90% of university faculties are hard-core leftist

[HogTrash]

The best place to get the truth is from someone whose been on the inside of both sides.

David Horiwitz is such a man...One of his friends and allies from the old days was Bill Ayers.

Horiwitz was on the inside when the radical left began their campaign of marxist indoctrination in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_DgBBwE3G4&feature=related

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. Yah,...... You have to be a leftist in order to peddle that crap that's being taught at most colleges.
2. What a waste of learning, I saw it coming in High School and said no thanks.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[HogTrash]

Sorry bout that,



1. Yah,...... You have to be a leftist in order to peddle that crap that's being taught at most colleges.
2. What a waste of learning, I saw it coming in High School and said no thanks.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexasMany young people are well into their 30's before they manage to unfuck their minds after leaving academia and sadly some never do.

[Noir]

Lulz, Unis designed to indoctrinate, thats not University.

[HogTrash]

Lulz, Unis designed to indoctrinate, thats not University.I have no idea what you just said. :dunno:

Does this make sense to anybody else? :confused:

[Noir]

Laugh out loud at the idea of a university that indoctrinates, as it is a contradiction in terms as far as i am concerned.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




Laugh out loud at the idea of a university that indoctrinates, as it is a contradiction in terms as far as i am concerned.




1. Yah, I hear that lawding about university indoctrinating its students is the first sign you've been indoctrinated, and don't know it, they are cleaver som-bitches,....:laugh2:



Regards,
SirJamesofexas

[Little-Acorn]

Laugh out loud at the idea of a university that indoctrinates, as it is a contradiction in terms as far as i am concerned.

It certainly is.

So why do so many universities do it?

[Noir]

It certainly is.

So why do so many universities do it?

Well its up for the students to take it up with their lecturers,

[Insein]

Well its up for the students to take it up with their lecturers,

And risk a bad grade and a long fight to correct it.

[Noir]

And risk a bad grade and a long fight to correct it.

Yep.
Changes can not be made by taking the easy route, if your gonna stand up for what you think is right and proper then you better expect to get hit hard, take it on the chin, and ask for another.

[Kathianne]

Well its up for the students to take it up with their lecturers,

I can't speak towards UK universities, but in many here, not to give back the point of view will be reflected in grade. Now of course you can petition that, but good luck if you need another course taught by that professor.

[Noir]

I can't speak towards UK universities, but in many here, not to give back the point of view will be reflected in grade. Now of course you can petition that, but good luck if you need another course taught by that professor.

But that just doesn't sound like university, as far as i see it you go to school to be taught, and you go to university to learn. Thats why i said early the idea of being indoctrinated in a Uni seems a contradiction in terms, if thats how your Unis operate then i see that as a clear failing of the system.

[Kathianne]

But that just doesn't sound like university, as far as i see it you go to school to be taught, and you go to university to learn. Thats why i said early the idea of being indoctrinated in a Uni seems a contradiction in terms, if thats how your Unis operate then i see that as a clear failing of the system.

That is the way the majority do work here. Seriously.

[Agnapostate]

By "indoctrination," they mean that students are released with mindsets contrary to rightist politics. But for all the attacks on leftist academia, it's inconceivable to think of any legitimate rightist argument against the leftist academics' teachings. Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity debating Noam Chomsky? It would be something akin to an Ewok challenging Darth Vader to a duel. :laugh:

[Gaffer]

By "indoctrination," they mean that students are released with mindsets contrary to rightist politics. But for all the attacks on leftist academia, it's inconceivable to think of any legitimate rightist argument against the leftist academics' teachings. Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity debating Noam Chomsky? It would be something akin to an Ewok challenging Darth Vader to a duel. :laugh:

And here is an example of U.S. university's. :lol:

[Agnapostate]

And here is an example of U.S. university's. :lol:

And an example of U.S. remedial spelling class. :lol:

[Gaffer]

And an example of U.S. remedial spelling class. :lol:

What was wrong with my spelling?

[Agnapostate]

What was wrong with my spelling?

"University's" is a singular possessive word. "He was involved in the university's transfer program."

"Universities" is a plural word. "She attended several universities."

THE MOAR U KNO! :beer:

[Gaffer]

"University's" is a singular possessive word. "He was involved in the university's transfer program."

"Universities" is a plural word. "She attended several universities."

THE MOAR U KNO! :beer:

In spite of that you made my point.

[Agnapostate]

In spite of that you made my point.

You also made my point about the unhealthy interaction between arrogance and ignorance. An arrogant genius may be obnoxious, but at least knows what he/she is talking about. An ignorant fool may be uninformed, but at least doesn't advertise it to everyone. Someone both arrogant and ignorant exhibits the worst of both worlds.

[Agnapostate]

And why does HogWash care what this kike thinks anyway? :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

You also made my point about the unhealthy interaction between arrogance and ignorance. An arrogant genius may be obnoxious, but at least knows what he/she is talking about. An ignorant fool may be uninformed, but at least doesn't advertise it to everyone. Someone both arrogant and ignorant exhibits the worst of both worlds.

A corporate writing instructor once told us that the use of the possessive apostrophe in place of the correct plural form of a word is one of the most common mistakes she encounters. Hardly grounds for labeling someone ignorant or foolish. Then again, you have been shown to make negative generalities without evidence. The pattern emerges.

[Agnapostate]

A corporate writing instructor once told us that the use of the possessive apostrophe in place of the correct plural form of a word is one of the most common mistakes she encounters. Hardly grounds for labeling someone ignorant or foolish. Then again, you have been shown to make negative generalities without evidence. The pattern emerges.

I agree. It's simply ironic in the context of an insinuation about the poor quality of someone's education.

[SassyLady]

Many young people are well into their 30's before they manage to unfuck their minds after leaving academia and sadly some never do.

So true.........:eek:

[SassyLady]

By "indoctrination," they mean that students are released with mindsets contrary to rightist politics.

Seriously, Aggie - do you really think the professors allow you (young, impressionable, inexperienced student) to form your own opinion based on facts? Do you truly believe they are not openly attempting to influence you one way or another?


But for all the attacks on leftist academia, it's inconceivable to think of any legitimate rightist argument against the leftist academics' teachings.

Are you kidding me? The best argument against the leftist teachings is listening to what they've done to you. You've openly admitted that you don't have enough life experience to make sound conclusions, therefore, you must be parroting something you've read or heard.........oh, yeah, I forgot.........your hero, Noam. Which professor introduced you to him?

I, too, am a university educated individual so I can speak from personal experience about the type of professors we have here in CA. However, unlike yourself, I didn't go to college until I was in my 40s and already successful. I had no problem challenging the professors ....... unfortunately, the kids right out of high school would hang on every word uttered by the professors and didn't have enough life experience to challenge anything they were taught.

I wrote an essay for one of my classes for extra credit - could have been given up to 6 credits for it. I was originally given only three credits but was able to get two more credits (for a total of 5) because I challenged the professor by showing her how her own personal belief system had biased her.

Professors didn't intimidate me........in the business world I worked with people with far bigger egos.


PS - if you are going to point out when someone misspells something, can you point out all the posts where people misspell "surely" by dropping the "e"?

Surely = confident, without fail
Surly = bad tempered

Surely, you can see how misspelling this word can cause me to become surly!

[SassyLady]

You also made my point about the unhealthy interaction between arrogance and ignorance. An arrogant genius may be obnoxious, but at least knows what he/she is talking about. An ignorant fool may be uninformed, but at least doesn't advertise it to everyone. Someone both arrogant and ignorant exhibits the worst of both worlds.

Arrogance is being over prideful of oneself.........ignorance is simply being uneducated. One is by choice, the other isn't. To point out another's ignorance is arrogant. And, if the genius is truly a genius, they will know when their arrogance is truly just ignorance.

[Agnapostate]

Seriously, Aggie - do you really think the professors allow you (young, impressionable, inexperienced student) to form your own opinion based on facts? Do you truly believe they are not openly attempting to influence you one way or another?

What's caused you to come to the conclusion that I'm young, impressionable, and inexperienced? I've never stated my age on this forum and have given deliberately conflicting accounts elsewhere because I oppose ageism and the ad hominem attacks that tend to be directed at younger people. Interactions between posters should be based on the content of their posts, not their biographical details, so as to avoid the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem.


Are you kidding me? The best argument against the leftist teachings is listening to what they've done to you. You've openly admitted that you don't have enough life experience to make sound conclusions,

Wrong. I said that I don't use my personal experiences to make sound conclusions because of the highly varying nature of human experiences and behaviors. I never said that I lacked experiences myself.


therefore, you must be parroting something you've read or heard.........oh, yeah, I forgot.........your hero, Noam. Which professor introduced you to him?

Very little of my commentary has been influenced by Noam Chomsky. We share anarchist beliefs, but he has always had a focus on foreign policy that I don't share, since my primary interest is in economic policy and organization. Therefore, I'd look to Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) before Noam Chomsky. But I was familiar with Chomsky long before I ever entered college nonetheless.


I, too, am a university educated individual so I can speak from personal experience about the type of professors we have here in CA. However, unlike yourself, I didn't go to college until I was in my 40s and already successful. I had no problem challenging the professors ....... unfortunately, the kids right out of high school would hang on every word uttered by the professors and didn't have enough life experience to challenge anything they were taught.

And where do you imagine that disability comes from? The natural ignorance of young age? I'm more inclined to attribute youngsters' susceptibility to indoctrination to the fact that the law has mandated that they attend institutions that are internally authoritarian and hierarchical for twelve years, hardly an environment that would facilitate the development of brilliance. That's why I instead have an interest in institutions such as Summerhill School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School).


I wrote an essay for one of my classes for extra credit - could have been given up to 6 credits for it. I was originally given only three credits but was able to get two more credits (for a total of 5) because I challenged the professor by showing her how her own personal belief system had biased her.

That's great. Any good professor will recognize informed challenge as the ultimate sign of knowledge, since the process of education shouldn't be inculcation of a collection of data as much as it should be development of reasoning abilities, not so much what to learn as how to learn. Consider autodidacticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidactism), for example. It's because of my belief in self-instruction that I'm a proponent of unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling).


Arrogance is being over prideful of oneself.........ignorance is simply being uneducated. One is by choice, the other isn't. To point out another's ignorance is arrogant. And, if the genius is truly a genius, they will know when their arrogance is truly just ignorance.

Ignorance is not necessarily a choice, since the option to learn is available, though there would be a problem if a person was so ignorant as to be ignorant of his or her ignorance, at which point there wouldn't be a realization that learning more was a wise choice. However, arrogant exhibition of ignorance is certainly a choice, since as you mentioned, arrogance is a choice. To some extent, everyone is arrogant to a greater degree than they'll openly admit, unless they go through life believing that opponents are usually right and they are usually wrong.

However, I've never regarded myself as much more than an acolyte, an apprentice, an amateur, despite wanting to be a master of the social sciences. I haven't achieved that and probably will not. I've also never claimed to be a "genius"; I've instead noted that I've studied certain aspects of the social sciences more than others have, and consequently know more about those specific topics than others do. I'm usually the first to attack the arbitrary division between "intellectual" academics and "dimwitted" vocational workers or anything of the sort. An auto mechanic has mastered a subject every bit as complex as many aspects of the social sciences and far more elaborate than others. He or she simply doesn't manifest intelligence or knowledge in the narrow mold that has been set for it.

But are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity auto workers? Are they skilled technicians? Or do they attempt to present themselves as skilled political analysts? It's in that field that they'll fall to any political science professor at any university, in my opinion, and survive only because soundbites appeal to popular opinion so much more than thorough and informed analysis does.

[SassyLady]

What's caused you to come to the conclusion that I'm young, impressionable, and inexperienced? I've never stated my age on this forum and have given deliberately conflicting accounts elsewhere because I oppose ageism and the ad hominem attacks that tend to be directed at younger people. Interactions between posters should be based on the content of their posts, not their biographical details, so as to avoid the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem.

What makes you think this is not what I based my assumption of your age on? BTW - I feel that anyone who is under 30 is young, impressionable and inexperienced.



Wrong. I said that I don't use my personal experiences to make sound conclusions because of the highly varying nature of human experiences and behaviors. I never said that I lacked experiences myself.


And you've never posted anything to confirm that you have experience, therefore, I have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Just because you've never stated something doesn't disprove it.



Very little of my commentary has been influenced by Noam Chomsky. We share anarchist beliefs, but he has always had a focus on foreign policy that I don't share, since my primary interest is in economic policy and organization. Therefore, I'd look to Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) before Noam Chomsky. But I was familiar with Chomsky long before I ever entered college nonetheless.

Yeah, he does focus on foreign policy. However, you have mentioned him more than once. Perhaps I haven't read all your threads and never heard you mention Kropotkin. BTW, what do you think of George Soros' economic policies?



And where do you imagine that disability comes from? The natural ignorance of young age? I'm more inclined to attribute youngsters' susceptibility to indoctrination to the fact that the law has mandated that they attend institutions that are internally authoritarian and hierarchical for twelve years, hardly an environment that would facilitate the development of brilliance. That's why I instead have an interest in institutions such as Summerhill School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School).

I don't believe in the typical educational system we have either. My granddaughter attends this one http://www.basistucson.org/
Unfortunately, too many parents have to work to provide a home for their children and cannot stay home and do the Unschool program.


That's great. Any good professor will recognize informed challenge as the ultimate sign of knowledge, since the process of education shouldn't be inculcation of a collection of data as much as it should be development of reasoning abilities, not so much what to learn as how to learn. Consider autodidacticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidactism), for example. It's because of my belief in self-instruction that I'm a proponent of unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling).

Except that self-instruction inherently means that one has to learn about a subject on their own.....by experience or reading about someone else's experience, correct? How did you learn about the genocide of the Amerindidans? Did you go to the library and read everything ever written about it and then make up your own mind about what was factual and what was embellished? When do you decide what to truly believe in when it comes to history Aggie? I mean, there are things in this world you can teach yourself by doing it, like taking an engine apart and putting it back together. But history? How does one develop empirical evidence, or reasoning abilities regarding something like this?

How are you learning about economic policy if not by studying the past? Self-taught economists? As you've stated above, you are a student of Kropotkin.

[SassyLady]

Ignorance is not necessarily a choice, since the option to learn is available, though there would be a problem if a person was so ignorant as to be ignorant of his or her ignorance, at which point there wouldn't be a realization that learning more was a wise choice. However, arrogant exhibition of ignorance is certainly a choice, since as you mentioned, arrogance is a choice. To some extent, everyone is arrogant to a greater degree than they'll openly admit, unless they go through life believing that opponents are usually right and they are usually wrong.

I believe ignorance is a choice. Choosing to not seek knowledge of something when that knowledge is available narrows one's ability to discern what is true about the subject.


However, I've never regarded myself as much more than an acolyte, an apprentice, an amateur, despite wanting to be a master of the social sciences. I haven't achieved that and probably will not. I've also never claimed to be a "genius"; I've instead noted that I've studied certain aspects of the social sciences more than others have, and consequently know more about those specific topics than others do. I'm usually the first to attack the arbitrary division between "intellectual" academics and "dimwitted" vocational workers or anything of the sort. An auto mechanic has mastered a subject every bit as complex as many aspects of the social sciences and far more elaborate than others. He or she simply doesn't manifest intelligence or knowledge in the narrow mold that has been set for it.

Aggie - what would you consider a "master of the social sciences" to be?


But are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity auto workers? Are they skilled technicians? Or do they attempt to present themselves as skilled political analysts? It's in that field that they'll fall to any political science professor at any university, in my opinion, and survive only because soundbites appeal to popular opinion so much more than thorough and informed analysis does.

I've always thought they present themselves as "talk show hosts". I don't think either of them profess to be experts at anything other than asking questions and opining on various subjects. With this in mind, they are more "expert" than I am --- perhaps, even masters at what they do.

Who knows, if the debate with the university professor were on the radio or tv, they might come out on top simply because the professor is used to lecturing rather than debating.

One last point and then I'm off to bed.......never discount popular opinion Aggie.........humans do have a tendency to defy logic no matter how thoroughly informed the analyses.

[Agnapostate]

What makes you think this is not what I based my assumption of your age on? BTW - I feel that anyone who is under 30 is young, impressionable and inexperienced.

Since everyone over 30 is not experienced and well-grounded and it would be foolish to assume otherwise, it seems equally fallacious to assume that everyone under 30 is inexperienced and well-grounded. "30" is a convenient age to select because of the nature of our modern socialization process, which incorporated the creation of adolescence as we now know it and the establishment of age restrictions during and after the Industrial Revolution. It also coincides with an extension of the average human lifespan made possible through the advancement of medical technology and scientific research. But what if the average human lifespan were to be extended to 150? Would it be reasonable to assume that the age of majority should be 30 or 35, and that the age of "true adulthood" should be around 55 or 60? Regardless, my point was merely to frown at an apparent attempt to introduce ad hominem logical fallacies.


And you've never posted anything to confirm that you have experience, therefore, I have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Just because you've never stated something doesn't disprove it.

How could I post anything to "confirm" that I have experience on an Internet forum? It would be rather easy to lie, after all, and bolster my own claims with reports of a lifetime of practical experience as well as substantial credentials and degrees. I tend to avoid focus on personal characteristics as a result and am more inclined to look to posters' arguments.


Yeah, he does focus on foreign policy. However, you have mentioned him more than once. Perhaps I haven't read all your threads and never heard you mention Kropotkin.

Regardless, I have no inordinate attachment to him.


BTW, what do you think of George Soros' economic policies?

Soros is a currency speculator. What "economic policies" are you referring to?


I don't believe in the typical educational system we have either. My granddaughter attends this one http://www.basistucson.org/
Unfortunately, too many parents have to work to provide a home for their children and cannot stay home and do the Unschool program.

More than that, homeschooling is not necessarily equivalent to unschooling, and the establishment of the ordinary hierarchy of classroom conditions at home serves very little purpose, as far as I'm concerned. I once said this in a homeschooling forum and was attacked for it, as every mother there who employed "traditional" methods took it as a personal insult. I didn't understand that; do they intend their practice of homeschooling as a personal insult to teachers and other school employees?


Except that self-instruction inherently means that one has to learn about a subject on their own.....by experience or reading about someone else's experience, correct?

No. It simply means that instruction is self-directed rather than hierarchically imposed. In that vein, professors' lectures can be utilized as any other resource would be; it's simply a matter of freely choosing which subjects to study and introducing a greater degree of student direction of the classroom. Just as individual students will direct tutors to focus on specific aspects of a subject, students can democratically direct teachers and professors, though with less precision as a result of being more numerous.


How did you learn about the genocide of the Amerindidans? Did you go to the library and read everything ever written about it and then make up your own mind about what was factual and what was embellished? When do you decide what to truly believe in when it comes to history Aggie?

That which seems informed, based on careful analysis and sourcing of available empirical research, and focused on logical argument and deduction rather than baseless assertion, is the literature that I will focus on with the greatest intensity. I pay significantly more attention to the books I've mentioned than to Trigg's posts, for example.


I mean, there are things in this world you can teach yourself by doing it, like taking an engine apart and putting it back together. But history? How does one develop empirical evidence, or reasoning abilities regarding something like this?

Through learning of the empirical method and logic. Much of that is intuitively gained instead of formally taught, of course, so focus on practical application of those things in ordinary conversation will cause even young children to be more inclined towards them.


How are you learning about economic policy if not by studying the past? Self-taught economists? As you've stated above, you are a student of Kropotkin.

I have formal economics training, but will gladly say that most of my economics knowledge comes from my informal study of it. Kropotkin's formal training was in geography and not economics, and was a social theorist rather than an economist specifically. Kropotkin also had an opportunity for practical application of his ideology, specifically one to convey his sentiments to the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, as he was a well-known figure in Russia by 1917. They were rejected, since he was a libertarian and the Bolsheviks were authoritarians. Though Lenin initially respected him as much as anyone else, he eventually dismissed him as a foolish old man and remarked that "his advice is very stupid."


I believe ignorance is a choice. Choosing to not seek knowledge of something when that knowledge is available narrows one's ability to discern what is true about the subject.

That's what I've said, but it's also an immediate reversal of your prior position, unless you were implying that arrogance was not a choice.


Aggie - what would you consider a "master of the social sciences" to be?

Someone with an expansive knowledge of the social sciences, which includes "anthropology, archaeology, communication studies, cultural studies, demography, economics, history, human geography, international development, international relations, linguistics, media studies, philology, political science, social psychology, and social work," as put by Wikipedia. And the backbone of all of these is philosophy.


I've always thought they present themselves as "talk show hosts". I don't think either of them profess to be experts at anything other than asking questions and opining on various subjects.

That "opining" constitutes political commentary. It's in the same field as that of many political scientists. And it's my opinion that both (and the entire field of rightist hacks) would badly lose a debate with a leftist political scientist, particularly a university professor.


With this in mind, they are more "expert" than I am --- perhaps, even masters at what they do.

If their field is acknowledged as entertainment rather than informed political commentary, then I'd agree.


Who knows, if the debate with the university professor were on the radio or tv, they might come out on top simply because the professor is used to lecturing rather than debating.

Perhaps, but that would be a triumph of style over substance. There's still a counterexample to that idea, of course. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI


One last point and then I'm off to bed.......never discount popular opinion Aggie.........humans do have a tendency to defy logic no matter how thoroughly informed the analyses.

Much of this forum's commentary is based on the rejection of popular opinion through constant opposition to the policies of a head of state elected by a majority of voters. I must reject popular opinion even more radically, since I adhere to an extreme political philosophy. And the number of times that popular opinion has found itself in conflict with logic has left me convinced that the latter is my master.

[crin63]

My gunsmith is a Professor at a fairly large University that has approx. 18,000 students and 650 teachers. He told me that to his knowledge he is the only Conservative Professor in that University. He is of the opinion that College is pretty much worthless at this point because it has become a place of indoctrination, not education. He would like to see the last 2 years of High School become vocational because students that should not be or actually cannot be attending college are being forced to go there and they end up failing, leaving and having no skills for their future.

As I think about it, doesn't that also fit with the Liberals plans to get everyone on government support in one way or another. They have diluted the education system down the point where students barely learn to read, write and process numbers yet all the while the kids are sucked into a mindset that government is the best place to get what you need.

[Agnapostate]

There is authoritarian socialization intended to breed governmental dependence, but in an indirect way, since the hierarchical conditions of schools are intended to facilitate entry into the similar conditions of the capitalist labor market.

[HogTrash]

David Horowitz is the best authority on this subject in the world.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbsZ1BM5_To&feature=related

[HogTrash]

There is authoritarian socialization intended to breed governmental dependence, but in an indirect way, since the hierarchical conditions of schools are intended to facilitate entry into the similar conditions of the capitalist labor market.Curious George would like to know?:

What about the blacks, orientals and middle easterns, etc?

Will they be murdered and evicted along with the white euro trash?