A theory on the college campus issues.

[pErvinalia]

I had no problem seeing his right-wing views when he was in Coito form. You lot are only just now catching up on what I worked out years ago..

[Animavore]

He's Alt-Right now, though. The Coito I knew wouldn't embarrass himself by posting articles from Breitbart and Infowars. He's fallen so far in credibility with his new persona I don't know why he doesn't post an article stating belief in Pizzagate and be done with it.

[Forty Two]

What in the world are you blokes on about? Infowars? Really? And, the odd article from Breitbart is not an issue. It's no different than posting something from The Guardian. Sure, they can be really biased, but they also sometimes have interesting articles. I rarely, however, post from Breitbart. Very rarely. Never from Infowars.

And you blokes, pErvin and Animavore have absolutely no place declaring anyone else lacking in credibility. But, personal attacks and ad homs are common with you. Keep on keepin' on kids.

[Forty Two]

When you were posting as Coito you were presenting an emphatically conservative (in the European sense of the word) position in a calm and measured way most of the time. While almost always disagreeing with you I had no difficulty understanding what you wanted to convey and replying to them in likewise fashion most of the time. You have changed.

I mentioned in another post a Rat-Skep person who went down a very similar route, and like Coito it all began with becoming insanely anti-"SJW" and feminist. I think both have gotten themselves caught up in (brainwashed) by the whole MRA/MGTOW/Alt-Right cult. They parrot all the same talking points.

This is absurd, I am not an MRA, and MGTOW is just ridiculous, IMO. And, Alt-Right is such a broad category that calling someone that is largely meaningless. Go on. Keep up with the insults. They're so persuasive.

I think they badly need to get laid and get over whichever woman dumped them and give up this poisonous ideology.

Which poisonous ideology? Progressive leftism? Identity politics? Post-modernism? Marxism? Let's be specific, start a thread, and discuss whether it is poisonous and to what extent. Your call. Pick the ideology, and I'll start a thread about it. Or, you can just start a thread about it.

[Forty Two]

I don't care about so-called micro-aggression, it's reflex bigotry which needs to be addressed.

But, the best person should get the job. And, it's o.k. to, even if it can be argued against, that America is the land of the free. And, it's o.k. to be colorblind, not seeing race, and to say it. How is that bigotry at all?

And, why does it need to be addressed? What's your argument in favor of the motion "Microaggressions such as those listed are "reflex bigotry" which must be addressed?"

[Forty Two]

@42. The 'professoriat' is a generalisation from the particular - the premise being that entire teaching bodies of universities are a single entity which the cited examples merely typify. Are your views fully and completely inline with those expressed the video? Is it speaking for you to such an extent that you need say nothing more about your own views on this?

Negative - Haidt explains this, and I even explained it in trying to write out what Haidt said in the video. By "professoriat" he explained that he is referring to the academic leanings on campus, which he explained went from overall "leaning left" to "very hard left" or overwhelmingly left. He did not say that "entire teaching bodies of universities" are all of the same viewpoints. He is talking about the overall dominance of the leftist thought. Saying "the professors lean left" doesn't mean they all lean left. It means that overall leftist thought prevails. when one says that there has been a shift from leaning left to very hard left, then the dominance is much greater. There would still be a minority of right or moderate views, but the overall is very much dominated by the left.

It's a lot like the tracking of election polls. When someone says that Virginia was leaning democrat, they don't mean the entire population is a single entity and they all believe one way, they are saying the population leans democrat. When they say California is very hard to the democratic side, they still aren't saying everyone is one block - they say that overall the POPULATION is overwhelmingly, largely democrat. There are still some republican voter, but not many. The same goes for the professoriat - Haidt is talking about the prevailing view among the population.

That seems like an equivocation to me, as 'proffessoriat' speaks to an entire staffing body.

It's not equivocation, it's referring to statistics. If a body of professors is 85% hard left leaning folks, then you would say the professoriat is overwhelmingly hard left. If it was 60% left then you'd say it leans left. Haidt refers to having good numbers on this. And, it's the same as saying Californians lean heavily Democrat.

I take your points about leanings, though it is problematic.

What's problematic about it? If most of the professors are leftist, then the professoriat leans left. If the overwhelming majority are leftist, then they are heavily left.

I'd dispute that Western academia is being held hostage to 'hard-left' politics. I mean, for one, judging by government compositiion left-leaning politics comprises the minority view across the nations of the Western World, and for two, there's no shortage of right-leaning or hard-right academics, commentators, or thinktanks willing, ready and able to counterpoint the views from the left. In fact, the intellectual armoury of the right seems very well served in this regard at the moment.

I think it's pretty clear that the hard left has taken over academia in western universities. See this article in Canada's prestigious Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... e33185073/

Viewing it from the outside, I wonder how dumb concepts like microaggression prohibitions, and "diversity response teams" can get so much play and have so much power with more than majority support among the faculties. Trigger warnings? Progressive stack ideas and identity politics? These are all leftist ideas, and the non-leftist world laughs at them. So, how are professors getting strung up, fired, threatened, sent to Title IX administrative courts, etc., if there isn't a lot of support for them? If the majority of faculty and administrative personnel were conservative, wouldn't they squash these ideas? The moderates, conservatives, and even most liberals (of the non-leftist or progressive variety) oppose these things.

Now, if the charge is that right-leaning political views are waning or being squeezed out of the discourse under the weight and prevalence of left-leaning political views, in academia or elsewhere, then the right are just bleating on about how they're no longer favoured by the young and how there position might not be as secure as they would like it to be. Really, if this is the case the right should look to their own house rather than cobbling together this kind of loose-lipped conspiracy theory about how the malevolent left are skewing the discourse and undermining the views and attitudes of the young.

Fair enough, but that would mean that the left HAVE taken over the professoriat. I don't recall anyone saying there is anything illegal about it. Acknowledging the problem, however, is the first step in opposing it. And, it's not just "the right" - remember, the hard left gets opposition from the moderate left too. There are plenty of people on the left who think the campus shitstorms over Halloween costumes, cultural appropriation nonsense, the progressive stack, identity politics, microaggression nonsense, and silencing or no-platforming speakers is absurd.

But, note, we're talking here about the professoriat, not "young people." And, if the professoriat is disproportionately hard-left (compared to the general population), then there would be an opportunity to correct that through persuasion, discourse, and getting more people who are not hard left to join the ranks of the professoriat. And, of course, to exercise free speech and protest them.

Perhaps it's time for hard left professors to be no-platformed. I wonder, what would happen if bands of students and hired protesters shouted down leftist professors when they wanted to give speeches....

And, I have been having a bear of a time here just getting some of you to focus on what is being discussed in the OP, rather than sharing my own views of it. I posted Haidt's video for comment, and then hardly anyone commented on what Haidt said. it became yet another gang up on 42 thread, where everyone accuses me of various things, and makes it all about my views, when the thread was about an argument presented by a particular person. I still don't know why you have to always make it about me. Why not just say - if you're interested -- what you think about what Haidt said. "I agree with X because..." or "I disagree with X, because...." Maybe there is part of the argument you see merit to, maybe none of it. I don't know.

Yeah, I can see that. But you do like to challenge the views others by proxy - it allows you to take a pop at the views of others without exposing your own ideas to challenges. Your famous overstating the points of others via sarcastic hyperbole being a case in point.

First, isn't that what a discussion forum is for, challenging other people's views on various topics? What's wrong with having views challenged? I love when mine are challenged. What bothers me is when my views aren't challenged, but I, personally, am, and I get post after post declaring me to lack credibility, that my motives are bad, that I have some secret motive, that I'm right wing, that I'm racist or sexist, or that I'm stupid and can't read.

Second, if views are being challenged by proxy because of the posting of Haidt's explanation, so what? Is that hurtful? Does that make anyone else "wrong?" It's just an idea for discussion. So what? Maybe nobody is really interested. Then the thread dies. However, if those who are interested discuss the matter, and not each other, it can be very enlightening.

The reason I'm asking you to dig in and pin down your core thesis is that you've started a number of threads all around the same theme, but I still really have no idea what your basic beef is beyond finger pointing at the young and telling others you don't like it. I accept that articulating these things isn't always straightforward, but posting videos of the young and callow, or of other people pointing out the callowness of the young, starts to wear a bit thin after a while.

Well, one, following reported news events, and general discussions of the day do not require that I have any beef at all. I can post comments on events for discussion, and also to get an understanding as to what is going on. Getting comments from people here, folks from the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Canada, the US, etc., can be helpful in putting events in perspective and actually coming to an understanding as to whether there is anything to have a beef with. That is part of why I post stuff. Interesting incidents and events, which may be beef-worthy.

Now, as to the current state of my beefs on these issues, I take serious issue with overall leftist progressive thought, and the main planks of their platform - identity politics, intersectional feminism, socialism, and the progressive stack, for example. I take serious issue with the inroads they seek to make on free speech. For example, there is a new movement to classify some pure speech as violence. Plus, I do not consider college students "the young." These are adults and should be held to adult standards. I'm not picking on middle-schoolers. I'll add more to my beefs later.

[pErvinalia]

What in the world are you blokes on about? Infowars? Really? And, the odd article from Breitbart is not an issue. It's no different than posting something from The Guardian.

It's VERY different. That you can't see that speaks volumes.

I rarely, however, post from Breitbart. Very rarely. Never from Infowars.

I distinctly remember one link from Infowars a few weeks ago. I'll await Hermit posting it for you.

[pErvinalia]

I don't care about so-called micro-aggression, it's reflex bigotry which needs to be addressed.

But, the best person should get the job. And, it's o.k. to, even if it can be argued against, that America is the land of the free. And, it's o.k. to be colorblind, not seeing race, and to say it. How is that bigotry at all?

And, why does it need to be addressed? What's your argument in favor of the motion "Microaggressions such as those listed are "reflex bigotry" which must be addressed?"

I'll let Brian answer definitively, but I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying. He's not saying that those examples of microaggression are reflex bigotry.

[Animavore]

Info Wars post.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... s#p1684885

Followed by defense of post if you read on.

[rainbow]

But, personal attacks and ad homs are common with you. Keep on keepin' on kids.

...which would be a personal attack and is an ad hominem.

Just pointing out the obvious.

[Brian Peacock]

@42. The 'professoriat' is a generalisation from the particular - the premise being that entire teaching bodies of universities are a single entity which the cited examples merely typify. Are your views fully and completely inline with those expressed the video? Is it speaking for you to such an extent that you need say nothing more about your own views on this?

Negative - Haidt explains this, and I even explained it in trying to write out what Haidt said in the video. By "professoriat" he explained that he is referring to the academic leanings on campus, which he explained went from overall "leaning left" to "very hard left" or overwhelmingly left. He did not say that "entire teaching bodies of universities" are all of the same viewpoints. He is talking about the overall dominance of the leftist thought. Saying "the professors lean left" doesn't mean they all lean left. It means that overall leftist thought prevails. when one says that there has been a shift from leaning left to very hard left, then the dominance is much greater. There would still be a minority of right or moderate views, but the overall is very much dominated by the left.

It's a lot like the tracking of election polls. When someone says that Virginia was leaning democrat, they don't mean the entire population is a single entity and they all believe one way, they are saying the population leans democrat. When they say California is very hard to the democratic side, they still aren't saying everyone is one block - they say that overall the POPULATION is overwhelmingly, largely democrat. There are still some republican voter, but not many. The same goes for the professoriat - Haidt is talking about the prevailing view among the population.

That seems like an equivocation to me, as 'proffessoriat' speaks to an entire staffing body.

It's not equivocation, it's referring to statistics. If a body of professors is 85% hard left leaning folks, then you would say the professoriat is overwhelmingly hard left. If it was 60% left then you'd say it leans left. Haidt refers to having good numbers on this. And, it's the same as saying Californians lean heavily Democrat.

Noted. But it seems to me that the 'problem in search of a theory' here is that university lecturers, professors, researchers are viewed as some kind of threat to wider society because they are infecting the young with the 'wrong' kind of politics. When this comes from either the left or the right it begins to smack of anti-intellectualism. I mean, what is the solution to this problem? Testing the political leanings of candidates for those positions? An obligation to appoint a percentage of the staff from this-or-that political camp rather than on academic achievement and teaching ability etc?

I take your points about leanings, though it is problematic.

What's problematic about it?

See the sentence that followed this one.

If most of the professors are leftist, then the professoriat leans left. If the overwhelming majority are leftist, then they are heavily left.

Lets be honest here. Nobody really cares about lefty biologists, physicists or geologists, lefty mathematicians or lefty engineers. The perceived problem here is in the realm of the social-sciences, political and economic theory, and history etc. This is a battle over which side gets to claim the academic high-ground for themselves. Even so, I don't think the fact that the professoriat leans left is anything but accidental - and perhaps a function of applying academic standards to political thought - whereas the complaints, criticism, and problem-raising about the deleterious leftness of academia appears far more coordinated, organised and motivated.

I'd dispute that Western academia is being held hostage to 'hard-left' politics. I mean, for one, judging by government composition left-leaning politics comprises the minority view across the nations of the Western World, and for two, there's no shortage of right-leaning or hard-right academics, commentators, or thinktanks willing, ready and able to counterpoint the views from the left. In fact, the intellectual armoury of the right seems very well served in this regard at the moment.

I think it's pretty clear that the hard left has taken over academia in western universities. See this article in Canada's prestigious Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... e33185073/

'The hard-left has taken over academia in Western universities' is a bit much, really. It implies that students are getting a hard-left education from politically motivated academics. Yes, I know the article states that 18% of academics in a study called themselves Marxists and only 7% called themselves Conservative, and yes, the article states that the existence of 'Leftism' causes a 'positive feedback loop' in academia, but the criticism is that what a minority of students are getting up to is an expression of the wrong kind of politics - the politics they've been taught at L'Efty university. As I said, some on the right have decided that Rightism should really be driving that feeback loop because, they presume, universities are supposed to have a role in teaching students to be politically correct (in the original sense). And yet universities still churn out hundreds of thousands of graduates who go on to vote right, left, center, green, libertarian, none, or whatever, and who make life-choices for a whole raft of reasons, not just on what they've been taught at university.

If this so-called Leftist feedback loop is a real problem in academia then surely we should find it reflected in the ciricula and course material throughout universities. Has anyone audited that? Are accreditation bodies expressing concerns in this regard? Is there evidence of left-leaning professors excluding right-leaning theories and interpretations from their teaching, that they're making normative claims about the default virtues of left-leaning politics and requiring students to undertake tasks which confirm that position in order to pass a module or course? I don't think so. Basically, some callow youths, emboldened by their social media relationships, are being a bit silly and some on the right are hanging their general criticism of the left on the politically incorrect leanings of the 'professoriat'. At root, that smells like a closet attack on academic freedom to me.

Viewing it from the outside, I wonder how dumb concepts like microaggression prohibitions, and "diversity response teams" can get so much play and have so much power with more than majority support among the faculties. Trigger warnings? Progressive stack ideas and identity politics? These are all leftist ideas, and the non-leftist world laughs at them. So, how are professors getting strung up, fired, threatened, sent to Title IX administrative courts, etc., if there isn't a lot of support for them? If the majority of faculty and administrative personnel were conservative, wouldn't they squash these ideas? The moderates, conservatives, and even most liberals (of the non-leftist or progressive variety) oppose these things.

It's early days for these things. We (collectively) have spent a good few decades making sure our young people know everyone should be viewed and treated as essential equals, that discrimination on any arbitrary grounds is wrong, to be sensitive to the well-being others, to accept that one's personal upbringing, values, views and experience might not be relevant to others' from different backgrounds, that the world can be a better place, that they can make a difference, and that social, economic, and personal progress is achievable. All these things are basically good and well intentioned.

Young people are bombarded with values from day one. They come from parents and relatives, schools, religious, after-school clubs, from books, tv, and movies, and from other youngsters. From their perspective the adult world is a machine for telling them how and who to be. When they move out of the school system and into the university system they are bombarded some more, exposed to all sorts of different ideas, to people who are very much not like them - whether they come from Buttfuck Idaho or downtown Toronto. They have to navigate this value-minefield while undertaking that knotty transition from a dependant son/daughter/pupil/student to an independent adult.

It's not surprising that some will take some of the ideals they've been exposed to to heart, or form their own sets of ideals, and become young idealists. Isn't that the job of young adults? To test the ideals of their formative years and, to some extent, to be a bit silly with it. Who amongst us didn't make a bit of a hash of our transition into independent adulthood? Who wasn't a bit of an idiot in our late teens and early twenties? How many of us were still a bit of an idiot by our 30th birthday came around? How many of us oldies can truly say we're sorted even now?

Now I know you going to retort with something to the effect that 'these particular idiots' are forcing staff from universities and creating situations where people might be subject to legal sanction for not agreeing with them, that they've overstepped a boundary that is detrimental to universities, that they're seeking to fundamentally change the balance of society for everyone. And perhaps they are. if so they're in a long tradition of student dissent aren't they?

And this from a time when the student body wholly
comprised the sons of upstanding gentleman

However, fundamentally the 'problem' is encapsulated in the charge that they're being unduly influenced into this aberrant behaviour by university staff with the wrong kind of political outlook. I think that's too simple a narrative, too simplistic.

Now, if the charge is that right-leaning political views are waning or being squeezed out of the discourse under the weight and prevalence of left-leaning political views, in academia or elsewhere, then the right are just bleating on about how they're no longer favoured by the young and how there position might not be as secure as they would like it to be. Really, if this is the case the right should look to their own house rather than cobbling together this kind of loose-lipped conspiracy theory about how the malevolent left are skewing the discourse and undermining the views and attitudes of the young.

Fair enough, but that would mean that the left HAVE taken over the professoriat.

Not necessarily. People don't get their political ideas from university, they get them from life. The right might feel side-lined in academia, though it would be overstating things to say that they actually are, but the young might not be responding to right-leaning politics because it just doesn't resonate with them or seem relevant. I think it would be a real stretch to say that the young aren't positively responding to the right-leaning politics because they aren't being exposed to it, or worse, that such an exposure is being hidden from them.

The principles of right-leaning politics are woven into our cultural landscape, and as I mentioned they dominate our national political discourse. Sure, young people are making political choices you don't necessarily agree with, and in some senses condemn outright, but it's not like the wider freemarket of ideas isn't a rich and diverse environment is it?

I don't recall anyone saying there is anything illegal about it.

I don't think anyone has ever said there was.

Acknowledging the problem, however, is the first step in opposing it. And, it's not just "the right" - remember, the hard left gets opposition from the moderate left too. There are plenty of people on the left who think the campus shitstorms over Halloween costumes, cultural appropriation nonsense, the progressive stack, identity politics, microaggression nonsense, and silencing or no-platforming speakers is absurd.

Yeah, I think they're mostly ridiculous - that is; deserving of ridicule - but they don't spring unbidden into existence without progenisis do they? The foundations are there in the values we (collectively) pass on to the next generation, and their response to those values in light of their own experience and circumstances. Pinning this on 'the hard-left have taken over academia' is, to a great extent, a red herring.

But, note, we're talking here about the professoriat, not "young people." And, if the professoriat is disproportionately hard-left (compared to the general population), then there would be an opportunity to correct that through persuasion, discourse, and getting more people who are not hard left to join the ranks of the professoriat. And, of course, to exercise free speech and protest them.

Again, on what basis? A political test for appointing professors? Quotas? In my view this whole area should be de-politicised and the basic question of 'what are universities for' addressed with a cold and dispassionate eye. If we want our young people to be rational, free, independent thinkers with good critical skills then we have to accept that they're also free to see things differently. If we want to make comformist drones then, unfortunately, we just carry on the way were going.

Perhaps it's time for hard left professors to be no-platformed. I wonder, what would happen if bands of students and hired protesters shouted down leftist professors when they wanted to give speeches....

Yeah, it's not like the right, hard-right, or far-right academics, commentators, or thinktanks ever shout anybody down is it? No. They just shout-down in different venues - 'proper' venues like newspapers, tv news channels, talk radio stations, civic halls and meeting places, Congress and the Senate.

[Forty Two]

But, personal attacks and ad homs are common with you. Keep on keepin' on kids.

...which would be a personal attack and is an ad hominem.

Just pointing out the obvious.

LOL, so responding to a personal attack by pointing out that that I'm commonly being personally attacked is itself a personal attack... okeydokey.

[pErvinalia]

Good post, Brian.

[Forty Two]

Info Wars post.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... s#p1684885

Followed by defense of post if you read on.

It's a video. The video is the video. In the same post, I cited a series of links, also, not just infowars, and the link is not reliant on infowars as a reliable source. It's a video - doesn't matter who posts the video. The same thing is available on youtube.

[pErvinalia]

But you got it from Infowars. What in the hell are you doing reading infowars?!?