Not to gang up on Bruce but I believe we had the same conversation about young people 

 

I also don't think the left has a monopoly on it either as you get both sides basically saying some group is too insert adjective here to know what's good for them. I think it's just more noticeable when it's something you don't agree with.

 

Or not, I dunno. I'm nursing a major hangover

Not to gang up on Bruce but I believe we had the same conversation about young people 

 

I also don't think the left has a monopoly on it either as you get both sides basically saying some group is too insert adjective here to know what's good for them. I think it's just more noticeable when it's something you don't agree with.

 

Or not, I dunno. I'm nursing a major hangover

Yes you correct, we did debate that point and its an interesting one but Shady I really dont mind people like you  guys disagreeing with me ..I just dont listen or respect people who cant have a debate without constant personal attacks 

 

Thats normal and I often learn things if I'm wrong or realize my view is not relevant in a certain debate 

 

But I still stand by that point, it does make  me feel a little condescending but sometimes the truth can make you feel a little guilty  

 

Why would I consider the opinions or voting perspectives of 18, 19, 20 or 21 year olds? ( I think that was the debate ) Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion but normally young people that age are really about  having fun and idealism ...let them have fun and we just have to  ensure they are influenced to vote a certain way that is really what you want 

 

But another question you are  a military man, do you support gun control that is done in a reasonable way?

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by BruceVC

"You just don't understand what's good for you" is a pretty universal cop-out when someone is **** at arguing for something. I've heard it from Libertarians/Liberals on property, (Racial/Ethnic) Nationalists on racial issues, Marxists on the necessity of the state(when arguing with Anarchists), Conservatives/Traditionalists on family values, and a bucketload of other uses I'm too lazy to type out. Bruce's use of it is due to him being bad at arguing rather than his Neo-Liberal ideology.

"You just don't understand what's good for you" is a pretty universal cop-out when someone is **** at arguing for something. I've heard it from Libertarians/Liberals on property, (Racial/Ethnic) Nationalists on racial issues, Marxists on the necessity of the state(when arguing with Anarchists), Conservatives/Traditionalists on family values, and a bucketload of other uses I'm too lazy to type out. Bruce's use of it is due to him being bad at arguing rather than his Neo-Liberal ideology.

Well to be fair I avoid using it because you guys always seem to overreact to its meaning 

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomenon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belongs in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need.

 

These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by Meshugger

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belong in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need.

 

These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

The thing is the left is not anti-gun, its anti-arsenal and despite the evidence many Americans are opposed to this and see this as some sort of Constitutional and Federal overreach...the resistance to something prudent seems almost orchestrated

 

But please dont tell me you also want a gun now  ? Because we dont need the Left for this one, no you dont need a gun....trust me 

 

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belong in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need.

 

These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

The thing is the left is not anti-gun, its anti-arsenal and despite the evidence many Americans are opposed to this and see this as some sort of Constitutional and Federal overreach...the resistance to something prudent seems almost orchestrated

 

But please dont tell me you also want a gun now  ? Because we dont need the Left for this one, no you dont need a gun....trust me 

 

 

Why do you guys keep discussing stuff with Bruce like he's an actual representative of an American liberal?    

Why do you guys keep discussing stuff with Bruce like he's an actual representative of an American liberal?    

I dont really like labels...what would you classify me as in American terms?

 

I support Clinton and Obama legacy

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

I found this stat to be particularly telling:

 

 

 

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

 

I've got a lot of different thoughts on this.  I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed.  They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas.  

 

As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all.  But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere.

 

Why do you guys keep discussing stuff with Bruce like he's an actual representative of an American liberal?    

I dont really like labels...what would you classify me as in American terms?

 

I support Clinton and Obama legacy

 

 

I would classify you as non-American.

 

I certainly wouldn't classify myself as South African anything.  

 

 

Why do you guys keep discussing stuff with Bruce like he's an actual representative of an American liberal?    

I dont really like labels...what would you classify me as in American terms?

 

I support Clinton and Obama legacy

 

 

I would classify you as non-American.

 

I certainly wouldn't classify myself as South African anything.  

 

Thats not really helpful...its kind of those answers where the person either is being dismissive or cant bother to respond constructively so they come up with something that is .....fatuous considering the question? Its like LK saying " how can someone who doesnt live in the USA know more about politics than an actual citizen "  ...I expect more from you young grasshopper 

 

You made a direct comment about  me, I asked you for your opinion in a reasonable way, I assume you understand US political definitions, you know my posting etiquette and you could have just given your opinion...yet you response was bizarre

 

Why would anyone think you are South African...yet you do have some political leanings that are shared  by some  left wing parties like the DA 

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by BruceVC

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

I found this stat to be particularly telling:

 

 

 

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

 

I've got a lot of different thoughts on this.  I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed.  They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas.  

 

As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all.  But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere.

 

 

The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much. 

I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed....

If you can tell the ideology of your history professor/teacher, they are a bad professor/teacher, if you can easily do so, they are abysmal.

 

If you don't have a good mind of your own and a good alternative for a more neutral source of information on history (this is true of most other subjects too, but it is especially of import with history) then yes, you are going to be brainwashed. This is especially true if you are young, as the young are almost never natively equipped to question the information they are being given from an authority figure (and a significant number of adults never develop the equipment). The brainwashed almost never realize that they are brainwashed. Near the only time that ever happens is when the bubble bursts, after one bubble bursts it's easier for some to see through the others. [We all had some brainwashing in K-12, the curriculum is designed for it, and there are a number of myths that are generally taught as fact (and hence commonly believed; I used to believe some of them too)]

 

The best history teachers and professors I ever had, I couldn't tell you to this day what their own ideology was. I was lucky in that I had a few that were great (two of my U.S. History teachers, and my professor on ancient Greece/Rome (a 3 semester venture) were particularly awesome. I also had a flaming blue Constitutional History professor once though. One of only three teachers/professors I ever had from K-College that didn't like me (I questioned him a bit too much and bluntly for his liking).

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by Valsuelm

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belong in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need.

 

These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

That's because the "new-left" are primarily academic in background and are more comfortable rummaging through the writings of 19th century philosophers for phrases to give their mundane ideas a revolutionary appearance. The effects of this are a completely disorganized and impotent left far more interested in squabbles over ideological purity than revolution or even reform. The aversion to weapons is merely a symptom of this complacency.

 

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

I found this stat to be particularly telling:

 

 

 

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

 

I've got a lot of different thoughts on this.  I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed.  They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas.  

 

As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all.  But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere.

 

 

The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much. 

 

Chomsky annoys me with his anti-Western sentiment yet he lives and studies in the US and attacks its core principles

 

He is a hypocrite, why doesnt he  go live in Russia then?

 

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belong in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need.

 

These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

That's because the "new-left" are primarily academic in background and are more comfortable rummaging through the writings of 19th century philosophers for phrases to give their mundane ideas a revolutionary appearance. The effects of this are a completely disorganized and impotent left far more interested in squabbles over ideological purity than revolution or even reform. The aversion to weapons is merely a symptom of this complacency.

 

 

Pretty much. They are larping as philosopher kings without clothes. 

 

 

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

I found this stat to be particularly telling:

 

 

 

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

 

I've got a lot of different thoughts on this.  I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed.  They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas.  

 

As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all.  But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere.

 

 

The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much. 

 

Chomsky annoys me with his anti-Western sentiment yet he lives and studies in the US and attacks its core principles

 

He is a hypocrite, why doesnt he  go live in Russia then?

 

 

It's because you think that his criticism means that he is a supporter of oppressive regimes when he's actually basing his attacks on anarcho-syndicalist ideals. If you want critisize the guy, at least understand what you're up against.

 

 

 

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'

 

 

 

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

I found this stat to be particularly telling:

 

 

 

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

 

I've got a lot of different thoughts on this.  I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed.  They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas.  

 

As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all.  But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere.

 

 

The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much. 

 

Chomsky annoys me with his anti-Western sentiment yet he lives and studies in the US and attacks its core principles

 

He is a hypocrite, why doesnt he  go live in Russia then?

 

 

It's because you think that his criticism means that he is a supporter of oppressive regimes when he's actually basing his attacks on anarcho-syndicalist ideals. If you want critisize the guy, at least understand what you're up against.

 

 

 

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay 

Meshugger just before I respond with some criticism is this real....is this what he believes and do you support this? Please tell me KP doesn't believe this as well ?

 

 

You not trolling me?

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by BruceVC

That's his quote and that's what he believes. I find his ideals interesting in themselves (kinda like Star Trek), but unattainable due to the plurality of civilizations and nations with different moral principles in terms of ingroup/outgroups.

 

He also hates pornography.

 

//Edit: But he is right in his criticisms from time to time. For example "Manufactured Consent" highlights quite well how policy can be created through cooperation between the political power and the mainstream media. It's not an opinion-piece, it's a gathering of empirical data on how news were created and to what amount. Kinda like what social sciences should do. 

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by Meshugger

That's his quote and that's what he believes. I find his ideals interesting in themselves (kinda like Star Trek), but unattainable due to the plurality of civilizations and nations with different moral principles in terms of ingroup/outgroups.

 

He also hates pornography.

 

//Edit: But he is right in his criticisms from time to time. For example "Manufactured Consent" highlights quite well how policy can be created through cooperation between the political power and the mainstream media. It's not an opinion-piece, it's a gathering of empirical data on how news were created and to what amount. Kinda like what social sciences should do. 

 

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay 

 

 

Okay so first but serious criticism ...its very difficult to even understand his point because he uses his own strange terms and vernacular to describe things and he is well known for personal bias ...so what does this even mean

• human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine ( what is he suggesting....human beings are not cogs )
•  human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process (please dont tell he has an issue with people getting jobs )
• society of freedom and free association ( please dont tell me he thinks the USA isn't free? )

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

 

Also what if someone else like  a Police Chief of London made the same point to you how would you feel? 

 

Like the city of London was ready to elect a new police chief.

Chief of London made the same point to you how would you feel? 

 

Like the city of London was ready to elect a new police chief.

 

Like the city of London was ready to elect a new police chief.

 

 

 

 

 

You funny GD 

Edited May 9, 20169 yr by BruceVC

 

That's his quote and that's what he believes. I find his ideals interesting in themselves (kinda like Star Trek), but unattainable due to the plurality of civilizations and nations with different moral principles in terms of ingroup/outgroups.

 

He also hates pornography.

 

//Edit: But he is right in his criticisms from time to time. For example "Manufactured Consent" highlights quite well how policy can be created through cooperation between the political power and the mainstream media. It's not an opinion-piece, it's a gathering of empirical data on how news were created and to what amount. Kinda like what social sciences should do. 

 

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay 

 

 

Okay so first but serious criticism ...its very difficult to even understand his point because he uses his own strange terms and vernacular to describe things and he is well known for personal bias ...so what does this even mean

• human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine ( what is he suggesting....human beings are not cogs )
•  human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process (please dont tell he has an issue with people getting jobs )
• society of freedom and free association ( please dont tell me he thinks the USA isn't free? )

 

 

As i said, you have to understand what you're ciriticing in order to provide with a counter-argument. I will not do your homework for you.