200 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

  Just came across this article today... Professor: Here’s why most of us are Democrats

[freedom78]

  Just came across this article today... Professor: Here’s why most of us are Democrats

 

I disagree with his main premise that professors are Democrats because Republicans are anti-science.  He's absolutely right in that there is NO ideological screening.  Of course, none of the idiots in the comments section think that could possibly be true (especially the guy who's saying that Joe McCarthy was right about everything ). Academia cannot possibly believe in a principle of reasoned discourse...we must all prefer our own echo chamber.  Nonsense.  The notion that we prefer poor teachers and researchers we agree with over people of different ideological persuasions who are superior at their jobs is something that does not happen. 

 

But I don't think it's the science that does it.  Academia doesn't choose Democrats; Democrats are more likely than Republicans to choose academia.  Whether it's for market economics reasons, how much they value education, or whatever, people who are conservative tend to be less interested in college teaching.  Further, to take his argument and make it my own, I would argue that someone who is anti-science would fail to be successful in a scientific field or would not place enough value in it to pursue it in the first place.  I'd expect to find more conservative academics in fields that make sense for conservatism: economics and business often attract conservative academics.  You'll find more laissez-faire capitalists in those two departments than in the rest of a university combined. 

[artcinco]

Self-sorting!

[freedom78]

I can't imagine how BOTH of these can offend people.  We've lost our fucking minds:

***************************************************************************************************

Aug 25 2016, 5:56 am ET

Chicago: 'In the Heights' Non-Latino Lead Stirs Controversy

by Raul A. Reyes

 

Next month, Chicago's Porchlight Musical Theatre will unveil its production of "In The Heights", by "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda. While the producers may have hoped that the show would excite local audiences, instead it outraged local performers and touched off a storm of controversy — all before the production even opened — after casting a non-Latino in the leading role.

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...roversy-n637266

 

******************************************************************************

'Spider-Man' Casting Controversy Revives Racial Tensions

by Adam Howard

 

When Marvel revealed that biracial actress and singer Zendaya would be cast as Mary Jane Watson, the love interest in an upcoming iteration of the "Spider-Man" franchise, there were the all-too-familiar reports of a bigoted backlash.

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...ensions-n637111

 

******************************************************************************************************************

 

I suspect that most people are offended by neither of these castings.  But I also suspect there is a large group that sees one of them as a problem and the other as not.  That level of cognitive dissonance troubles me, especially in an election year.

[freedom78]

Well done UC.

******************************

University of Chicago: We Don't Condone Safe Spaces or 'Trigger Warnings'

by Elizabeth Chuck

 

 

The University of Chicago won't condone so-called safe spaces or trigger warnings on campus, the dean informed incoming freshmen this week amid a growing national conversation about free expression at colleges and universities.

 

"Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago's defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression," read the letter from Dean of Students John "Jay" Ellison, sent Wednesday as part of the Class of 2020's welcome package. "Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship."

 

As a result, Ellison wrote, "we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."

 

More: http://www.nbcnews.c...trigger-n637721

[AxlsMainMan]

I suspect that most people are offended by neither of these castings.  But I also suspect there is a large group that sees one of them as a problem and the other as not.  That level of cognitive dissonance troubles me, especially in an election year.

 

I don't know why you're so troubled when you have millions upon millions of Americans lining up in droves to elect an utter buffoon like Donald Trump as their next president. I mean, you even have a veteran on here far more up in arms over Hillary's real (or imagined) health problems and liberal arts degrees than Trump spending the better part of the past month attacking the family of a fallen fellow veteran

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

The Supreme Court is all I care about. Putting justices on the bench who respect the intent of each amendment when it was written. Justices who support Roe v. Wade, Heller, and don't think the 14th amendment was written so illegals could drop an anchor baby and never leave.

 

Odd that you'd mention Roe, since most conservatives see that and the right to privacy as judicial activism.

 

Also interesting that you mention Heller.  I agree that Heller is correct, but McDonald raises other questions.

 

I have mixed feelings on Citizens United, but the Democrats never had an issue with unions forcing dues and using that money to advocate for issues in their favor. Corporate America also isn't sending its employees out to picket and protest, like many of my coal miner friends have been ordered to do.

 

I'm not a fan of union money in elections and if losing that is the cost of losing corporate money, I'm all for it.  While a union might be able to collect dues, a corporation can underpay and use profits to support political goals completely at odds with what their employees might be for.  That's a far greater threat in my book, especially given the power of industry lobbies to gain a degree of influence that most of us will never have.

 

Additionally, if you can reduce the money in the system, we might be able to have saner, shorter election seasons, like Canada, the UK, etc.  Since elections seem to by definition involve demonizing the other side, reducing their time on the airwaves might improve the political climate, reduce divisiveness, and lead to better governance by both parties. 

 

Domestic policy is less important because Congress can leash the next President.

 

That's probably what Hindenburg thought.

[artcinco]

University Apologizes for Name of ‘Stop White People’ Course

[artcinco]

University offers segregated housing to shield black students from ‘microaggressions’

 

Will this lead to separate but equal accommodations on mass transit or drinking fountains?

[Mr. Roboto]

What is a "Microaggression"? Trump pounding his tiny fists on a table? 

 

No seriously...what is it? 

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

I agree that it's nonsense.  By the way, I've been wondering for years, when did we switch from generically using "he" or "him" to using "she" or "her".  I've noticed this in parenting mags, where they just broadly apply female labels to the millions of babies they're discussing.  I don't get it.  If using "he" is wrong, then so is using "she". 

[artcinco]

Cornell referendum on men's room tampons passes in landslide

[freedom78]

Beats headin' to CVS for your ladyfriend.