|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 22 2017 06:34 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 06:18 RvB wrote:
Liberalism is for the maximum amount of freedom without coercing others. Slavery is a clear example of a person coercing the slave to do his/her will. Capitalism doesn't just throw human rights out of the window. Foxconn is a prime example for humans throwing themselves out of the window thanks to capitalism. You can easily add several factory desaster and unhuman working conditions in Asia and India and probably all ovder the world to that. Am I not reading your sarcasm?
Did you even read what I responded to? The initial statement was that capitalism is fine with slavery and I tried to clarity that it's not.
As to your point that it's due to capitalism, those countries have had poor (and worse) working conditions for decades. The living standards in India and China were much worse when they were closed off. If anything capitalism (and the wealth that comes with it) has improved standards. Especially China isn't even a real capitalist country so it's an incredibly poor example . You also seem to think that a capitalist society would mean some lawless society where employers can abuse employees to their liking. That's not the case. There can still be laws regarding safety, working conditions etc.
On April 22 2017 18:25 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 18:21 warding wrote:
What Biff was arguing is a caricature/strawman of the right, not the actual right. Hence why we're talking about different things. My point is that the majority of people on the right aren't represented by that caricature and I'm not even sure that the majority of the republican party is - it might be that the evangelicals are the most vocal when it comes to those issues.
EDIT: Hayek was not a conservative. Also, not everyone on the right is conservative - ie. libertarians. In America, Hayek is most seen and understood and taught as a conservative. I do not really see him as one and associate him with the liberal tradition most of the time, but the point I was making is that people can have views that are associated with conservative or libertarian ideas while still being respected.
If you're interested you can read the last chapter ('Why I am not a conservative') in Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty where he explains, as the name already tells you, why he's not a conservative.
The Adam Smith Institute has a paper called 'Lackademia: Why do academics lean left?' if anyone is interested.
Here are some of its conclusions
Individuals with left-wing and liberal views are overrepresented in British academia. Those with right-wing and conservative views are correspondingly underrepresented. Around 50% of the general public supports right-wing or conservative parties, compared to less than 12% of academics. Conservative and right-wing academics are particularly scarce in the social sciences, the humanities and the arts.
Though relatively little information is available, evidence suggests that the overrepresentation of left-liberal views has increased since the 1960s. The proportion of academics who support the Conservatives may have declined by as much as 25 percentage points since 1964.
The left-liberal skew of British academia cannot be primarily explained by intelligence. The distribution of party support within the top 5% of IQ is relatively similar to the distribution of party support within the general population.
The left-liberal skew may be partly explained by openness to experience; individuals who score highly on that personality trait tend to pursue intellectually stimulating careers like academia. And within the top 5% of IQ, openness to experience predicts support for left-wing parties.
Other plausible explanations for left-liberal overrepresentation include: social homophily and political typing; individual conformity; status inconsistency; and discrimination.
Ideological homogeneity within the academy may have had a number of adverse consequences: systematic biases in scholarship; curtailments of free speech on university campuses; and defunding of academic research by right-wing governments.
https://www.adamsmith.org/research/lackademia-why-do-academics-lean-left
|
Not only is Hayek's reasoning itself suspect, the notion that an individual is the primary authority on characterizations of their political inclination really doesn't stand up to the long history of language games played by pretty much everyone involved in politics or related theory. For example, Ayn Rand denied the conservative label and instead claimed that she was a "radical for Capitalism." Yeah right lol. Hayek can reflect on himself as he chooses, that won't change the fact that his "return to things we can know" framework of economic criticism belongs much more with those on the right than the left, and his contemporary popularity doesn't really suggest otherwise.
|
On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:24 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Communism is still being debated in universities? I assume you mean outside of history lessons and as a valid political ideology? I would like some evidence to that happening, because i don't actually think that is happening.
People see the communism comment as a smear of leftists in general because they don't believe you actually mean that literal communism is being debated as a good idea in modern universities.
You always feel like everyone is censoring and prosecuting you unfairly. You also constantly complain about being lumped together with people you don't feel belong to your group. Meanwhile everyone who is not as rightwing as you are a homogenous group of "the leftists", and when any one of those people does or says something, that is obviously something that all the other "leftists" also believe, because all leftists are only one person. http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc.
That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States.
Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in contemporary conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove.
The left has a work to do to figure out why we lost workers and working class. And we reflect on it quite seriously. The right should do the same with academics and intellectuals. If universities are universally hostile to your ideas, maybe the ideas and not the universities themselves that have a flaw somewhere.
For your second point, being on the left is not in my views about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am not that scared of muslims, islam or immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i don't see any disaster incoming.
It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. The right has a lot of valid points to make. But not with this populist, xenophobic post-factual, anti intellectual clowntown shitshow that Trump, Farage or Le Pen with their Milos and Bannons are presenting at the moment. Get rid of those and we can start discussing again, including in the universities.
|
On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:24 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 00:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Now what I'm trying to get a handle on is people like Mohdoo that float to good-faith argument regularly. "Universities *are* open" arguments evolve to "ideas ... have already been gone over" and "Archaic ideas perpetuated by the right had their place at one point. Then we moved forward." If he truly believes universities are open, the rest of that paragraph would be non-sequitur. Who cares which person declares we've moved in another direction if they're open for them to be brought up again? If it's relevant, that's because he supports and is happy that universities are closed to certain ideas that we've left behind as we "moved forward." It's entirely dishonest and highly delusional.
Next comes the bob and weave more typical from other kinds of posters. He says certain right-wing beliefs have been abandoned, yet can't see the relevance of communism still being debated. He can only see that as a smear of leftists. Is this a true act of misunderstanding or pretense? He says that nobody defends wanting to shut down right-wing speakers, but current events show the trend of one speaker after another being shut down, not the reverse trend of a movement lacking defenders petering out. Communism is still being debated in universities? I assume you mean outside of history lessons and as a valid political ideology? I would like some evidence to that happening, because i don't actually think that is happening. People see the communism comment as a smear of leftists in general because they don't believe you actually mean that literal communism is being debated as a good idea in modern universities. You always feel like everyone is censoring and prosecuting you unfairly. You also constantly complain about being lumped together with people you don't feel belong to your group. Meanwhile everyone who is not as rightwing as you are a homogenous group of "the leftists", and when any one of those people does or says something, that is obviously something that all the other "leftists" also believe, because all leftists are only one person. http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid.
It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like "gender is a social construct", "patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway.
|
On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:24 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Communism is still being debated in universities? I assume you mean outside of history lessons and as a valid political ideology? I would like some evidence to that happening, because i don't actually think that is happening.
People see the communism comment as a smear of leftists in general because they don't believe you actually mean that literal communism is being debated as a good idea in modern universities.
You always feel like everyone is censoring and prosecuting you unfairly. You also constantly complain about being lumped together with people you don't feel belong to your group. Meanwhile everyone who is not as rightwing as you are a homogenous group of "the leftists", and when any one of those people does or says something, that is obviously something that all the other "leftists" also believe, because all leftists are only one person. http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway.
Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science?
|
On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:[quote] http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me.
Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions.
I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason.
|
On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:24 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Communism is still being debated in universities? I assume you mean outside of history lessons and as a valid political ideology? I would like some evidence to that happening, because i don't actually think that is happening.
People see the communism comment as a smear of leftists in general because they don't believe you actually mean that literal communism is being debated as a good idea in modern universities.
You always feel like everyone is censoring and prosecuting you unfairly. You also constantly complain about being lumped together with people you don't feel belong to your group. Meanwhile everyone who is not as rightwing as you are a homogenous group of "the leftists", and when any one of those people does or says something, that is obviously something that all the other "leftists" also believe, because all leftists are only one person. http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like "gender is a social construct", "patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway.
funny how in your attempt to give anti-scientific examples you list a bunch of social stuff that has nothing to do with science...
please provide the scientific proof that women have not been oppressed throughout human history, what makes a human a human, how the ability of animals to change gender based on their situation changes our perception of how rigid gender actually is and in what way is communism actually accepted by the left? No one here is advocating strait up communism.
|
On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
How many people are actually in that society, though?
When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason.
I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo
|
On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo
It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants.
|
On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:
[quote]
That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants.
please explain to me this obvious direct result.
You know, like I asked...
|
On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:
[quote]
That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants.
Yup, not enough of them die in the Mediterranean. Some survive, the incentive is still too strong!
|
On April 22 2017 23:06 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants. Yup, not enough of them die in the Mediterranean. Some survive, the incentive is still too strong!
That is also a direct result of your failure to discourage them... If they knew that there was no chance of being rehomed in Europe, they wouldn't risk the journey. By the way, I'm not sure if you know how this works but this is what they do: they go into the sea - not far from the Libyan coast - and then they intentionally sink themselves as soon as they see an international vessel. You're being used.
|
On April 22 2017 22:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:[quote] http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science?
Because gender identity is heavily rooted in sexual dimorphism, as proven by numerous studies that actually hold up to scientific scrutiny. E.g. other primates, like humans, exhibit a propensity to prefer different types of toys depending on their gender/sex.
"Patriarchy is oppressing women" is pure conjecture, based on misinformation like "wage gap".
Communism is not merely a political ideology. It is also a branch of political economy, founded on the concept of labor theory of value, which is at odds with reality. As pointed out by Alfred Marshall, "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory ... is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed."
|
On April 22 2017 23:09 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:06 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country.
I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants. Yup, not enough of them die in the Mediterranean. Some survive, the incentive is still too strong! That is also a direct result of your failure to discourage them... If they knew that there was no chance of being rehomed in Europe, they wouldn't risk the journey. By the way, I'm not sure if you know how this works but this is what they do: they go into the sea - not far from the Libyan coast - and then they intentionally sink themselves as soon as they see an international vessel. You're being used.
No changing the subject, you said we encouraged slave trade.
Please explain how our willingness to accept Immigrants lead to Libyan slave trade.
|
On April 22 2017 23:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:09 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 23:06 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants. Yup, not enough of them die in the Mediterranean. Some survive, the incentive is still too strong! That is also a direct result of your failure to discourage them... If they knew that there was no chance of being rehomed in Europe, they wouldn't risk the journey. By the way, I'm not sure if you know how this works but this is what they do: they go into the sea - not far from the Libyan coast - and then they intentionally sink themselves as soon as they see an international vessel. You're being used. No changing the subject, you said we encouraged slave trade. Please explain how our willingness to accept Immigrants lead to Libyan slave trade.
They are trading in migrants who are only there because they are trying to get to Europe, and they are only still trying this because you are still allowing them to. It's really not complicated.
|
Relating humans to other primates in service of establishing that there is a scientific basis for excluding collective recognition of non-traditional gender identities entirely misunderstands what science is and what it can tell us lol.
|
On April 22 2017 23:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
How many people are actually in that society, though?
When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science? Because gender identity is heavily rooted in sexual dimorphism, as proven by numerous studies that actually hold up to scientific scrutiny. E.g. other primates, like humans, exhibit a propensity to prefer different types of toys depending on their gender/sex. "Patriarchy is oppressing women" is pure conjecture, based on misinformation like "wage gap". Communism is not merely a political ideology. It is also a branch of political economy, founded on the concept of labor theory of value, which is at odds with reality. As pointed out by Alfred Marshall, "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory ... is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed."
1) But that means its linked to the brain and not the body (since the body does not choose a toy). So you can have someone with a female brain inside a male body. And boom gender based on physical characteristics becomes a social construct.
2) Be sure to mention 'wage gap' when asking any historian if women have been oppressed at some point in history.
3) And where are all these lefties advocating for communist economies?
|
On April 22 2017 22:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:[quote] http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science?
To the extent economics is a science, communism goes against basic knowledge produced in that field - individuals respond to incentoves, the tragedy of the commons, the failures in organizing production and society at large without markets and the price mechanism, etc. Take it from Keynes: "How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? "
To answer Gorsameth about where the commie leftists are: in some Portuguese humanities and economics faculties. Can only speak for pt.
|
On April 22 2017 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 22:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science? Because gender identity is heavily rooted in sexual dimorphism, as proven by numerous studies that actually hold up to scientific scrutiny. E.g. other primates, like humans, exhibit a propensity to prefer different types of toys depending on their gender/sex. "Patriarchy is oppressing women" is pure conjecture, based on misinformation like "wage gap". Communism is not merely a political ideology. It is also a branch of political economy, founded on the concept of labor theory of value, which is at odds with reality. As pointed out by Alfred Marshall, "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory ... is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed." 1) But that means its linked to the brain and not the body (since the body does not choose a toy). So you can have someone with a female brain inside a male body. And boom gender based on physical characteristics becomes a social construct. 2) Be sure to mention 'wage gap' when asking any historian if women have been oppressed at some point in history. 3) And where are all these lefties advocating for communist economies?
The brain is part of the body... It is physiological. I'm not interested in this discussion, but that point needs to be made because people keep misunderstanding this. Dimorphism in the brain is the result of exposure to the same hormones as dimorphism in the rest of the body, by and large. Even people who do not identify with their biological sex have many of the behavioural characteristics you would expect from that sex. It is probably a much more localised issue than having a 'male brain' or 'female brain'.
|
On April 22 2017 20:51 farvacola wrote:
Not only is Hayek's reasoning itself suspect, the notion that an individual is the primary authority on characterizations of their political inclination really doesn't stand up to the long history of language games played by pretty much everyone involved in politics or related theory. For example, Ayn Rand denied the conservative label and instead claimed that she was a "radical for Capitalism." Yeah right lol. Hayek can reflect on himself as he chooses, that won't change the fact that his "return to things we can know" framework of economic criticism belongs much more with those on the right than the left, and his contemporary popularity doesn't really suggest otherwise.
I wasn't really trying to make a point mate I just linked it if someone is interested. He actually considers himself an old whig iirc which is pretty surprising.
The last part of what you're saying is true. He's a right winger. But being right wing doesn't automatically make you a conservative. Classical liberalism is considered right wing but is quite different from convervatism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
