CSNbbs

Of course academia is an left wing echo chamber. If you want to see it in action, schedule Ann Coulter for a talk.

People who believe that academia is not an echo chamber tend to have one thing in common Plenty of wool over their eyes. Usually placed there by themselves.

They also tend to think that the NYT and WashPo and CNN are just unbiased journalists, while Fox is just a biased tool of the right.

Lots of wool there.

Of course academia is an left wing echo chamber. If you want to see it in action, schedule Ann Coulter for a talk.

People who believe that academia is not an echo chamber tend to have one thing in common Plenty of wool over their eyes. Usually placed there by themselves.

They also tend to think that the NYT and WashPo and CNN are just unbiased journalists, while Fox is just a biased tool of the right.

Lots of wool there.

(07-06-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

After tweet supporting ‘good police officers,’ Arizona State revokes journalism dean offer

I can continue to pull these out one by one --- what number will suffice for you to say there is not an issue?

How about the cancel of the sister of the Atlanta cop from her job?

The other issue is that this is getting *past* the 'poor student is offended at the professor's use of a word'.

We have people making an active effort to dox incoming students and having schools rescind acceptances.

I can point to executives at companies being canned for 'All lives manner'. Yes, all lives do matter, no matter whom they might be. If one is to be hunted for that expression, **** the hunters in all honesty.

Yes, if you support that type of Maoist behavior and enforced homogeneity of thought, I can see why one would think there is 'not a lot there'.

I mean, it is now the left's prerogative to cancel the jobs and lives of people whom dare hold what are to them 'offending opinions'. I can tell you from history, there is no good outcome of this. In the slightest.

Let's flip this around. Assume a more 'conservative' nation. How would you enjoy the active hunting of of people for expressing the thought 'Black Lives Matter'? I would find that reprehensible as well. And as thought conformist as I find all the leftie brownshirts doing that these days. At least in that my view on those actions is 'content neutral'; but the kicker is that from the progressive angle those actions are justified in one direction, yet reprehensible in the direction counter to their viewpoint.

If the last statement is incorrect, then why the very public urge to put on the brownshirt uniform at all from the leftist camp? Why try to minimize the social outcome (as you just did) ?

I really dont care if the effect truly is an inconsequential as you speak. I dont think that, I think it more of a cop out/justification (its just a small leak in the line, son. No bother...). Even if it is small in number, inconsequenstial, the social damage to the fabric is there -- no matter how small.

Again, lets flip it around. Let's assume one progressive got canned for saying in a public forum 'I am socialist'. I doubt the left would buy the case that 'its just one case, its inconsequential'. For any *single* case. And if the right as a mindset said 'dont mind that one instance, "the frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe", do you really think your team would sit down, ponder it, and say, well golly gee willikers you might be right?

But again, the numbers of people losing jobs and livelihoods isnt one, or five. It is a seriously accelerating issue. But your statement of "frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe" seems to be a serious cop-out, almost a 'let the kids play' thing.

I mean, I have actually lived in countries where people are persecuted for political beliefs. Not ever a good situation, either at the point of the persecution, and never a healthy ultimate outcome.

The simple fact is that you dont have bands of rightists consistently and very publicly pulling up photos and twitter and aiming at leftists to cancel them. Yet.

If that is a societal norm you want to defend, well, fk that. I have seen it first hand before. It sucks rocks. Royally. But your side seems hell bent on normalizing that grotesque as **** behavior.

(07-06-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Of course academia is an left wing echo chamber. If you want to see it in action, schedule Ann Coulter for a talk.

People who believe that academia is not an echo chamber tend to have one thing in common Plenty of wool over their eyes. Usually placed there by themselves.

They also tend to think that the NYT and WashPo and CNN are just unbiased journalists, while Fox is just a biased tool of the right.

Lots of wool there.

Here is a point in this:

Yesterday, the NYTimes and the WashPo went off on the Trump speech as 'dark', and 'divisive'.

I actually then proceeded to watch the Trump speech, in its entirety.

Questions for our leftists:

a) do you agree that the trump Rushmore speech was 'dark' and/or 'divisive'?
b) has anyone actually watched, heard, or read the speech in its totality?
c) if a) is 'yes', what parts are 'dark' and/or 'divisive', with zero reference to third party descritions?

(07-06-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Of course academia is an left wing echo chamber. If you want to see it in action, schedule Ann Coulter for a talk.

People who believe that academia is not an echo chamber tend to have one thing in common Plenty of wool over their eyes. Usually placed there by themselves.

They also tend to think that the NYT and WashPo and CNN are just unbiased journalists, while Fox is just a biased tool of the right.

Lots of wool there.

I like the double post of your piece that started 'is a left wing echo chamber'. That double post really emphasized that portion.

(07-06-2020 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Of course academia is an left wing echo chamber. If you want to see it in action, schedule Ann Coulter for a talk.

People who believe that academia is not an echo chamber tend to have one thing in common Plenty of wool over their eyes. Usually placed there by themselves.

They also tend to think that the NYT and WashPo and CNN are just unbiased journalists, while Fox is just a biased tool of the right.

Lots of wool there.

Here is a point in this:

Yesterday, the NYTimes and the WashPo went off on the Trump speech as 'dark', and 'divisive'.

I actually then proceeded to watch the Trump speech, in its entirety.

Questions for our leftists:

a) do you agree that the trump Rushmore speech was 'dark' and/or 'divisive'?
b) has anyone actually watched, heard, or read the speech in its totality?
c) if a) is 'yes', what parts are 'dark' and/or 'divisive', with zero reference to third party descritions?

a) see below
b) no
c) see above

(07-06-2020 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

After tweet supporting ‘good police officers,’ Arizona State revokes journalism dean offer

It seems that there had been multiple complaints from students at her prior position. So it likely wasn't just that tweet that got her offer rescinded.

Quote:had the offer revoked after nearly two dozen past students complained that she frequently encouraged them to, among other things, dress appropriately, wear makeup while on air, and speak with a more standard journalistic voice.

That being said... I am, in general, on your side on this one. Cancel culture has gotten completely out of control. If multiple points of view can't be heard on a college campus then we have a problem.

(07-06-2020 11:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

After tweet supporting ‘good police officers,’ Arizona State revokes journalism dean offer

It seems that there had been multiple complaints from students at her prior position. So it likely wasn't just that tweet that got her offer rescinded.

Quote:had the offer revoked after nearly two dozen past students complained that she frequently encouraged them to, among other things, dress appropriately, wear makeup while on air, and speak with a more standard journalistic voice.

That being said... I am, in general, on your side on this one. Cancel culture has gotten completely out of control. If multiple points of view can't be heard on a college campus then we have a problem.

I would extend that to if multiple points of view in society at general cannot be heard, we have a very serious problem.

The issue is that the cancel culture that has flourished for a decade in the universities is now in the wild and becoming more and more prevalent in this society at large.

Just like with the Wuhan virus, too bad there wasnt a more concerted effort to nip the fledgling problem at the root.

(07-06-2020 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

And I find it astonishing that even someone who leans as far left as you do can fail to see this. I guess when you lean left, it just seems like normal, middle-of-the-road, just like some righties probably think Liberty is normal, middle-of-the-road.

It is a fact in the eyes of many because it is a fact. Liberty's not, Hillsdale is not, BYU is not, aTm is not, but most of the rest are.

It's kind of like the news. The leftist all say that Fox leans right. That's because it does. But many of them refuse to admit that the rest of them lean left. I'll concede that Fox leans right in any conversation with any leftist who admits that the rest of the MSM all lean left.

I've laid out my thoughts before about my opinions on academia's political slant.

It seems like you're conflating student body political leanings with academia. When we are talking about academia, I assume you are talking about professors (including what their research focuses are, how their research groups are led and organized, etc.) and what is being taught in classrooms from gender studies to engineering to business.

Academia is broad, and while there is no doubt a liberal bent, the breadth of academia means to me that it, as a whole, is not some echo chamber. There are certainly topics across the country that skew more heavily liberal than others, but how much of the academic population do those topics/departments make up?

(07-06-2020 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

After tweet supporting ‘good police officers,’ Arizona State revokes journalism dean offer

It seems that there had been multiple complaints from students at her prior position. So it likely wasn't just that tweet that got her offer rescinded.

Quote:had the offer revoked after nearly two dozen past students complained that she frequently encouraged them to, among other things, dress appropriately, wear makeup while on air, and speak with a more standard journalistic voice.

That being said... I am, in general, on your side on this one. Cancel culture has gotten completely out of control. If multiple points of view can't be heard on a college campus then we have a problem.

I would extend that to if multiple points of view in society at general cannot be heard, we have a very serious problem.

The issue is that the cancel culture that has flourished for a decade in the universities is now in the wild and becoming more and more prevalent in this society at large.

Just like with the Wuhan virus, too bad there wasnt a more concerted effort to nip the fledgling problem at the root.

See, I view this issue as us currently being in the point where the bud can be nipped.

We have enough awareness that this is an issue, but it is not yet so pervasive as to be actually widespread.

(07-06-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

After tweet supporting ‘good police officers,’ Arizona State revokes journalism dean offer

It seems that there had been multiple complaints from students at her prior position. So it likely wasn't just that tweet that got her offer rescinded.

Quote:had the offer revoked after nearly two dozen past students complained that she frequently encouraged them to, among other things, dress appropriately, wear makeup while on air, and speak with a more standard journalistic voice.

That being said... I am, in general, on your side on this one. Cancel culture has gotten completely out of control. If multiple points of view can't be heard on a college campus then we have a problem.

I would extend that to if multiple points of view in society at general cannot be heard, we have a very serious problem.

The issue is that the cancel culture that has flourished for a decade in the universities is now in the wild and becoming more and more prevalent in this society at large.

Just like with the Wuhan virus, too bad there wasnt a more concerted effort to nip the fledgling problem at the root.

See, I view this issue as us currently being in the point where the bud can be nipped.

We have enough awareness that this is an issue, but it is not yet so pervasive as to be actually widespread.

I hope you are correct in that view.

The actual place it should have been nipped was in the institutions that supposedly seek to expand thought and critical thinking, and should be promoting the ideals of true liberalism --- the universities. That it didnt happen at the universities is troubling.

Maybe this is might be an indication why our 'ilk' think so negatively about the universities, and why our 'ilk' think the pervasiveness of progressivism in academia might be an actual issue.

(07-06-2020 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Academia is broad, and while there is no doubt a liberal bent, the breadth of academia means to me that it, as a whole, is not some echo chamber.

Lad, I work there, as does my sister, as did my father. When it comes to politics, the bolded statement is just not correct.

While there is a liberal bent, there is also a very illiberal bent. That is why many of us use the word progressives as the political bent.

(07-06-2020 10:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]While there is a liberal bent, there is also a very illiberal bent. That is why many of us use the word progressives as the political bent.

I prefer leftist. Not liberal. I'm a liberal, at least in the classical sense, and I have nothing in common with leftists.

Historically, conservatives wanted to preserve the existing power structure--the state, the church--whereas liberals wanted more liberty and freedom. Those might be viewed as up or down in a two-dimensional political spectrum. Left and right deal more with how government power is used. Left wants a more active role in redistributing income and wealth, and less with national security and public safety. Right wants a more laissez-faire economy and a bigger role for national security and public safety. In that formulation I am a right liberal. I identify with the Main Street, national security, and libertarian republicans. I have nothing in common with neocons--as my brother says, they liberal on every issue where I'm conservative and conservative on every issue where I'm liberal.

more antibusiness measures from the left

Amazing they think they can prod the beast and get no reaction.

Mexico

"President Trump, like in the best times of our political relations, we have received from you during my tenure as president understanding and respect, instead of insults toward my person - and more importantly, toward my country," the Mexican leader said at a Rose Garden ceremony."

I guess Lopez Obrador has not been reading WashPo or the NYT, and so just has to go on personal experience.

The Breathe Act

This is the level of idiocy that makes it impossible for me to support any democrat, no matter how nice he is.

I presume all the democrats here support this - at the least they will vote for people who will support this. But if one of you does not support this, speak up.

.....

Proposed federal legislation that would radically transform the nation's criminal justice system through such changes as eliminating agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration and the use of surveillance technology was unveiled Tuesday by the Movement for Black Lives.

The act, which also seeks to reduce the Department of Defense budget, would institute changes to the policing, pretrial detention, sentencing and prosecution practices that Cullors said have long disproportionately criminalized Black and brown communities, LGBTQIA people, Indigenous people, and individuals with disabilities.

It would establish the Neighborhood Demilitarization Program, which would collect and destroy all equipment like military-grade armored vehicles and weapons in the hands of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies by 2022.

Federal law enforcement also would be unable to use facial-recognition technology, which many communities across the nation already have banned, along with drones and forms of electronic surveillance such as ankle-monitoring.

The bill would end life sentences, abolish all mandatory minimum sentencing laws and create a "time bound plan" to close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers.

... removing police, school resource officers and other armed security and metal detectors from schools.

Isn't Cullors the one who said she was a trained marxist?

So let me get this straight...

We can't profile people (which I agree is done too much)... but we also can't use technology to actually identify them either... nor can we use it to keep tabs on those we've identified?

So what's the point?

(07-09-2020 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The Breathe Act

This is the level of idiocy that makes it impossible for me to support any democrat, no matter how nice he is.

I presume all the democrats here support this - at the least they will vote for people who will support this. But if one of you does not support this, speak up.

A lot to unpack here... please don't equate lack of comments with support.