Communist Manifesto has been popular in universities as long as I can remember. Look at the culture of academia: there’s a hierarchy and yet it encourages a kind of flat social hierarchy of intellect: the students are capable of what the professors are. They all share, eating in the same cafeterias, having the same kinds of bedrooms. The university environment is the utopian socialism for the students because they don’t usually have to worry about money all that much. So it’s not really new to millennial left. I didn’t read it in college but all of my friends did and they talked about it a lot. I didn’t see the excitement myself but that’s because we had money struggles; my fellow students who got into it didn’t have to think about money all that much so it was easy for them to believe. I couldn’t. although I wanted to.

Communist Manifesto has been popular in universities as long as I can remember. Look at the culture of academia: there’s a hierarchy and yet it encourages a kind of flat social hierarchy of intellect: the students are capable of what the professors are. They all share, eating in the same cafeterias, having the same kinds of bedrooms.

The university environment is the utopian socialism for the students because they don’t usually have to worry about money all that much.

So it’s not really new to millennial left. I didn’t read it in college but all of my friends did and they talked about it a lot. I didn’t see the excitement myself but that’s because we had money struggles; my fellow students who got into it didn’t have to think about money all that much so it was easy for them to believe. I couldn’t. although I wanted to.

===

The thing about systems that are perfect on paper, whether it be the “Rational Man” of the Market, or the Utopian Socialism is that :

a) They each have good points to be made and are worth implementing
b) They’re impossible in a pure form because humans aren’t rational.

===

I never met a conservative professor nor heard of one except in movies. They were always “the bad professor”.

I went to a liberal college in 1990/91 and all professors were liberal. 100%. I went to some community college stuff and they were all liberal.

I didn’t think there *was* such a thing as a conservative professor.

====

(I did college twice, once where I stayed there (1.5 yrs) and a few times at a different local college (much cheaper) years later).

===

Naveed, the American Military started PC culture in the 1970s. It spread to government institutions in the 1980s and to Universities.

But wait: listen to what you ust said: “anecdotes aren’t the best gauge”
Then you said “Conservative professors are coming out of the woodwork”.

What are they sharing “out the woodwork”?

ANECDOTES.

===

What makes the “Conservative Professor”‘s anecdote more valid to you than anybody elses?

===

You’re repeating right-wing nonsense propaganda.

====

I know there’s at least one trouble-making professor who is making it up. I’d have to look him up but he made a big stink about being “not allowed” to teach a course anymore about a particular painter in a particular way so he quit but made it sound like he was censored.

Yet if you look into his background, he’s not a very well liked professor by his students and frankly, just does not sound very good at his job.

But he has a big mouth.

===

You’re deeply invested in this issue apparently. This does not make me “out of touch”. I’m aware of past and current. But you’re invested heavily into a singular point of view which removes your objectivity.

===

You gladly share what amounts to a small collection of anecdotes that you’ve heard 2nd and 3rd hand yet reject someone talking directly to you without even a second thought.

===

I know both of the names you’re talking about, both stories. No I’m not referring to either of those people.

You’re deep into it Naveed so you have more of the details.

For you to say “You have absolutely no idea what’s going on” is quite rude.

===

I know the STUDENTS are complaining. They rally around a few noisy professors.

The conservative students have been complaining and getting louder about it for a long time and now it’s reaching a crisis point.

===

The crisis isn’t with the professors. It’s with the student body’s politics changing against the established liberal university bias.

===

There’s simply not that many. And please, enough with the name calling, “You’re a much older man” shit – and then “I sound like a white supremicist” etc.

It’s really irrational of you to go on and on like that. Stick to the facts instead of resorting to childish insults.

===

FACTUALLY, only a few conservative professors came out. Those FEW may or may not represent more. They may be the only ones.

But FACTUALLY, there _ARE_ a lot of conservative students in the student bodies that have a LEGITIMATE complaint about the politics of University.

Get it straight.

===

Quit painting me as an enemy.

====

Those are anecdotes shared without names. We don’t know if they’re true or not.

Maye they’re true. Maybe they’re fictional to trump up a weak case. We don’t know. Facts, Naveed.

====

It’s not bizarre. They have a political agenda they are pursuing. A common tactic in political agendas (people who want to prove a point) is to come up with anecdotes and stories.

It’s a well known, well worn path in rhetoric. They all use it, no matter what points they’re trying to prove to masses of people.

====

Chasing ghosts gets you no place.

====

a) I’m not denying there’s a problem. You weren’t reading what I was writing above. I acknowledged the problem several times.

Read what I write, please.

b) I don’t know if they’re imagining or not. I’m not in their brains but I know common patterns.

c) Statistically impossible is inventing facts out of thin air.

Also “they’re scientists and respected” is appealing to authority. You can do that if you like, but it weakens your case.

===

If you have a strong case, you don’t need to appeal to the silent ghosts in the computer emails that may or may not be manifest in reality.

It’s a weak point in your argument. If I were you, focusing on the STUDENTS complaints rather than the professors might be a stronger case.

====

Their status as scientists does not make them better at politics.

===

Hearsay. If this was a court case, “I have these thousands of emails from other professors just like me that are afraid to speak out”, it would be inadmissible as evidence.

But where is it admissible as evidence? Rhetoric. In Rhetoric, which is used in politics and also in newspapers sometimes (“anonymous sources say”) , it is considered valid by those who wish it to be valid.

===

It’s a weak point in the case you’re presenting. Shift your tactics to something stronger.

===

What is happening at present?
Naveed is trying to convince Kenneth of something.

How is Naveed doing so? Presenting evidence to support his case.

We can go back to the central idea. But you have to accept my skepticism about the emails and set it aside instead of continuing to try to support it as equally valid to, let’s say, the complaints of a generation of students raised in liberal schools who have conservative ideas and who aren’t being reflected in the university environmentts. THAT’S a strong case and there are others that are also strong but i give that as one example.

===

I’ll let you in on a secret about me: Respect is a generally meaningless quantity to me. I don’t like people being rude to each other unnecessarily, but that’s basic human decency. But “Respect must be earned”? That’s an empty statement to me. It might mean something to you, but it does not to me.

===

 

I treat you like I treated my 5th grade teacher, like I treated my favorite Theoretical physics professor, like I treat a fantastic author whose ideas astound me. I respect each with the same kind of respect I expect. No more and no less.

===

1st rule of discussion: Always assume the other party is smarter than you or knows more than you. That’s my first rule. If you assume they know less than you (because they’re younger, older, don’t have your experiences, didn’t see the same Youtube video, whatever the case), you’ll never really listen to them and learn nothing from the exchange.

===

I come into discussions assuming that I’m stupider than everybody else there.

I enter with a curious scientific mindset and approach things with a clear, rational mind.

This way, I come away knowing more than I did before. There’s always something new to be learned. Sometimes it’s within the scope of the topic, sometimes it has nothing to do with the topic. But I always learn something.

====

We can go back to the lex talionis if you like. But you might be surprised to learn I’m in less disagreement with you than you may assume. But if you present a bad case, it’s not going to convince.

===

We got our politics from the animals. They did it first

===

 

Laterally though, it’s “hey, here’s proof everything you thought you knew was wrong”. so it’s in the same category.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five + = 11

Leave a Reply