Winnipeg - Conservative (Right) or Progressive (Left)?

[kirkawall]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Okay, it's not like it's difficult to find the exact same information in about a million other places. I just linked the first two I saw. In any case, are you denying anything I've said? Do you even know what's going on?

The left controls the universities. That's incontrovertible. I wouldn't mind if their policies weren't informed by lunatics on the fringe. Do you actually think that those are the only two sources and examples I can find?

I assume you're young as well or so entrenched in ideology that you can't think straight. It doesn't matter. Keep going the way you're going and see what happens. It won't end well.

I run a research lab between two medical-doctoral universities, one in Canada and one in the UK. As someone who deals with both sets of admin on a daily basis, I can assure that higher ed, at this level anyway, is NOT controlled by the left, even the centre-left, let alone some lunatic left fringe. Unis in the west have become increasingly corporatist institutions whose ambition is to function like the "marketplaces" whose strategies and workspeak they parrot and to pay their administrators accordingly.

Are individual instructors and researchers politically progressive? Some of them. Are faculties? Rarely. Are top admin? Not in practice. They are overwhelmingly aligned with neoliberal modes and ideas, and focused on numbers and outcomes almost exclusively, because that is the global playing field.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Spocket

The left controls the universities. That's incontrovertible.

Wells, sure. They deal in facts, and facts have a known left-wing bias.

National Post: The idea that our faculties are brimming with Marxist radicals is a dated stereotype.

UWindsor sociologist: Research dispels notions about professorial leftist leanings

Of course reporters and researchers also deal in facts, so there's a left-wing bias there too.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Wells, sure. They deal in facts, and facts have a known left-wing bias.

National Post: The idea that our faculties are brimming with Marxist radicals is a dated stereotype.

UWindsor sociologist: Research dispels notions about professorial leftist leanings

Of course reporters and researchers also deal in facts, so there's a left-wing bias there too.

I would argue that the reason facts have a left wing bias is because they are by definition un-emotional and don't consider the well being of the individual. Hard to explain but as an example: university will teach you that human genetics are complex, there are more differences between individuals of one group than between groups and therefore generalisations are wrong. Your real world lived experience might tell you though, that you prefer blondes. It's not rational, but none the less, it's very real. Our society is at the stage where it's close to holding people accountable for their personal preferences. I believe that very important aspects of the theory of evolution, more specifically mate selection and it's implications on human behaviour as relating to in-group and out-group preferences is being glossed over (or at least relegated to a footnote without it's implications being well publicised) by our universities.

Also if, as kirkawall alluded in his post, universities are increasingly becoming the training and research arms of global corporations, they skew what they teach to suit such corporations. For example, if we posit that a global corporation's best interest is globolisation (by which I mean the movement whereby local or regional cultural beliefs and values are replaced by an all encompassing bland world culture) then the universities will avoid teaching facts that contradict this and this will be acceptable by the student body simply because they won't demand to learn knowledge or skills that would be of little use to them in the corporate world anyway.

To summarise, universities teach overarching truths and useful details but don't relate them back to people's personal well being and happiness because there's no demand for it since it won't help students get a job and it may piss off corporate sponsors.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by kirkawall

I run a research lab between two medical-doctoral universities, one in Canada and one in the UK. As someone who deals with both sets of admin on a daily basis, I can assure that higher ed, at this level anyway, is NOT controlled by the left, even the centre-left, let alone some lunatic left fringe. Unis in the west have become increasingly corporatist institutions whose ambition is to function like the "marketplaces" whose strategies and workspeak they parrot and to pay their administrators accordingly.

Are individual instructors and researchers politically progressive? Some of them. Are faculties? Rarely. Are top admin? Not in practice. They are overwhelmingly aligned with neoliberal modes and ideas, and focused on numbers and outcomes almost exclusively, because that is the global playing field.

^This. Exactly this.

All MB universities are firmly aligned with neoliberal modes and ideas. The UW - arguably Winnipeg's most "left" leaning institution is run by a former high level Alberta bureaucrat who was Deputy Minister of the AB Treasury Board under the previous conservative government. While President of UW, she was appointed to a panel to review Alberta's oil royalties. To be sure, she is no lefty.

Sure, some profs in fringe programs like Gender Studies may have quite radial ideas, but these are just a small part of the university ecosystem. The bread and butter of universities are the professional programs that churn out business degrees, law degrees, education degrees, engineering, nursing, etc, etc.

It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that the left controls universities. All this whining about 'freedom of speech' on campus from the alt right is really about wanting equal space and time to promote their fringe opinions and ideas. Universities are generally hostile to ideas that are not supported by empirical research and independent peer review. You many not like some of these ideas, but it is unreasonable to demand space and time to spout a bunch of opinion and unsupported rhetoric -- like demanding equal time to consider creationism alongside evolution in a biology class.

And let's not forget that every totalitarian regime goes after the press and the universities first because these are the two main sources of criticism and opposing points of view. It's easy to see why Trump and his base regularly attack the media and universities.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by JM5

I would argue that the reason facts have a left wing bias is because they are by definition un-emotional and don't consider the well being of the individual.

Except that one could just as easily claim that it's the right that is by definition unemotional and doesn't consider the well being of the individual. It's the left bias that tends to include compassion for the weak, vs the right bias of respect for the strong/authority.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Yup, still fake news. If you don't see how the Intellihub headline is a gross sensationalization of Yancy's point, I don't know what to say.



As someone who teaches at a Canadian university, I'm surprised that I haven't heard more about it too. Maybe because it's paranoid nonsense? The radical voices that right-wing news outlets love to wring their hands about are just one of a wide range of opinions that are represented on campus.

And I'm not even sure what "equality in its pure definition" is supposed to mean.

Of course people who lean left and work in a university would accuse anything contrarian or potentially damaging to reputation as "nonsense".

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Such news services are still easy to find.



Should anyone disagree about CNN, note that there are *two* axis on the chart.

Good chart, but I'd slide Huffington post further down and left. How it's a news organization of any readership is actually quite frightening... it's glossed over pandering.

Originally Posted by drew

My bemoaning was more directed at news needing to be defined as having left leaning or right leaning agendas.

IMO news is news. If you get your news from somewhere with an obvious left or right lean - it's not news. It's opinion.

CBC is still news. The FP is still news.

The Sun is not. Unless your news consists of local sports.

I would say that the leftward lean in the FP news pieces can be quite apparent. CBC equally so. Their reputations as such don't stem from opinion pieces alone.

Originally Posted by drew

^ whoa Spocket - I think there have been one too many air quality advisory days for you over there.

Take a deep breath (indoors). The person you are arguing with actually works at a University.

Whether or not you want to agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't speaking from that reality.

It also doesn't mean he is without motive, as someone who works at the university, to deny that.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Wells, sure. They deal in facts, and facts have a known left-wing bias.

National Post: The idea that our faculties are brimming with Marxist radicals is a dated stereotype.

UWindsor sociologist: Research dispels notions about professorial leftist leanings

Of course reporters and researchers also deal in facts, so there's a left-wing bias there too.

You posted something from a University sociologist? That's like saying God is real because the bible said so.

Reporters have arguably rarely enjoyed a worse reputation than right now (well, since I've been paying attention). That defaulted credibility you give to the media, and to universities, both which are (let's tread lightly here) rumoured to lean left is exactly what has those right of centre worried.

Nonetheless, a few google searches regarding free speech, modern identity politics, new taxation proposals and the liberal party's buddy-buddy relationship with powerful company will help paint a picture on how universities are leaning or weakening to the left, and how the media favours left concerns. Maybe not on this board (for whatever reason), but it's an accepted reality throughout our current world. However, obviously exceptions exist.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Except that one could just as easily claim that it's the right that is by definition unemotional and doesn't consider the well being of the individual. It's the left bias that tends to include compassion for the weak, vs the right bias of respect for the strong/authority.

The right is usually far more libertarian than the left, ergo, protecting the individual. I would contend that the right has more compassion than the left would assume, but we're so busy trying to get the government out of our pockets that we cannot demonstrate that. The left wants to give everyone a fish (with other peoples money), but the right would like to have people LEARN how to fish so they can supply themselves, and would like to help in the process.

What bothers the right, especially higher earners, is when the left claims to be compassionate and raises other peoples' taxes. A compassionate left raising other people's taxes isn't compassionate to fund things. That's other people's money. That's like doing less work in a group project at school but claiming equal credit as a collective.

The left thinks collectively and includes a lot of diverse people, but allows little room for ideological differences. The right is far more tolerant of ideological differences than many would believe, but the debate never gets there before a fight has broken out.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

And let's not forget that every totalitarian regime goes after the press and the universities first because these are the two main sources of criticism and opposing points of view. It's easy to see why Trump and his base regularly attack the media and universities.

That's exactly the problem these days.

With so much paranoia going around, many special interest fringes of the left are putting huge demands on universities to pander to them. The current socio-political climate, with the help of twitter and social media, does not permit anyone to make bold decisions or even discuss matters. That's the problem... these are TOUGH TOPICS that demand emotional strength to see them through to a productive end, but the shouting stops that far too soon. Most every Dean or university president has been punished for spending any amount of time in the spotlight with the online lynching, shaming, and calls-fro-firing that ensues from public aggressors, usually left. To save reputations, universities have been folding to fringe demands like cards, and the concept of debate and free speech has evaporated. There is no room for disccusson, and the greater public conscience, bless their good intentions of protecting those who feel like outsiders, caves to what sounds nice, rather than trying to determing what works or is right.


There are a lot of very normal, average, people that are collateral to these special interest fringes and suddenly normal people get impatient and mad. Suddenly every second invited speaker is shut down on univeristies, everything is a safe space, and we have VERY differnent perspectives but NO DEBATE. Universities have been harbours for protected special interest politics.

Caveat: Not every university will pander hard. But they sure won't wade into controversial debate about these matters. So debate still does not surface, atleast not in the public sphere beyond campus grounds.

Since universities are the forefront of ideas and discussion, this has led to outrage and distrust. Universities are supposed to be doing what you are saying, but they are not.

This is not an exclusively Trump thing, it's been like this before him, and it's been like this in Canada. Trump made it worse, for sure. Since the media does mostly lean left, and controls the flow of information and thus money involved, it's easy to position themselves in a position of credibility relative to right wing opponents (not that Breitbart helps). The media can tell us whatever they want, and that's all the information we'll get. So of course they deny a leftward lean.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Except that one could just as easily claim that it's the right that is by definition unemotional and doesn't consider the well being of the individual. It's the left bias that tends to include compassion for the weak, vs the right bias of respect for the strong/authority.

When I said "facts have a left wing bias", I was using your words, not mine. In my post I was talking about overall happiness, not just individuality/self expression as that's what you seem to be referring to. Being able to express yourself honestly without having to hide aspects of yourself from the rest of society is certainly a source of happiness, but another often ignored source is social cohesion which has a great effect on you interaction with others around you. People living in a society that has greater levels of social cohesion will likely experience less stress from interacting with others and form social relationships of every kind more frequently and those relationships will probably be on average more meaningfully and last longer. I know we often wonder why places like East Asia or even Mediterranean countries are different from us and I think this plays a huge role.

In the West, we have a strong bias for individuality which has been one of our great strengths, but it does have it's limits. It often leads to personal success at the cost of relationships and loneliness.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=s...o_D-IQgQMIJDAA

Individuality and social cohesion are two ends of one spectrum. More individuality has been one of the great strengths of the Western way of life, but in a rapidly globalising world, I think it's beginning to take a huge toll on our society - I'm not sure if we are a society anymore or just a collection of individuals.

This matters, because human beings organise into societies for a reason. A society working together is much stronger than the same number of individuals all working at cross purposes.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Good chart, but I'd slide Huffington post further down and left. How it's a news organization of any readership is actually quite frightening... it's glossed over pandering.

I'd slide them to the left, but they'd still be much further up than Fox News. HuffPo tends to be one-sided without actually lying. Whereas Fox is one-sided AND cheerfully reports outright lies.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

You posted something from a University sociologist? That's like saying God is real because the bible said so.

There's a flip-side to that argument: The right dismisses reporters and researchers - and any trustworthy source of facts - as left-wing.

Essentially "anyone who uses proper citations or transparent polling" - as the university sociologist did - "is fake news."

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Reporters have arguably rarely enjoyed a worse reputation than right now (well, since I've been paying attention).

Not because of bad or dishonest reporting, but because of good and honest reporting. Trump started his "fake news" unhinged rants against the New York Times and others when they started reporting on his Russian financial ties early last year. Facts uncovered since then have only supported the NYT and others, not Trump.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

The right is usually far more libertarian than the left, ergo, protecting the individual.

The right calls it "libertarian" and the left calls it "liberal." The only difference is in what ways they're statist.

Left libs want more state controls over corporations, to prevent monopolies, pollution etc. Right libs want more state protection for corporations, to prevent competition from newcomers (example: US laws preventing cable competition) and to protect them from lawsuits. The left wants taxpayer bail-outs for the poor, the right wants them for corporations and investors.

Left libs are anti-statist on religion, wanting separation of church and state, but statist on enforcing civil rights. Right libs are statist on religion, "we're a Christian country, dammit, and the government must make everyone conform", but anti-statist on civil rights.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

but we're so busy trying to get the government out of our pockets that we cannot demonstrate that. The left wants to give everyone a fish (with other peoples money)

That's what they claim. What they do once in power is an entirely different matter.

Take Ronald Reagan for example. Dragged Carter over the coals for not getting rid of the small deficit he (Carter) inherited. And over government regulations. But if you look at what they accomplished in office...

Carter was the one who did major deregulation. Reagan was the one who grew government. Reagan was the one who spent like a drunken sailor, creating massive deficits and passing the debt onto the next generation. Carter was the one who took steps to keep American out of middle-eastern wars, and Reagan undid that.

It's been the same since. Do a blind comparison of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, and you'd assume that Clinton and Obama were the Republicans. Clinton was the only one of all of them to balance a budget. (Republican claims about Obama usually attribute the massive 2009 budget deficit to him, but it was passed in 2008 by Republicans.)

It's been closer in Canada. Mulroney spent like a drunken sailor. Chrétien and Martin turned in surpluses - eventually. Back to deficits under Harper, but he had little choice with the 2008/2009 recession.

The right SHOULD have a better claim to be keeping their hands out of our pockets. They should be "less services for less taxes" vs. the left's "more services for more taxes." But they don't.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Most every Dean or university president has been punished for spending any amount of time in the spotlight with the online lynching, shaming, and calls-fro-firing

To save reputations, universities have been folding to fringe demands like cards, and the concept of debate and free speech has evaporated.

Suddenly every second invited speaker is shut down on univeristies, everything is a safe space, and we have VERY differnent perspectives but NO DEBATE.

Can we tone down the culture war hyperbole a bit? A university is a huge community with many different viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints are radical -- always have been. Most are not. I'm too busy grading papers and applying for grants to take part in the hard-left anti-free-speech conspiracy that you seem to think is running rampant. I don't know how much time you actually spend on university campuses, but what you're describing is not like any Canadian university that I know.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

I'd slide them to the left, but they'd still be much further up than Fox News. HuffPo tends to be one-sided without actually lying. Whereas Fox is one-sided AND cheerfully reports outright lies.

Perhaps true, but the HuffPo is practically a sweet lullaby to the identity left, and often not grounded in reality. The difference is, not unlike what you said, is that they believe what they're saying. Some of Fox News know they're just making money and will say anything.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

There's a flip-side to that argument: The right dismisses reporters and researchers - and any trustworthy source of facts - as left-wing.

The assumption that certain fields require no supervision or verification of credibility, and seem to consistently side with a certain side of the spectrum, is not empirical proof that the left is right. It's been shown that anyone can be bought, even research.

The problem is that while the left may have some good points, there are several ways to skin a cat, and that any contrarian or differing opinion, be it correct and the left incorrect, or if both were correct, or even if the left is right and the right is wrong, is immediately shot down. The problem with a lot of the left is that debate is shot down once they've got their point or study across. There has been little effort to actually have a balanced forum.

Also, the right don't have ANYONE noteworthy in news, and the left has a strong contingent of everyone. However, CNN and CBS have lost some credibility recently with the election and aftermath. And despite this, you'd have to remember that there are brilliant right wing people public or not, everywhere... they have little representation.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Essentially "anyone who uses proper citations or transparent polling" - as the university sociologist did - "is fake news."

If you actually need me to explain the inherent biases in modern sociology, and why those coming out of its programs all seem to be molded like liberal clones, or why a lot of angry identity based or liberal economic perspective seem to swelter in that pit, then I can't help you.

Michael Jordan once said Basketball was better than hockey. Ok he didn't, but if he did, it would mean nothing.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Not because of bad or dishonest reporting, but because of good and honest reporting. Trump started his "fake news" unhinged rants against the New York Times and others when they started reporting on his Russian financial ties early last year. Facts uncovered since then have only supported the NYT and others, not Trump.

Very little, perhaps none of this, was about trump. While he is a bit of an animal, the reporting on him hasn't been entirely accurate all the time, and nor is anyone remembering that these media entities also strongly supported Hillary, who is proven to be every bit as corrupt but certainly less crazy.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

The right calls it "libertarian" and the left calls it "liberal." The only difference is in what ways they're statist.

Yeah nope. Classic liberalism, perhaps, but that has little in common with modern liberalism.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Left libs want more state controls over corporations, to prevent monopolies, pollution etc. Right libs want more state protection for corporations, to prevent competition from newcomers (example: US laws preventing cable competition) and to protect them from lawsuits. The left wants taxpayer bail-outs for the poor, the right wants them for corporations and investors.

What kind of nonsense is this?

Sorry, and this is by far the biggest disconnect between right and left... this assumption that every corporation is huge and obliterates the poor and that the right wing wants this.

The right wants to remove economic policy that makes it difficult to succeed, for every individual, and for one's own company. If a corporation treats people fair and wins on this poilicy, great. if they don't, fuck em.

But everyone is assuming that all us right wing voters are trumpeteers for big corps? Vast majority of us have nothing to do with one! If they benefit and it strengthens the economy, great! We want that! if they lie and Enron us, hang em high!

What SINGLE right wing voter wants a bailout, or government protection? Not one of us liked the auto bailouts or the bombardier bailout. We're TAXPAYERS, and we hate that shit. We don't want to be SAVED, we want to stop being slowed down!

We want to END supply chain management and remove control from industries that make goods more expensive, and prevent healthy competition from growing, not to keep artificial prices high.

We don't like social handouts (as a general rule only) because we feel there is often a greater degree of inefficiency in government run programs than private, because there is no personal skin in the game. I don't want the poor to not get things, but I certainly want these programs held financially accountable, rather than the liberals use them as vote-buying strategies to trick people into being compassionate... again, compassionate "as a society" as in, with other peoples' money.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Left libs are anti-statist on religion, wanting separation of church and state, but statist on enforcing civil rights. Right libs are statist on religion, "we're a Christian country, dammit, and the government must make everyone conform", but anti-statist on civil rights.

That "christian country" stuff is 10000% clearly something fake religious politicians use to shore votes, primarily in the US. Not as relevant here.

Although Paul Martin was super catholic and against gay marriage in the 90's, early 2000s, and quickly changed his tune when it was time to become Prime Minister.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

That's what they claim. What they do once in power is an entirely different matter.

I could have been more clear... I'm referring to the citizen. We're a more compassionate bunch and would be happy to help but we don't feel like we ever get far enough to demonstrate that in our politics.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Take Ronald Reagan for example. Dragged Carter over the coals for not getting rid of the small deficit he (Carter) inherited. And over government regulations. But if you look at what they accomplished in office...

Carter was the one who did major deregulation. Reagan was the one who grew government. Reagan was the one who spent like a drunken sailor, creating massive deficits and passing the debt onto the next generation. Carter was the one who took steps to keep American out of middle-eastern wars, and Reagan undid that.

again, neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

It's been the same since. Do a blind comparison of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, and you'd assume that Clinton and Obama were the Republicans. Clinton was the only one of all of them to balance a budget. (Republican claims about Obama usually attribute the massive 2009 budget deficit to him, but it was passed in 2008 by Republicans.)

Only Clinton, not Obama. But again, what do the dumb bushes have to do with Canada, or atleast with modern politics?

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

It's been closer in Canada. Mulroney spent like a drunken sailor. Chrétien and Martin turned in surpluses - eventually. Back to deficits under Harper, but he had little choice with the 2008/2009 recession.

Mulroney, despite being a conservative spent money, but he made it clear he was going to do that. Unlike many leaders, he primarly did what he said hye would, for better or for worse. Fiscally, I was not dissappointed with Martin as finance minister... when he was PM, his budgets were horribly regionalist.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

The right SHOULD have a better claim to be keeping their hands out of our pockets. They should be "less services for less taxes" vs. the left's "more services for more taxes." But they don't.

I agree, but that's why the liberals and recently the NDP in manitoba give away truckloads of candy for free...

The conservatives have to be mean parents and take it away. The public does not analyze the fiscal situation, but simply cries over confiscated candy.

Pallister hasn't convinced me yet, but he's pissed everyone off over all his cuts... and the NDP knew what they were doing when they overspent to the point where Pallister HAD to cut, knowing the public backlash could be potentially damaging enough to limit him to one term.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Can we tone down the culture war hyperbole a bit? A university is a huge community with many different viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints are radical -- always have been. Most are not. I'm too busy grading papers and applying for grants to take part in the hard-left anti-free-speech conspiracy that you seem to think is running rampant. I don't know how much time you actually spend on university campuses, but what you're describing is not like any Canadian university that I know.

I'll turn it down, but I keep reading in papers not called infowars about these struggles.

You'll have to understand that given your perspective as expressed so far and position, that it's very understandable to take that with a grain of salt.

When I was at U of M some 20 years ago, I felt and saw a strong liberal bias then, never mind now. I was also more cautious with my opinions at u of m than I am here online. I always thought "well, it can't get more liberal than this" and since that thought has been wrong every time I've entertained it, my patience has waned a little.

[Wolf13]

So I'm re-reading my posts, and while I wouldn't change the content, I'd dial down the intensity lol. Sorry guys.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

All this whining about 'freedom of speech' on campus from the alt right is really about wanting equal space and time to promote their fringe opinions and ideas. Universities are generally hostile to ideas that are not supported by empirical research and independent peer review. You many not like some of these ideas, but it is unreasonable to demand space and time to spout a bunch of opinion and unsupported rhetoric -- like demanding equal time to consider creationism alongside evolution in a biology class.

Some may want pseudo-science taught but I'm confident that most would be happy with a fuller (therefore more honest) picture of empirical research.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...t-human-nature

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/per...lly-incorrect/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/

How about placing more emphasis on the fact that humans are social animals with strong in-group preferences that are born to discriminate or that different populations exhibit traits to different levels on average? Policies that deny human nature will not be able to change it, but they will damage society and hurt many in the process - see the 20'th century.

Incomplete, biased science can be just as bad as pseudo science.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by drew

^ whoa Spocket - I think there have been one too many air quality advisory days for you over there.

Take a deep breath (indoors). The person you are arguing with actually works at a University.

Whether or not you want to agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't speaking from that reality.

If he works in a science department then no, he wouldn't necessarily know.

Aside from that, this all started based on somebody's projection of what I said. I didn't say that the anti-white/male/hetero was ubiquitous. In fact, I didn't say that at all nor did I hint at it. I said that if I wanted to hear that sort of thing, all I had to do was head to any university. What do you guys think "gender studies" courses teach, anyway?

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Wells, sure. They deal in facts, and facts have a known left-wing bias.

National Post: The idea that our faculties are brimming with Marxist radicals is a dated stereotype.

UWindsor sociologist: Research dispels notions about professorial leftist leanings

Of course reporters and researchers also deal in facts, so there's a left-wing bias there too.

Sure, and I can show you plenty of data that supports my position. For example :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-survey-finds/

But it doesn't really matter because somebody who doesn't like that will come along and claim the opposite and support it with their own source. Then I'll point out that of course their source would say what it says because it leans the way it does and then they'll counter with the same thing, etc.

But here's the thing: When I see stuff on YouTube, Reddit, or wherever I'm getting my news from, all the radical left wing stuff is coming straight out of universities or from university students. That's not my imagination and I'm one of millions who's also noticed this not-surprising trend. The problem is that when you point that out, you get people telling you that you're the radical for noticing it. Even though it's easily verifiable. Even though anybody can see it for themselves if they want to. Even though it's right there for all to see, somehow I'm the one pulling it out of my ass.

Whatever. See, I'm not supposed to point out blatant inconsistencies in leftist talking points and if I do then I must be a Nazi Trump supporter. Or perhaps I'm high on something because how else could I notice glaring inconsistencies that defy common sense? Okay...sure. If you say I'm nuts for pointing this stuff out, sure, then I guess you think I'm nuts for all the difference it makes to me. But, just for the record, I'm neither left nor right. I couldn't care less about anybody's religion or what they've got between their legs. I thought that that was the idea...wasn't it? Ah...it's fine unless somebody points out the obvious bullshit when it comes up. Got it.

Oh, and incidentally, facts don't have any ideological bias. When they do, they're not facts. I think that that is exactly the problem here. Just because it comes from a source you like or has a message you agree with doesn't make it true or factual. Now, when you betray your ideological stance as you just have, why would I take anything you say at face value?

[windypeg]

I graduated in 2010 from a social sciences program filled with socialists and I can attest that Spocket is definitely right. The profs think that their job is to indoctrinate students to be the vanguard of the revolution or some shit. They start with some of the right ideas but then move into some fantasy land that's wildly out of touch with the world outside the ivory tower.

[drew]

I went to university and got indoctrinated with high levels of calculus.

Which makes sense, because I signed up for engineering.

The prof thought calculus was the be all and end all of mathematics. He was also a little out of touch with the outside world - as any engineer will tell you, outside of University, calculus is basically never used.

However, it does form a basis for analyzing and problem solving in the outside world, which is useful in the engineering profession.

What is my point? If you go to University to learn about gender studies, or social sciences or engineering or whatever - you will get a taught based on what the current requirements of the day are. And most of it is very out of touch with the "real world". But it isn't the real world. It's university.

If you want real world education - go to a community college.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by drew

I went to university and got indoctrinated with high levels of calculus.

Which makes sense, because I signed up for engineering.

The prof thought calculus was the be all and end all of mathematics. He was also a little out of touch with the outside world - as any engineer will tell you, outside of University, calculus is basically never used.

However, it does form a basis for analyzing and problem solving in the outside world, which is useful in the engineering profession.

What is my point? If you go to University to learn about gender studies, or social sciences or engineering or whatever - you will get a taught based on what the current requirements of the day are. And most of it is very out of touch with the "real world". But it isn't the real world. It's university.

If you want real world education - go to a community college.

And yet that doesn't address in any way anything I've said. Apart from the insult, you've said nothing that I didn't already know.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by drew

I went to university and got indoctrinated with high levels of calculus.

Which makes sense, because I signed up for engineering.

The prof thought calculus was the be all and end all of mathematics. He was also a little out of touch with the outside world - as any engineer will tell you, outside of University, calculus is basically never used.

However, it does form a basis for analyzing and problem solving in the outside world, which is useful in the engineering profession.

What is my point? If you go to University to learn about gender studies, or social sciences or engineering or whatever - you will get a taught based on what the current requirements of the day are. And most of it is very out of touch with the "real world". But it isn't the real world. It's university.

If you want real world education - go to a community college.

Ah, good old Trim...

Engineering is probably the faculty least affected by postmodernist thought because it is by necessity stuck in modernist science. People who try to "question" the laws of physics don't get very far. It's alright to question all man made laws and morals and beliefs though because they are mere "constructs". Yup, they're the "constructs" society is built on without which there is only anarchy and chaos followed by the imposition of a new order by those who have the power and will to do so (ex. corporations, communists, white supremacists, islamists, etc.)