US Univerisities: Leftist Indoctrination Factories

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hahaha!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where have you been, it is all right wing. There is no debate. Combs get overriden every time he opens his mouth. If Hannity ever gets a serious challenge to just talks loud and over any opposition...that is a real intellectual debate!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Truer words were never written!

 

Ayn Rand was the bitch with contagious mental herpes.

/posting without catching up on thread

 

Will you find liberal wackos in universities, yes. However, I think you are much more likely to find very educated, informed and well reasoned folks there who may be Republican, Democrat or Independent.

When I went to school I had to take an ethnic studies course. It was not bad, but the professor did have a personal point of view that one might consider liberal. But so what, that was one class out of many.

 

joepistole consorted with libruls and wasn't bothered by it, which is a liberal tendency.

 

To be fair, I consorted with far more right wing wacko's and was not bothered by it either. I respect opinions. But I respect the more well reasoned and knowledgable opinion best of all, regardles of where if falls on the political spectrum.

 

I have no problem with radical leftists teaching in universities. It's a free country.
The problem I have is when radical left-wing teachers abuse their positions of trust in fair education, and instead preach very biased propoganda to the students. IMO, teachers that do that, radical left or right, should be fired.
If teachers are hell bent on spewing their propoganda, they need to do it on the streets, not in a classroom with some impressionable naive minds.

 

ok your ignorant. freedom of speech anyone who questions the current admin is attacked. freedom of religion conservatives in this country are working to deny people religious freedom people like me who want follow a non judeochristian religion

 

What bothers me the most about right wingers is that they are so threatened by non-sanctioned ideas…non conservative thoughts whatever those are. There seems to be a mass outsourcing of critical thought. This phenomena occurs at both ends of the political spectrum but it appears most in the American right wing…perhaps because they have been in power since 1996. They threw the liberal label on everything that was against the positions of their leadership. In some regards, it reminded me of the fascist tactics of the last century. But at least it did not progress to book burning. But it did involve an assault on the countries intelligencia. You can see that most recently with Mad’s thread on liberalism being inculcated in universities. Liberalism is implied to be a disease, pathology, rather than what it really is which is, a different school of thought. This reminds me of fascists because they started by drawing lines in the ground…them and us. We are good, they are bad. Some right wing spokespeople have even gone as far as calling liberals traitors.

There seems to have been a suspension of critical thought. There seems to be a willingness to outsource critical thinking to media personalities like Limbaugh, Hannity, and others.

This period I think will go down as a very dark time in American history. I hope we can learn from it. I hope we can use this experience to form a more perfect union.

 

Who resurrected this old thread? What ever happened to old Prince james, anyway? Kind of ironic seeing his old posts, he hated thread necromacy.

 

its spelled necromancy

 

Read your own post. Who's the one drawing lines in the sand? Who's the one calling those with different ideas fascists? Who is it that accuses the other side of turning dissent into pathology, and then goes on and on about how conservatives can't think (suspension of critical thinking)?

And then you end with your line about this being a "dark period in American history". Oh, yes. Those evil conservatives have blotted out the sun, no doubt. Talk about projection.

 

A Pale Imitation of What Defeats You

A General Consideration of Ideas

There's nothing I hate more,
Than all these plastic people
With all their plastic promises,
And all their plastic deals.
They just can't be themselves
And live their own lives out.
They're just an imitation of
What life's all about.

(Anthrax)​

I admit, the first thing that came to mind when I read that line is the Anthrax song, but I also recognize that's not fair. "Imitation of Life" is a hard indictment of psychospiritual and cultural decay. And while there are many, many conservatives well-characterized by such a condemnation, it certainly isn't all of them.

But there is an aspect of this whole "Read your own post" damnation that strikes me as an imitation.

Who's calling who fascist, and why?

Is it because one has different ideas? No. While, clearly, the differences between A and B include ideological bases, the mere fact of different, even oppositional, ideas does not determine one as fascistic.

Madanthonywayne recently made a point worth considering here; in discussing the myth of America, he pointed out,

"I do sense a patriot behind your left wing rhetoric. But somehow our conception of the applications of the ideals our nation was founded upon have gotten twisted in opposite directions."​

In the recent fracas surrounding comments by Rep. Geoff Davis, the Kentucky Republican apologized to Sen. Barack Obama for a remark widely characterized as racist and demeaning. And while some have certainly wondered, "What excuse is there for Davis' remarks?" there is one. But, of course, to say, "His excuse is that he's a Republican," is the sort of thing that will only upset the most of our GOP neighbors. But Davis noted,

Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation.​

And whether looking at the gulf between Davis and Obama, the split between Democrats and Republicans, or even our own personal and political disputes with other members of our beloved Sciforums community, certain common ground can readily be identified.

Risking an invocation of Godwin's Law, I think of Will Smith's recent troubles regarding remarks about Hitler. The reality is that very few among those we might call evil gather 'round a backroom table and mutter, "How are we going to hold back the women today? How are we going to put the blacks back in their place?" Even while their policies might risk a revival of the propriety of bigotry, these people actually think they're trying to do something good.

I have no doubt that my Republican neighbors, for the most part, honestly think they're trying to make a "better America". Sadly, however, most of the points they would consider progressive in that context, while it might make the experience of life in the twenty-first century a little less frightening and perhaps a bit more comfortable for them, those policies would only injure the quality of life of the vast majority of people in the United States and, when all has trickled down, around the world.

The truth of the matter is that many conservatives—even and especially those who attempt to hide behind a libertarian label—advocate policies suggesting that they consider society at large to exist for their personal benefit. Many who advocate a certain natural equality are not bothered that the institution of that equality will only exacerbate the wounds and ailments delivered by the injustice of the past. Furthermore, in advocating a society and government they consider more reflective of nature, they would similarly interrupt the human endeavor toward justice. Would the libertarian who wants the state out of schools, health, even roads and sanitation, pretend that the comfort they have attained and purport to defend could even exist without the produce of the collective? ("The government shouldn't take my money and give it to _____!" Well, will you give back all the profits you earned by the produce of the government taking money and spreading it around?) Would the Republican who opposes continuing efforts to heal longstanding wounds of bigotry make any conscious effort to not exploit the results of that bigotry? Well, I suppose in that case, the question is how many Republicans would or wouldn't.

Looking again to our discussion of the myth of America—a thread which I have fallen woefully behind schedule in my responses to—we find an example of the problem. Our conservative libertarian friend suggests, of gay marriage,

"Do you think our founding fathers had that in mind when they wrote the constitution?"​

He also notes that, while he's "fine with civil unions with most of the same benefits as marriage", he objects to the application of the word marriage, pointing out that it has had a specific meaning for a long time, and he does not want to change it.

To consider all those points, they demonstrate clearly a problem of the conservative outlook.

In the first place, something else the founding fathers apparently failed to consider: half-wits with automatic weapons. The obvious problem of asking for such a straightforward and inflexible consideration of the founding principles of the American experience is that such luminaries had almost no clue what was to come. Automatic weapons? Hell, what about 419 scams and child pornography delivered across the globe via a massive computer network? Spam? A president who said God instructed him to get involved in foreign affairs (George Washington is spinning in his grave at that) or invade a foreign country for no proper reason? Okay, while the idea of an idiot president was certainly within their grasp, they obviously weren't seeking to endorse such an outcome.

The point is that the appeal to founding principles is inappropriate, a simplistic and exploitative excuse in lieu of a real argument.

Furthermore, marriage itself has undergone one hell of a liberalization in the last hundred years, even more so since the "long decade" from 1947-62 that led to the sexual revolution. One of the problems, in the gay fray, with the traditionalist argument is that it draws arbitrary lines. Well, okay, not arbitrary. Convenient. Most traditionalists, whether they understand it or not, are looking back to the Long Decade, a period in which heterosexual marriage began to fall into crisis. While it seems counterintuitive to look wistfully back and wish for the advent of crisis, the alternative is even more absurd. Certainly, I understand that it is more pleasant to revel in the superficial glory and glitz of the era than to look back through history at the rise of romantic marriage, and how it was the death of what marriage had, for centuries meant and been about.

In fact, by and large Americans look at traditional marriage—arranged unions for economic or political benefit—with disgust.

And while we might wonder which marital benefits are excluded (note "most" and not "all") in the ideal "concession" a conservative might make to civil unions, the important point is the word itself: most. Majorities always want to retain some part of their supremacy while pretending an egalitarian idyll. And, in the end, the result is that, given his way, perhaps Madanthonywayne might feel more comfortable, but other people will suffer unnecessarily for his pride.

And those people, apparently, just aren't important. They don't count. As much. They aren't entitled to equal respect, and simply because they're different.

Ironic, I suppose, but that punch line is beside the point.

The point is that the mere fact of a difference of opinion does not make the other fascistic. Rather, it's what those opinions are.

Some look at society and say, "Taxes! (Gasp!) Oh, the horror!"

Some look at society and say, "Equality! You mean I have to be equal? Oh, the horror!"

Some look at society and say, "Public education! Oh, God save us!"

And yet many of these people, who often call themselves "Republicans", "conservatives", and, on occasion, "libertarians", will happily pour money into defense, an industry that historically "requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses". And, while they will justify this obsession by pointing out that the world is not a faery tale, and that evil cannot be conquered with a magic wand, these people seem indifferent at best to the idea that the prosperity they defend so vigorously with such condescension depends on the raising of enemies, exacerbation of hostility, and exploitation of suffering. It is a cycle that goes beyond vicious. People believe the cycle is evil, not because some megalomaniacal liberal says so, but because society has spent great resources indoctrinating people to believe such things are evil. The only difference between the present evil and what my generation was taught in youth is that we're supposed to pretend virtue about the present. We are supposed to forget the past and see our enemies as a sudden and inexplicable evil that has appeared out of nowhere. (Unless, of course, we blame it on dark-skinned non-Christians, which explanation carries excessive weight in this culture.)

And there are plenty of conservatives who will smugly remind, "Ha! I don't like Bush! I think (at least now that it's skull-obliteratingly obvious) the war is a bad idea!"

Good. I'm glad. Congratulations for finally hopping on the trolley. I wish I could believe it. After all, much of the rhetoric about the problems in Iraq looks at the invasion as a noble mistake, a case of good intentions gone to hell, a tough call in the face of looming evil. In other words, they wish to suck away the moral or ethical essence of the issue and pretend the war in Iraq is merely a practical concern. At the end of the day, then, the evil-not-evil of raising enemies, exacerbating misunderstandings and mere differences of opinion, and exploitation of human suffering continues unchecked. These things apparently have nothing to do with the practical problems of the Iraqi Bush Adventure.

Even in accounting for all of this and setting it aside, however, we still come to those who would look at injustice in our culture, shrug, and say, "Your real complaint isn't with us. It's with reality."

This retreat to "reality" is another desperate tactic. Our society is capable of altering realities in a proverbial blink of an eye.

Reality: American workers are working harder and producing more for less in real wages than they were only a few years ago. The middle class dreams bourgeois colors, but suddenly finds itself being locked down by rising costs of living that satisfy only the monochromatic hunger of the wealthy. Stones and turnips, that's all people seem to be to the vast majority of the wealthy, who would continue to bleed the dry and lifeless bones of a working class left to dust. We continue to reward the disingenuous, glorify gluttony as a social virtue in order to avoid ever having to face the consequences of our sins.

And this is what our conservative American neighbors, even the best-intended among them, intend to protect and preserve.

Perhaps, in the end, fascist is not the best word for it. But it is a powerful word in the culture, suggestive of tyranny in general. In the face of such realities, many conservatives have no recourse but to sling mud. It ends up sounding like an angry bully. Just insert the word "huh" before every question mark:

"Who's the one drawing lines in the sand, huh? Who's the one calling those with different ideas fascists, huh? Who is it that accuses the other side of turning dissent into pathology, and then goes on and on about how conservatives can't think, huh?"​

The answers are simple: The existence of a difference of opinion does not in and of itself make one party fascist or tyrannical. What those ideas represent, however, will do much to characterize the outlook. Those who advocate conditions and outcomes leading to further violence, exploitation, and injustice are advocating the policies of tyranny. Perhaps they feel insulted by this fact, but it has proven thus far impossible in history for the tyrants to properly answer for themselves. And so they pile on the rubber-glue arguments.

And while conservatives may actually retain critical-thinking skills, there is a clear imbalance about the application. The selling out of a party to exploitative, hateful windbag radio hosts and half-witted evangelical bigots doesn't do much to promote critical thinking.

The transition between the good and evil of exploitation and injustice seems difficult to mark, and this is in part because it is hidden in plain sight. In American culture, the general condemnation that "people are stupid" is prominent, yet most of us fail to grasp how deeply that truth runs. Just scare people—the faggots are coming for your children, the Muslims are coming for your children, the liberals are coming for your money—into believing that someone is out to get them, and they'll give you anything you want.

The common elements uniting conservatives are the sanctity of the self and a deep and broad disdain for society. By placing themselves so highly in their own outlook, and relegating society itself to the status of a necessary (at best) evil, these people are only perpetuating the very evils of history from which humanity itself endeavors to escape.

But then, I guess we're just supposed to call them virtuous and heroic, and thank them for their disdain, since it means they're at least thinking about the rest of us.

Pucker up. Maybe if the conservatives decide we're worthy, the rest of us will be allowed to kiss their asses.

 

Mad, let's be clear with our communication and thought here. I did not call anyone or group a facist. I said conservatives as a group exhibit some of the facist qualities exhibited by facist powers in the last century. Anyone who was not a ditto head, anyone who did not believe the conservative line, was and still is a liberal. One of your famous conservative mouth pieces and your conservative speaker of the house launched a campaign to call liberals traitors. That combined with Bush II's actions to scrafice our consitutional rights...was and is a very scary thing. To think that our president has the right to declare anyone an enemy of the state and strip them of their consitutional rights is frankly scary and reminesscent of facists.

I consider myself a conservative. But I do not consider myself a George Bush I or II Conservative, nor a Limbaugh conservative. It appears to me that many on the right have turnned over their critical thinking duties to the likes of Limbaugh, and that is very scary to one who believe in individualism and a limited state.

Mad, I know you are really into this stuff. But are your really proud of this garbage?
http://www.yuricareport.com/RevisitedBks/CoulterTreason.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/19/165533.shtml

http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2006/09/01/conservatives-without-conscience-chapter-4/

It was the Republicans who first started calling anyone who disagreed with them traitors. And discussing their tactics does not make one a traitor, nor does it make one a facist. That is the thing that disturbs me most with those calling themselves conservatives...the Limbaugh-Hanity conservative. They attack first and misrepresent the facts to further their arguement.

Let's be open and honest in our discussion. Let's focus not on attacking each other, but rather on solutions to common problems.

 

Will you vote for Obama, JP?

 

if some conservatives act in a way that meets most of the defining qualities of a fascist i am going to call them a fascist.

 

Conservatives are fascists (or "exhibit some fascist qualities), a bit of a cliche, isn't it?

Conservatives are idiots, and can't think for themselves. Another cliche.

I enjoy talk radio. It's true. I prefer news/talk to the "morning Zoo". Glenn Beck is my favorite, but he's a bit of an alarmist I also sometimes listen to Rush, Hanity, Savage, even Art Bell. On the other hand, I listen to NPR. All Things Considered, Morning edition, This American Life, Car Talk, and BBC World Service.

By no means have I surrendered my critical thinking to some talk show host and the very suggestion is insulting.

I've never read an Ann Culture book. Someone did give me one as a gift, but I just couldn't get thru it. I do enjoy seeing her debate people on TV, and she's kind of hot. But I don't necessarily vouch for or agree with everything she says or writes.

I'm with you 100% there.

 

pardon but...
a relentless tour de force!

/awed as usual