

COVxy posted...

Capn Circus posted...

I believe it does, too--and you're very correct. The following excerpt from the article you provided is very telling. People in power who hold an agenda will largely not publish dissenting studies or views, much in the same way the mainstream media has gatekeepers which will largely not stray from their own agenda in providing the "news" they want to provide to the masses.

"He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not."”

Sounds like someone who's never even actually ran any studies, nevermind submitted anything for peer review.

Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.
---

Callixtus posted...

Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.

I've heard a lot of students bullshit about their great ideas and how their gonna get into grad school with their 2.4 gpa. They express themselves with very similar sentiments.
---

averagejoel posted...

as for your last demand, conservatives are not being censored - though they sometimes have a platform taken away.

That's considered censorship.

averagejoel posted...

by "vulnerable" I mean marginalized groups. poor people, people of colour, women, LGBT+ people, disabled people, etc.

by "harmful" I mean that conservative policies disproportionately hurt those marginalized people.

See above. If someone no-platformed a member of one of the groups you mentioned, on the basis of their identity, you would try to get the government involved, on the basis of it being "discrimination". So how can you call for more discrimination against conservatives without turning them into a literal marginalized group?

You're probably just a Marxist who wants special rights for demographics who vote Democrat, but assuming you're not a total joke, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and explain how you're not hypocritical.

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

Wait was that towards me or the guy below?

YOU

Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.

I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid shit to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.

If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid shit.

He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a fucking idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.

First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.

1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

Wait was that towards me or the guy below?

YOU

Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.

I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid shit to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.

If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid shit.

He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a fucking idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.

First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.

1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with stating that certain cultural norms are superior to others. The fact that you reflexively think otherwise, shows just how much you have been led astray.

There are cultures that practice female genital mutilation, or force their women to dress completely covered from head to toe with little eye slits being their only bared flesh. Do you think those cultural norms are equal to your own or are yours superior?
---

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Sounds like someone who thinks their own anecdotal experience of possibly running studies or submitting something for peer review has anything to do with the general experience of conservative academics.

I've heard a lot of students bullshit about their great ideas and how their gonna get into grad school with their 2.4 gpa. They express themselves with very similar sentiments.

The student quoted was already in grad school. Furthermore,

"It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded"
---

Capn Circus posted...

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded"

With the assumption of a random distribution. Nonproportional representation is certainly not evidence of discriminstion.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

That's considered censorship.

do you also consider it censorship when someone gets fired from their job for being racist

TradPaladin01 posted...

See above. If someone no-platformed a member of one of the groups you mentioned, on the basis of their identity, you would try to get the government involved, on the basis of it being "discrimination". So how can you call for more discrimination against conservatives without turning them into a literal marginalized group?

because facing consequences for trying to harm marginalized groups is not the same thing as facing discrimination

You're probably just a Marxist who wants special rights for demographics who vote Democrat, but assuming you're not a total joke, try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and explain how you're not hypocritical.

what on earth does Marxism have to do with the Democratic Party in the US?
---

COVxy posted...

Capn Circus posted...

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded"

With the assumption of a random distribution. Nonproportional representation is certainly not evidence of discriminstion.

Except if it involves women, right?
---

Callixtus posted...

Except if it involves women, right?

I've never made that argument, sorry.
---

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Except if it involves women, right?

I've never made that argument, sorry.

So why do you think women are underrepresented in tech and engineering?
---

Callixtus posted...

So why do you think women are underrepresented in tech and engineering?

I think that some proportion of that is self selection, but given the relatively recent history of overt systemic biases, we have to keep an open mind observant for any systemic biases still in place, even if unintentional and covert.
---

averagejoel posted...

do you also consider it censorship when someone gets fired from their job for being racist

Yes.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Depriving someone of their livelihood because you don't like something they said is objectively a form of censorship, regardless of whether we assume it's justifiable or political correctness gone mad. You are applying restrictions on the free speech of your employees.

averagejoel posted...

because facing consequences for trying to harm marginalized groups is not the same thing as facing discrimination

You'll have to slow down and make real arguments before you throw in the buzzwords. How does me having a different opinion than you "harm marginalized groups"? And how are conservatives not themselves a marginalized group in universities? They're so marginalized that the threat of violence even exists, unlike with racial or sexual minorities on campuses.

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

So normal conservative beliefs are "stupid shit" now. Classy.

Wait was that towards me or the guy below?

YOU

Oh because of the Penn comment I see that now.

I mean, yes. In that instance it was very stupid shit to say. I say the same when some liberal goes off publicly too.

If you're going to make a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim and pretend it's fact just because you believe it you're saying stupid shit.

He didn't discuss his view. He stated it as the view that's needed. He's a fucking idiot and I have no sympathy for him getting let go.

First off, it was a woman. Second, she wasn't fired; just denounced by fellow professors. Third, nothing she stated was beyond the realm of reasonable debate.

1) my apologies. Too many stories to keep track of.
2) even better. She wasn't pushed out for her beliefs.
3) IIRC she estentially said anglo-protestant cultural norms are superior. That's not discussion dude. I'll concede I don't recall enough to say for certain but from what I remember she clearly wasn't having a debate. She was spouting off her beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with stating that certain cultural norms are superior to others. The fact that you reflexively think otherwise, shows just how much you have been led astray.

There are cultures that practice female genital mutilation, or force their women to dress completely covered from head to toe with little eye slits being their only bared flesh. Do you think those cultural norms are equal to your own or are yours superior?

@Callixtus I think there's other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.

She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.

She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.

Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?

We all implicitly believe this btw.
---

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.

She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.

Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?

We all implicitly believe this btw.

Nothing. Like I said.

Saying it in public is stupid as shit though and completely changes the conversation.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

Depriving someone of their livelihood because you don't like something they said is objectively a form of censorship, regardless of whether we assume it's justifiable or political correctness gone mad. You are applying restrictions on the free speech of your employees.

ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.

TradPaladin01 posted...

You'll have to slow down and make real arguments before you throw in the buzzwords. How does me having a different opinion than you "harm marginalized groups"? And how are conservatives not themselves a marginalized group in universities? They're so marginalized that the threat of violence even exists, unlike with racial or sexual minorities on campuses.

conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"

a "difference in opinion" is for people who listen to musical soundtracks in the car. not for people who try to take away poor peoples' healthcare
---

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

So why do you think women are underrepresented in tech and engineering?

I think that some proportion of that is self selection, but given the relatively recent history of overt systemic biases, we have to keep an open mind observant for any systemic biases still in place, even if unintentional and covert.

But there are no systemic biases against conservatives, despite the widespread reports and constant campus agitation against conservative thinkers, their vast underrepresentation, the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etc
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

@Callixtus I think there are other cultural norms than just the most extreme vs ours.

She didn't state that they were superior to others. She said they were superior to all others. You know that as well as I do so unless you're gonna address that you're being disingenuous breh.

Not at all. It's not beyond reasonable debate to believe that your own cultural values are superior to others. You have yet to explain why her belief in Anglo-Protestant cultural norms is unacceptable. She hasn't called for wiping out other cultures, and also doesn't believe in white supremacy. What's the problem with believing norms from your culture are better than others?

We all implicitly believe this btw.

Nothing. Like I said.

Saying it in public is stupid as shit though and completely changes the conversation.

The fact that saying it in public is regarded as beyond the pale is exactly why it needs to be said in public. She is a professor. Her job is to seek out the truth and to argue for it. Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.
---

Callixtus posted...

the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etc

The average there being around a 2/7, where 1 is not at all, where questions are ambiguous enough to suggest that the grant/paper might demonstrate conservative bias, in which case one should "discriminate" against, as research should be unbiased.

Not exactly stellar evidence of discrimination.
---

@Callixtus
Sorry too lazy to format the 7 quote cap on my phone.

In response:
Nah, like I said, the problem is they're unsubstantiated. She's not seeking out the truth, she's pretending she already found it.
---

Callixtus posted...

Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.

That's not at all what I said, but okay then.
---

The moment that conservatives started failing out in massive numbers?
---

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

the fact that liberal professors admit they would discriminate against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf), etc, etc

The average there being a 2/7, where 1 is not at all, where questions are ambiguous enough to suggest that the grant/paper might demonstrate conservative bias, in which case one should "discriminate" against, as research should be unbiased.

Not exactly stellar evidence of discrimination.

Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.

How many times have we all seen this?
---

I graduated from a college in Alabama and it was definitely a conservative indoctrination center.

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.

That's not at all what I said, but okay then.

Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.

Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".
---

averagejoel posted...

ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.

Thanks for admitting it.

averagejoel posted...

conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"

Literally is. If you think expressing conservative beliefs should magically be illegal because they're not real opinions, it backs up what I said earlier about you being a hard left Marxist.

Callixtus posted...

Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.

How many times have we all seen this?

Overly criticize? The metric of willingness to criticize is only approx. one standard deviation above the minimum, and you're using this as evidence that there's definite discrimination, despite the ambiguous wording?

No, seems like you're trying to over interpret evidence.
---

TradPaladin01 posted...

averagejoel posted...

ok, it's censorship. I guess that means that I'm pro-censorship. big whoop.

Thanks for admitting it.

averagejoel posted...

conservative policies are not just a matter of having "a different opinion"

Literally is. If you think expressing conservative beliefs should magically be illegal because they're not real opinions, it backs up what I said earlier about you being a hard left Marxist.

What is this.. a new ProudClad alt?
---

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Step 1 in the COVxy gameplan: Overly criticize all evidence that goes against COVxy's beliefs.

How many times have we all seen this?

Overly criticize? The metric of willingness to criticize is only approx. one standard deviation above the minimum, and you're using this as evidence that there's definite discrimination, despite the ambiguous wording?

No, seems like you're trying to over interpret evidence.

All wording is ambiguous if it supports COVxy's agenda.
---

Kineth posted...

What is this.. a new ProudClad alt?

I'm still not sure. seems less overt and volatile than ProudClad
---

What about me though.
---

Callixtus posted...

All wording is ambiguous if it supports COVxy's agenda.

...it's in the discussion section of the paper.
---

Callixtus posted...

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.

That's not at all what I said, but okay then.

Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.

Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".

@COVxy You gonna address this
---

Yeah, you clearly can't read if you think that my post is suggesting what you claimed.
---

Callixtus posted...

Callixtus posted...

COVxy posted...

Callixtus posted...

Now I know that, according to COVxy, since she is a conservative she must completely oppose seeking out the truth for the good of humanity, since only liberals do that, but at least liberals with their advanced knowledge should have no reason to reflexively shut down conversation since they can no doubt easily refute those beliefs.

That's not at all what I said, but okay then.

Academics are likely overwhelmingly liberal because the nature of the job, seeking information for the good of humanity, tends to self select for liberal ideals. Academic disciplines strive for change, to push knowledge further, and do so for very little monetary inventive. These two things are contrary to the primary tenants of conservative ideology.

Maybe it's me but it sounds like you just said that seeking information for the good of humanity is one of the two things that are contrary to the primary tenants of "conservative ideology".

@COVxy You gonna address this

You can't call someone else out about addressing something right after I call you out on addressing something...
---

COVxy posted...

Yeah, you clearly can't read if you think that my post is suggesting what you claimed.

Are the primary tenants of conservatism opposed to seeking information for the good or humanity or not?
---

No. Never said that. Read.
---