If we're talking about the survival of the species, whoever is responsible for rearing the offspring and their health and wealth are important. That usually falls on women.
American Universities: Conservatives Need Not Apply
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
If we're talking about the survival of the species, whoever is responsible for rearing the offspring and their health and wealth are important. That usually falls on women.
Absoltuely sick
Am I really supposed to take you seriously at this point?
Fine, I'll give it a try.
Intellectual apartheid?
Does that mean you support the deliberate targeting of civilians? Do you advocate the blowing up of dams, the flooding of towns, the mass casualties, the starvation, the resulting epidemics?
Because, to make the point clear by exaggerating it, we have nukes. We can "win" any war we want, as long as we put aside the pretense that there is any "reason" for the war.
This is part of what you're (intentionally?) overlooking when whining about "intellectual apartheid".
To reiterate:
Among the reasons holocaust denial and rape advocacy are refused prominent places in mainstream education are (A) the facts do not support such claims, and (B) the social-ethical foundation by which facts are interpreted does not support such a structure.
Moyar may well be correct that by simply destroying everything inside North Vietnam, we could have "won" the war, and he may well be correct that the "domino effect" was economically viable. But the latter is a tough argument, and the former demands a specific rearrangement of the interpretive assessment of the purported facts.
The problem with arguments like yours, Madanthonywayne, is that it treats integrity as something only obliged of your chosen enemies. It is well enough for you and yours to sink into betrayals of the very principles that empower you; to the one, why is it any more acceptable than it was when conservatives denounced the existence of a Communist Party in the U.S. by accusing the reds of the very same? To the other, what more do we really expect of conservatives? They want to do whatever they want, and fancy words like "equality", "integrity", and "freedom" represents concepts that only they are entitled to define.
We are the United States of America. Moyar will have to show that such a fact means absolutely nothing in the context of his proposed winning solution. Unfortunately, many conservatives don't have the political will to deal with the truth. Let us hope that Moyar does better.
Madanthonywayne said:
Am I really supposed to take you seriously at this point?
Fine, I'll give it a try.
Intellectual apartheid?
Does that mean you support the deliberate targeting of civilians? Do you advocate the blowing up of dams, the flooding of towns, the mass casualties, the starvation, the resulting epidemics?
Because, to make the point clear by exaggerating it, we have nukes. We can "win" any war we want, as long as we put aside the pretense that there is any "reason" for the war.
This is part of what you're (intentionally?) overlooking when whining about "intellectual apartheid".
To reiterate:
Will conservatives open their demands for affirmative action so that universities should be required to hire a certain number of holocaust deniers? How about rape advocates? I mean, our psychology and women's studies departments severely lack any balance in that aspect. So where's the "she was asking for it" professor? I mean, don't students deserve to hear diverse points of view? What about the law school professor teaching the family law class that asserts that the U.S. Constitution contains no specific laws about marriage, therefore it's unconstitutional to ban polygamy or incestuous marriages? Don't our students deserve, for all their money and hard work, to hear diverse viewpoints?
Among the reasons holocaust denial and rape advocacy are refused prominent places in mainstream education are (A) the facts do not support such claims, and (B) the social-ethical foundation by which facts are interpreted does not support such a structure.
Moyar may well be correct that by simply destroying everything inside North Vietnam, we could have "won" the war, and he may well be correct that the "domino effect" was economically viable. But the latter is a tough argument, and the former demands a specific rearrangement of the interpretive assessment of the purported facts.
The problem with arguments like yours, Madanthonywayne, is that it treats integrity as something only obliged of your chosen enemies. It is well enough for you and yours to sink into betrayals of the very principles that empower you; to the one, why is it any more acceptable than it was when conservatives denounced the existence of a Communist Party in the U.S. by accusing the reds of the very same? To the other, what more do we really expect of conservatives? They want to do whatever they want, and fancy words like "equality", "integrity", and "freedom" represents concepts that only they are entitled to define.
We are the United States of America. Moyar will have to show that such a fact means absolutely nothing in the context of his proposed winning solution. Unfortunately, many conservatives don't have the political will to deal with the truth. Let us hope that Moyar does better.
No one's advocating any of the crap you mentioned. I thought you were going to take me seriously? Obviously, you don't. You keep equating Republicans with holocaust deniers, rapists, etc.
Perhaps that kind of attitude explains stuff like this:
Now is that an environment in which a conservative student feels he can speak freely? What if the prof had said we should line up all the Jews and shoot them? Would that be OK if she said it with a smile?
Now I did find something interesting while doing some research for this post. First, the bad news:
Just as I've been saying. But here's the interesting bit:
So their brainwashing appears to be backfiring.
(Insert title here)
Quite frankly, Madanthonywayne, your crusade against education is an example of what makes conservatives so repugnant. Let's take a look at your hysterical whining:
This is one of those things that suggests you're not looking at the situation reasonably. In fact, it suggests that your complaints are more about political dominance than they are about any sense of propriety, education, or truth.
It's not about Republicans. It is, in fact, quite dishonest of you to try to make it about that. Of course, it's no more or less than I expect of you.
In this screaming and wailing for "academic respect" (read "political supremacy"), part of what people are calling for is the inclusion of suspect or outright bogus ideas in academia.
I don't equate Republicans with holocaust deniers, rapists, &c. I equate shoddy theories like, "The United States could have won the war if only we'd murdered more civilians, turned our backs on our national principles, and told the virtues to go screw."
Recognizing, of course, that you can't see an argument exists until someone shines the spotlight on it, grabs you by the hair, and rubs your damn nose in it (and then, of course, you just complain), let's try reiterating this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
That you would pretend this is about Republicans? O-tay!
I looked around for better sources than WorldNetDaily. I came up with a story from the Spokane Spokesman-Review:
It would seem Ms. Cook and WND got exactly what they hoped for.
In the meantime, Ms. Cook is apparently the only student at NIC who "gets it" (since there are no other complaints that I found), and as such she was smarter than to go through the school's process for complaints about instructors. Instead, she ran to the press.
Additionally, she apparently expects her English professor to stay on topic.
I'm going to need a bit more reputable a story than that before I give much of a damn about it. Besides, if you're going to compare Republicans to Jews, you're just being silly.
Let me know, please, what you find out about whether the forces of good came to rescue the poor, beleaguered Ms. Cook and slew the evil Professor Bryan. I mean, if you actually care.
____________________
Notes:
Quite frankly, Madanthonywayne, your crusade against education is an example of what makes conservatives so repugnant. Let's take a look at your hysterical whining:
Madanthonywayne said:
This is one of those things that suggests you're not looking at the situation reasonably. In fact, it suggests that your complaints are more about political dominance than they are about any sense of propriety, education, or truth.
It's not about Republicans. It is, in fact, quite dishonest of you to try to make it about that. Of course, it's no more or less than I expect of you.
In this screaming and wailing for "academic respect" (read "political supremacy"), part of what people are calling for is the inclusion of suspect or outright bogus ideas in academia.
I don't equate Republicans with holocaust deniers, rapists, &c. I equate shoddy theories like, "The United States could have won the war if only we'd murdered more civilians, turned our backs on our national principles, and told the virtues to go screw."
Recognizing, of course, that you can't see an argument exists until someone shines the spotlight on it, grabs you by the hair, and rubs your damn nose in it (and then, of course, you just complain), let's try reiterating this:
Now, one of the problems with "conservative" scholarship is that it often proposes radical paradigm shifts. And while circumstances do occasionally call for such huge changes, it's rare, and those changes usually happen gradually, as the data comes in and the conclusions become inescapable.
But with "liberal" scholarship like Columbus revisionism, the change was simply to give attention to the primary sources. The rest--the condemnation of the Columbus cult--came from the fact that the primary sources paint a picture that offends common values. (He was a cold butcher, according to his own hand.)
"Conservative" scholarship, though, often seems to demand that we change the common values before looking at the information. Like I tried to point out about this whole Vietnam thing. There is on record at least one complaint that his "Vietnam was winnable" argument meant going absolutely overboard, and conducting ourselves in a manner we simply would not accept of anyone else. Blowing up dams, drowning the population, destroying the food supply, inviting epidemic. We, the United States, have agreed to not conduct ourselves that way, so accusing a "lack of political will" is a thoroughly political assertion.
But with "liberal" scholarship like Columbus revisionism, the change was simply to give attention to the primary sources. The rest--the condemnation of the Columbus cult--came from the fact that the primary sources paint a picture that offends common values. (He was a cold butcher, according to his own hand.)
"Conservative" scholarship, though, often seems to demand that we change the common values before looking at the information. Like I tried to point out about this whole Vietnam thing. There is on record at least one complaint that his "Vietnam was winnable" argument meant going absolutely overboard, and conducting ourselves in a manner we simply would not accept of anyone else. Blowing up dams, drowning the population, destroying the food supply, inviting epidemic. We, the United States, have agreed to not conduct ourselves that way, so accusing a "lack of political will" is a thoroughly political assertion.
And this:
Now we've got an activist conservative professor challenging the history of the Vietnam war on the basis that we should have hit dams and created even greater civilian casualties, creating a human disaster ... and just in time to use that "historical" platform as a foundation to advocate continued irresponsibility in Iraq.
And then he complains that he's not getting hired because of his views?
And then he complains that he's not getting hired because of his views?
And this:
Some folks may not like the way the Vietnam War is viewed in history, and that's their right. But proposing to teach students that mass killings of civilians is an appropriate tool in pursuit of political goals is, indeed, a questionable idea. It seems to me we object to that when other people teach it.
And this:
The revisionism conservatives decried in the 1990s was a revival of the historical record itself. The revisionism of Moyar's work, at least as we've been exposed to it, suggest that the major revision of the historical perspective is a rearrangement of moral and ethical priorities. And this is why people have reservations about that kind of revisionism. "We could have won the war if only we'd gone out of our way to kill enough civilians."
There comes a point when one must also support the shift of moral paradigm. Because, in the end, a statement asserts itself: The idea of "human rights" prevented us from winning the Vietnam War. Would anyone agree in general? Would anyone agree that such a statement is tacit in the alleged outlook he offered at Texas Tech? Bombing dams. Flooding farmland. Drowning peasants.
There comes a point when one must also support the shift of moral paradigm. Because, in the end, a statement asserts itself: The idea of "human rights" prevented us from winning the Vietnam War. Would anyone agree in general? Would anyone agree that such a statement is tacit in the alleged outlook he offered at Texas Tech? Bombing dams. Flooding farmland. Drowning peasants.
That you would pretend this is about Republicans? O-tay!
I looked around for better sources than WorldNetDaily. I came up with a story from the Spokane Spokesman-Review:
It would seem Ms. Cook and WND got exactly what they hoped for.
In the meantime, Ms. Cook is apparently the only student at NIC who "gets it" (since there are no other complaints that I found), and as such she was smarter than to go through the school's process for complaints about instructors. Instead, she ran to the press.
Additionally, she apparently expects her English professor to stay on topic.
I'm going to need a bit more reputable a story than that before I give much of a damn about it. Besides, if you're going to compare Republicans to Jews, you're just being silly.
Let me know, please, what you find out about whether the forces of good came to rescue the poor, beleaguered Ms. Cook and slew the evil Professor Bryan. I mean, if you actually care.
____________________
Notes:
Hagengruber, James. "NIC instructor receives death threats". SpokesmanReview.com. March 16, 2007. See http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9173
Wait.
So, part of the democratic platform is that the US is evil? Maybe you've confused them with Al Quaeda or something?
Or perhaps you're having problems distinguishing between an administration and the country itself? Because Bush is evil doesn't make the US evil. Just stupid. For electing him. Twice. But, hey, he's charming, right?
Whatever is said of Bush must be said about those who voted for him. It's not like in the second election people had any doubts about what they were voting for. They were also the majority...
For a prof to advocate the execution of those who don't agree with her, even in jest, is reprehensible. "She's just joking, trying to stir up debate" you say. "She said it with a smile", you say.
Well, maybe the people making death threats against the prof were smiling too. Maybe they were just trying to stir up debate.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
It's not easy, not is it the usual intent, to use the term in terms of its root meaning. Republicans are not a group that is separate in society in the ways blacks were in SA. Even with the discrimination at state universities REpublicans as a group do just peachy out there.
Actually it got aimed at feminists. I really doubt they were, in general, or primarily the ones who used that term for conservatives. I would guess young anarchists and far left types would be far more likely to do that. So I don't really think it was fair, somehow, since it got aimed at women and feminists in general. And economic conservatives never really acknowledged how much they themselves take for granted many ideas feminists fought for over time.
Beside: why do Republicans want to get tax payed salaries? Why don't they go out in the private sector and keep pressing for cutbacks on all state run organizations? Wouldn't working for a state organization that should 'really' be privatized be hypocritical?
Last edited:
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
There were quite a number of low tech civilizations where women had equal status or certainly better status than in 'civilized' europe. Certainly this was the case in many NA tribes. It was reflected in the mythologies, rituals and so on where women and 'godesses' had much more important roles. In fact in many there were partnered male and female deities.
The pattern is not so simple or as excusible as your post implies.
madanthonywayne said:
Intuitively that makes sense. If there was a selection it should only occur in those fields in which political orientation should have an impact. However according an in the media often cited study by Lichter et al. 2005 in e.g. biology 75% of the professors declared themselves to be liberal and only 17% conservative. As a comparison: in history it is 77% liberal and 10% conservative. The highest proportion of conservative natural scientists was found amongst the chemistry guys, but still 61% considered themselves to be liberal 29% conservative.
The overall highest proportion of conservatives was found amongst business departments with 49% liberals and 39% conservatives. However here the proportion of democrats vs. republicans was equal (26% each).
And like this latest bogus complaint about faculty political orientation, the key point is the dissociation from reality in LImbaugh's term. "Feminazis" have almost nothing to do with real Nazis.madanth said:
There is a reality to deal with, and the Republican Party has taken leave of it in recent years. People who have to know stuff, whose careers and reputations depend on their connection with fact and sense and verification, have a hard time with the Republican Party these days. That is going to be especially visible in the faculty of a university, and the better the university the more visible that is going to be.
Bush II had his Swift Boat friends....and truck loads of money, and the Christian Right, and the self Limbaughs and Hannitys and News Corps of the World revising and regurtating a grossly distorted version of reality to voters.
Madanthonywayne said:
Actually, Madanthonywayne, it's more like being tired of giving a damn about the feelings of reprehensible people such as yourself--
In the first place, the only argument you can actually make is the one you invent. That's your problem, don't make it anyone else's.
Secondly, if people wanted to start a debate, they wouldn't leave a message on an answering machine.
See, here's the thing: either you're incapable of seeing the difference, or you're just pretending a good number of things you ought not pretend. Neither case suggests it's worth giving a damn what you think, because neither case suggests you're sincere.
So believe what you want to believe. I just don't understand the idea of living in such constant fear. Although I do understand the sheer arrogance of pretending that you get it, and that everyone else is in danger. You get to feel like you're smart.
And hey, that's important, too.
If you should ever think that Republicanism is in anyway intellectual, just watch the last debate on FOX of the Republican canidates for president.
Nice.
Anyone who disagrees with you is reprehensible.
Great attitude. You're a credit to this forum and its moderators.
Why you want that liberal book-learnin' anyway?
1-876-cry-me-a-river
One of the suggestions about that particular accusation is that it depends on your interpretation, which is essentially at the heart of the problem. People can disagree with me. It's when they're dishonest that they become reprehensible.
You know, the funny thing is that from the first I ever heard about this weird phenomenon called "political correctness", it was conservatives who railed against it. Not long after, I started noticing that it was also conservatives who hid behind it the most. It's almost like a bunch of people didn't understand why you shouldn't call a black man a nigger, or a woman a bitch, and decided that it was wrong to call a liar a liar.
These days, the whole thing's out of hand, but I don't think you're as naîve as your arguments suggest. Either that, or your wide-eyed innocence and fragility are phenomenally specific and sporadic.
How about this: let's go ahead and fire Bryan for offending the sensibilities of a Republican diva, and then in a gesture of fair play, let's take the people who have threatened Bryan with death and forbid them from ever using telephones or e-mail again.
Seriously, one of the giveaways was that she actually expected her ENG102 (Comp) lectures to stay on topic. Honestly, man ... run that one by anyone who has taken 100-level composition. Literally, you'll find it damn near universally laughable.
I once fought with an ENG392 professor about Sherwood Anderson. It sounds like a bad idea, since the old guy actually wrote his bloody dissertation on Anderson. But when he recognized that I wasn't arguing against the class' conclusion, but rather the criteria and methodology for that conclusion, he let me have the point. It may well be that the character was gay, but the conclusion was built entirely from stereotype. When you sit in a classroom and listen to people express that the character should have been killed (without evidence of guilt) because he's gay (a poorly-drawn conclusion), would you complain to the university that a professor is fostering hate speech in his class? Why not? (For myself, it's because the argument was easy enough to undo; it was only after a proud man realized that I wasn't challenging his dissertation that he realized I had a point.)
Or what about the time my 101 Comp teacher--a poet teaching essay writing, oh good ....--and I fought about Tim O'Brien. I believe my argument at one point included the phrase, "Oh, give me a fucking break!"
Now, maybe things are different at North Idaho College, but one of the few things I ever found entertaining about college was actually fighting with my professors, or with fellow students. One day I started cracking Catholic jokes that my humanities professor understood, so she didn't silence me. People got irritated until one guy who'd also endured Jesuit school started chirping back, and by the time it was over, two students rescued a discussion class that was absolutely crashing. (Such occasions proved beneficial during my time; maybe it's different now, or in Idaho, or whatever.)
The idea that I would cry to the dean and run to the press? Absurd. Of course, maybe that's a trait acquired from coming up on the liberal side of things, when we were considered evil enough to kill. And perhaps this is our error. Some of us do figure that since conservatives could give it, and insisted on such a tone in discussion and debate, that they could take it. And apparently we were grossly mistaken on that point.
So, yeah. I feel badly for someone who is frightened or feels demeaned, but at the same time it's hard to be sympathetic when the complaint originates among those whose outlook relies on fear and insult.
If you conservatives had any integrity, you'd just shut up, deal with it, and fight back appropriately.
Seriously. You want me to do the Volkswagen joke in a roomful of Jews?
For all their bluster and bravado, conservatives need to get some stones.
Madanthonywayne said:
One of the suggestions about that particular accusation is that it depends on your interpretation, which is essentially at the heart of the problem. People can disagree with me. It's when they're dishonest that they become reprehensible.
You know, the funny thing is that from the first I ever heard about this weird phenomenon called "political correctness", it was conservatives who railed against it. Not long after, I started noticing that it was also conservatives who hid behind it the most. It's almost like a bunch of people didn't understand why you shouldn't call a black man a nigger, or a woman a bitch, and decided that it was wrong to call a liar a liar.
These days, the whole thing's out of hand, but I don't think you're as naîve as your arguments suggest. Either that, or your wide-eyed innocence and fragility are phenomenally specific and sporadic.
How about this: let's go ahead and fire Bryan for offending the sensibilities of a Republican diva, and then in a gesture of fair play, let's take the people who have threatened Bryan with death and forbid them from ever using telephones or e-mail again.
Seriously, one of the giveaways was that she actually expected her ENG102 (Comp) lectures to stay on topic. Honestly, man ... run that one by anyone who has taken 100-level composition. Literally, you'll find it damn near universally laughable.
I once fought with an ENG392 professor about Sherwood Anderson. It sounds like a bad idea, since the old guy actually wrote his bloody dissertation on Anderson. But when he recognized that I wasn't arguing against the class' conclusion, but rather the criteria and methodology for that conclusion, he let me have the point. It may well be that the character was gay, but the conclusion was built entirely from stereotype. When you sit in a classroom and listen to people express that the character should have been killed (without evidence of guilt) because he's gay (a poorly-drawn conclusion), would you complain to the university that a professor is fostering hate speech in his class? Why not? (For myself, it's because the argument was easy enough to undo; it was only after a proud man realized that I wasn't challenging his dissertation that he realized I had a point.)
Or what about the time my 101 Comp teacher--a poet teaching essay writing, oh good ....--and I fought about Tim O'Brien. I believe my argument at one point included the phrase, "Oh, give me a fucking break!"
Now, maybe things are different at North Idaho College, but one of the few things I ever found entertaining about college was actually fighting with my professors, or with fellow students. One day I started cracking Catholic jokes that my humanities professor understood, so she didn't silence me. People got irritated until one guy who'd also endured Jesuit school started chirping back, and by the time it was over, two students rescued a discussion class that was absolutely crashing. (Such occasions proved beneficial during my time; maybe it's different now, or in Idaho, or whatever.)
The idea that I would cry to the dean and run to the press? Absurd. Of course, maybe that's a trait acquired from coming up on the liberal side of things, when we were considered evil enough to kill. And perhaps this is our error. Some of us do figure that since conservatives could give it, and insisted on such a tone in discussion and debate, that they could take it. And apparently we were grossly mistaken on that point.
So, yeah. I feel badly for someone who is frightened or feels demeaned, but at the same time it's hard to be sympathetic when the complaint originates among those whose outlook relies on fear and insult.
If you conservatives had any integrity, you'd just shut up, deal with it, and fight back appropriately.
Seriously. You want me to do the Volkswagen joke in a roomful of Jews?
For all their bluster and bravado, conservatives need to get some stones.
In other words, "I call you a reprehensible liar because that's what you are".
So you don't see the difference between a teacher calling for the execution of her political opponents and a student suggesting a particular character in a book should have been killed?
Here I agree. I love to argue. Due to procrastination, I ended up at the most liberal dorm at IU (Collins LLC). I had a ball arguing with all the hippies.
Please. You have this habit of assigning all bad qualities to conservatives and all good ones to liberals. Your arrogance and one-sidedness is astounding.
Liberals never run to the dean and blow things out of proportion:
Or how about this:
So liberals don't feel safe when a conservative recommends a few books, but conservatives need to grow some balls when they complain about their professor advocating they be killed? Not only that, the damned librarian is charged with sexual harassment? WTF?
I could go on and on listing examples of liberals raising a giant stink over nothing and universities using their power to prosecute conservatives.
You're way off base claiming it's conservatives who run to the dean.
This is obvious. You are so convinced of the correctness of your view, that you consider anyone with a different one to be an idiot, or dishonest, or naive, or evil. Certainly such people are deserving of whatever scorn you can heap upon them. And if they protest, well, they need to grow some balls.
Fight back? On a college campus where you can be brought up on charges for calling a bunch of noisy idiots "water buffalo" or for recommending a few good books?
Here's another good example, Central Connecticut State College set up a panel to discuss slavery reparations. So, you'd think a panel set up to discuss an issue would include people on all sides of the topic. You'd be wrong. Every single speaker on the panel was in favor of reparations. When someone suggested that perhaps the panel should include someone with another viewpoint, he was called a racist, a nazi, and a KKK member.
Or how about the student suspended for suggesting that the Virginia Tech shootings could have been avoided were students allowed to carry concealed weapons?
Here's a documentary about political bias on college campuses:
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
And here's an organization devoted to protecting the rights of students:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/26.html
It even includes a guide to selecting a campus that respects the rights of its students. You'll note that FIRE also fights for profs under fire from the university.
Free speech and diversity of opinion should be respected, if anywhere, on a college campus. Sadly, they're not.
Polarizing?
No, it's more that I call you reprehensible because that's how you conduct yourself. I'm aware that you might be the greatest guy in the world outside Sciforums. I'm aware that we could probably enjoy a few beers together, as long as we didn't talk about politics.
Steven Brust once said, in an interview, that politics makes him an asshole, and that's something I've remembered specifically because it reminded me that even though some people would see their neighbors discriminated against and treated horribly by the state, and would go out of their way to create prejudice, fear, and hatred, it doesn't mean they're actually bad people. As much as they're capable, they're trying. In the meantime, holding them accountable for their bigotry will only drive them further into madness.
Thus, I treat political outlooks such as yours as a mental health problem: if you want help, I'm happy to do what I can. But as long as you hide behind dishonesty, there's not much I can do, and it isreprehensible behavior.
Actually, I see a big difference. I'm just trying to be "fair" by accommodating you. After all, that seems to be more important to you than anything else.
See? We're not so far apart.
Not at all. This woman was oversensitive, jumped policy, and leapt after sensationalism. She was never out for any proper resolution; her cause was political the whole way. It's the difference between being offended and going out looking for a fight. In the case of the latter, I don't have nearly as much sympathy.
Maybe making it racial was a mistake, but I can't believe you're trying to compare this incident to attempting to incite a riot against a number of black women. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
Dude, it's Santorum.
I take it you've read all those books?
A number of questions arise:
I'll be reading through the rest of it, but I wanted to point out, first and foremost, that you're presenting a simplified version of the situation in order to ask your question. This is part of what I find reprehensible about your approach. It's also worth mentioning that it makes no sense that in recommending against the "polarizing" effect of Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond while proposing Santorum, Horowitz, and Santorum. (We'll get to the others in a moment, so don't get huffy.)
Now, if you're part of the empowerment majority, I understand why this is a hard thing to understand: you've never been through it. But such zealous hypocrisy as Savage's recommendations suggest is threatening. In the first place, Savage takes a flippant attitude toward the whole process: "But if we are decided that we want to engage our students in the kind of exchange of ideas on which 'secular' society is founded, then let's choose something that confronts the accepted wisdom of Ohio State University! Like the students and young profs did in the '60s, man!"
It sounds pretty, but it's shite. It's like saying that we should teach the ethos of the '60s by promoting religious supremacy, bigotry, and hatred. It doesn't work. Kupelian is a WorldNetDaily editor who calls homosexuals self-destructive and evil. The idea of a university teaching that homosexuality is evil is just a little absurd, don't you think? All for the sake of diversity? Why not teach that Jews are a financial conspiracy, that the U.N. will arrest and execute Sabbatarians (which includes Jews), or that Communism was inspired by the devil? You know, just for "diversity"?
The thing about Carter and Shriver is that the polarizing effect is the choice of the polarized. And that's something conservatives overlook. Anything that they disagree with is polarizing, apparently. But deliberately-contrived theses weakly supported by poor scholarship, intended to sensationalize in order to sell and specifically promote a political agenda that is at odds with what can be objectively verified apparently demands the respect of diversity. When someone goes out of their way to insult the academic qualifications of his colleagues in order to push a homophobic agenda and compel the university to condemn a portion of its students as self-destructive and evil, that does tread into the realm of sexual harassment; that is, he's promoting harassment based on sexual orientation.
In the meantime, there's quite a bit we don't see, and that's largely what you're relying on in order to make your complaint. Undoubtedly some sort of disaster has occurred at OSU-Mansfield, but the fact that you're outraged that a zealot didn't get his way and now might have to answer for his conduct is just a bit disheartening. You're showing the oversensitivity and deliberate shallowness of the conservative argument.
Here's the thing: if such simplistic summaries are the best you can come up with, you're a demonstration of what's wrong with the conservative outlook. If you're actually choosing the simpleton's perspective, you're a demonstration of what's wrong with the conservative outlook.
By the gods, you're a dishonest fellow, Madanthonywayne.
Absolutely reprehensible.
Waaaaahhhhh! Here's a question for you, Madanthonywayne, am I really supposed to waste my time on even more of your complaints when you've already shown yourself to be thoroughly dishonest? How many hours would you like me to waste wondering why you're overreacting?
Now, it's interesting that you should include the bit about Hamline University, because it comes from The Fire. Did you know that your man Scott Savage ran to The Fire early on in the dispute at OSU-Mansfield? He was trying to set up a controversy so that gullible hatemongers would rush to his rescue and strike a blow against academics.
If either of those links turn out to be more of your pathetic sensationalism, I will not be happy.
Very well. I reiterate:
The last time we visited this question, you accused me of not taking you seriously. And, while I confess it is, in fact, rather difficult to take you seriously, I do find the question appropriate. Maybe you're not advocating such crap, but it's included under your calls for free speech and diversity of opinion, especially in the context of tinkering with the formula for ethical assessment according to politics.
There may well be valid issues in the situations you've raised, but every time I look into the details of those situations, your simplistic, self-righteous representations fall apart.
And please notice: You do have the right to be dishonest. That doesn't mean we're obliged to accept what you say as right, proper, or truthful.
Madanthonywayne said:
No, it's more that I call you reprehensible because that's how you conduct yourself. I'm aware that you might be the greatest guy in the world outside Sciforums. I'm aware that we could probably enjoy a few beers together, as long as we didn't talk about politics.
Steven Brust once said, in an interview, that politics makes him an asshole, and that's something I've remembered specifically because it reminded me that even though some people would see their neighbors discriminated against and treated horribly by the state, and would go out of their way to create prejudice, fear, and hatred, it doesn't mean they're actually bad people. As much as they're capable, they're trying. In the meantime, holding them accountable for their bigotry will only drive them further into madness.
Thus, I treat political outlooks such as yours as a mental health problem: if you want help, I'm happy to do what I can. But as long as you hide behind dishonesty, there's not much I can do, and it isreprehensible behavior.
Actually, I see a big difference. I'm just trying to be "fair" by accommodating you. After all, that seems to be more important to you than anything else.
See? We're not so far apart.
Not at all. This woman was oversensitive, jumped policy, and leapt after sensationalism. She was never out for any proper resolution; her cause was political the whole way. It's the difference between being offended and going out looking for a fight. In the case of the latter, I don't have nearly as much sympathy.
Maybe making it racial was a mistake, but I can't believe you're trying to compare this incident to attempting to incite a riot against a number of black women. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
Dude, it's Santorum.
I take it you've read all those books?
A number of questions arise:
• In what context were the books recommended?
• What are the specific complaints about the books?
• Why are we only getting one side of the story? (Why be afraid of the other side?)
The first is answered. I'm looking into the second. You'll have to give me some help with the third.• What are the specific complaints about the books?
• Why are we only getting one side of the story? (Why be afraid of the other side?)
I'll be reading through the rest of it, but I wanted to point out, first and foremost, that you're presenting a simplified version of the situation in order to ask your question. This is part of what I find reprehensible about your approach. It's also worth mentioning that it makes no sense that in recommending against the "polarizing" effect of Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond while proposing Santorum, Horowitz, and Santorum. (We'll get to the others in a moment, so don't get huffy.)
Now, if you're part of the empowerment majority, I understand why this is a hard thing to understand: you've never been through it. But such zealous hypocrisy as Savage's recommendations suggest is threatening. In the first place, Savage takes a flippant attitude toward the whole process: "But if we are decided that we want to engage our students in the kind of exchange of ideas on which 'secular' society is founded, then let's choose something that confronts the accepted wisdom of Ohio State University! Like the students and young profs did in the '60s, man!"
It sounds pretty, but it's shite. It's like saying that we should teach the ethos of the '60s by promoting religious supremacy, bigotry, and hatred. It doesn't work. Kupelian is a WorldNetDaily editor who calls homosexuals self-destructive and evil. The idea of a university teaching that homosexuality is evil is just a little absurd, don't you think? All for the sake of diversity? Why not teach that Jews are a financial conspiracy, that the U.N. will arrest and execute Sabbatarians (which includes Jews), or that Communism was inspired by the devil? You know, just for "diversity"?
The thing about Carter and Shriver is that the polarizing effect is the choice of the polarized. And that's something conservatives overlook. Anything that they disagree with is polarizing, apparently. But deliberately-contrived theses weakly supported by poor scholarship, intended to sensationalize in order to sell and specifically promote a political agenda that is at odds with what can be objectively verified apparently demands the respect of diversity. When someone goes out of their way to insult the academic qualifications of his colleagues in order to push a homophobic agenda and compel the university to condemn a portion of its students as self-destructive and evil, that does tread into the realm of sexual harassment; that is, he's promoting harassment based on sexual orientation.
In the meantime, there's quite a bit we don't see, and that's largely what you're relying on in order to make your complaint. Undoubtedly some sort of disaster has occurred at OSU-Mansfield, but the fact that you're outraged that a zealot didn't get his way and now might have to answer for his conduct is just a bit disheartening. You're showing the oversensitivity and deliberate shallowness of the conservative argument.
Here's the thing: if such simplistic summaries are the best you can come up with, you're a demonstration of what's wrong with the conservative outlook. If you're actually choosing the simpleton's perspective, you're a demonstration of what's wrong with the conservative outlook.
By the gods, you're a dishonest fellow, Madanthonywayne.
Absolutely reprehensible.
Waaaaahhhhh! Here's a question for you, Madanthonywayne, am I really supposed to waste my time on even more of your complaints when you've already shown yourself to be thoroughly dishonest? How many hours would you like me to waste wondering why you're overreacting?
Now, it's interesting that you should include the bit about Hamline University, because it comes from The Fire. Did you know that your man Scott Savage ran to The Fire early on in the dispute at OSU-Mansfield? He was trying to set up a controversy so that gullible hatemongers would rush to his rescue and strike a blow against academics.
If either of those links turn out to be more of your pathetic sensationalism, I will not be happy.
Very well. I reiterate:
Will conservatives open their demands for affirmative action so that universities should be required to hire a certain number of holocaust deniers? How about rape advocates? I mean, our psychology and women's studies departments severely lack any balance in that aspect. So where's the "she was asking for it" professor? I mean, don't students deserve to hear diverse points of view? What about the law school professor teaching the family law class that asserts that the U.S. Constitution contains no specific laws about marriage, therefore it's unconstitutional to ban polygamy or incestuous marriages? Don't our students deserve, for all their money and hard work, to hear diverse viewpoints?
The last time we visited this question, you accused me of not taking you seriously. And, while I confess it is, in fact, rather difficult to take you seriously, I do find the question appropriate. Maybe you're not advocating such crap, but it's included under your calls for free speech and diversity of opinion, especially in the context of tinkering with the formula for ethical assessment according to politics.
There may well be valid issues in the situations you've raised, but every time I look into the details of those situations, your simplistic, self-righteous representations fall apart.
And please notice: You do have the right to be dishonest. That doesn't mean we're obliged to accept what you say as right, proper, or truthful.