Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Utopia Forgotten: The Left's Intellectual Collapse

The sad truth is there is no longer any point in talking to leftists as they have nothing of value to offer anymore. And the reason is they have lost any semblance of a philosophy and have devolved into a subspecies of retarded human that feeds on spite, excretes arrogance, and revels in ignorance and hypocrisy, all the while self-righteously claiming moral and intellectual superiority.

When I was in college, I had a leftist professor that I respected a great deal. He was an intelligent man who had given the world a great deal of thought and had put in years of research to flesh out his beliefs. He was well-versed in economics, psychology, and history, and he was a joy to talk to. What I found really interesting was that we both saw many of the same problems in society. Indeed, in many ways, if we laid out our vision of the ideal society, my version and his version would have been surprisingly similar. Where we parted company, however, was in how to get there. Indeed, after hours of argument, we realized that we had fundamentally different views of human nature, and this led to different ideas about how to achieve our goals. I take the view that human nature only changes when people want to change themselves. Thus, all we can do to fix society is to lay out the moral reasons for the change and then provide incentives to “do the right thing.” He took the view that human nature can be changed by government fiat, and that people will conform to the “new normal.” I thought his ideas were inconsistent with human experience and were destined to fail because imposing change upon people only breeds resentment and subversion. He thought my ideas would never work to help the “most vulnerable.” So we agreed to disagree, but we definitely shared a great deal of respect for each other.

He is the last leftist I ever respected, however.

Since his time, the left has lost its mind. His version of finding the best way forward through a thoughtful examination of the world is gone. Indeed, the left has all but abandoned ideology and no longer even has a "utopia" that it is trying to achieve.

Instead, the new left preaches hate, spite and grievance, without purpose or an ultimate goal apart from achieving political power. It no longer seeks to build anyone up, but instead seeks to tear down those it despises. It no longer seeks the moral high ground or to attune us to some higher truth, it seeks rigid conformity to lies that it deems politically expedient. And it is deeply intolerant, seeking to personally destroy all who dare disagree. This is once again evident in recent events:

Take the case of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa who just released a study finding that black women were rated as less attractive than women of other races. Now I take no position on his study as I haven’t seen his data, but his results are plausible based on other studies about interracial marriage. But that doesn’t interest me. What interests me is the firestorm reaction.

Within minutes of the article’s posting, the usual leftist suspects called for his article to be removed from the site that published it along with all his prior articles. This accompanied universal calls for the termination of his employment and a slew of articles calling him a racist. No word on death threats yet, but I’m sure they’re coming. Now here’s the critical part: these demands were made before anyone even saw his data. In other words, the truth or falsity of his study was not relevant to the left. He said something they didn’t like and they wanted him silenced.

Then came his fellows to debunk his study. They attacked him for failing to properly analyze the data even as the admitted they hadn’t yet seen how he conducted the analysis. Think about that. They denounced him without having any basis to do so. Then came the coup de grace: they attacked him for reaching a conclusion even though many of the respondents in his data had voiced different opinions. In other words, they claim it was improper for him to reach a conclusion when his data did not show 100% conformity to that conclusion. That is beyond disingenuous and borders on Wonderland-ian criticism. Indeed, if we accept this as a valid criticism, then we are dismissing the entire field of statistics because you NEVER have 100% conformity. For a scientist to make such a statement is truly Orwellian.

What’s more, while they’re all bowing and scraping to the gods of racial sensitivity, let me remind you of something said by prominent black racist Jill Scott, who was invited by Obama to the White House: “As slavery died for the greater good of America, and the movement for equality sputtered to life, the White woman was on the cover of every American magazine. . . She was unequivocally the standard of beauty for this country, firmly unattainable to anyone not of her race. We daughters of the dust were seen as ugly, nappy mammies.” Basically, she’s asserting as truth what Kanazawa claims to have found statistically, yet he’s being burned at the stake for being a racist heretic for saying it.

This is the problem with much of leftist “thought” today: only certain people can say certain truths. . . the rest are required to swear to shifting lies in the name of pushing whatever the present ideology is.

Now take the case of British singer Adele, who just discovered that paying taxes sucks. Here is her quote: “I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! . . . When I got my tax bill in from the album, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire.” She further clarified that she was particularly upset that she gets nothing for the taxes she pays.

At last check, there were 866 comments on this article and all of them were vile. Some denied reality, claiming that she’s lying about what she paid and denying that anyone actually pays 50%. Others said she should be thankful that “we let her keep any of it.” Oh, I didn’t know she was your slave? But most just called her fat, a bitch, a whore, a “selfish fucking idiot,” or accused her of stealing her music. Then they wished her ill, both personally and professionally. (About 10% of the comments were so vile they had been deleted by the moderator.) Think about this. She makes the point that paying 50% of your income in taxes is wrong and the responses fall into these categories: (1) denials of reality, (2) demands to punish her for speaking, and (3) hateful personal attacks. This is what passes for leftist thought today. By the way, not one single person rebutted her claims.

So what exactly does the left stand for? Does it want equality for all as it claimed in the 1960s? Hardly. It wants to substitute one group of oppressors for another. Does it want freedom? Hell no. It certainly doesn’t want you to have freedom of speech or thought. It hates religious freedom and property rights. God forbid you want a gun, or a car, or a hamburger. Does it want equal economic opportunity for all? No. It doesn't even want equality of result. It just wants to take everything you have away from you so that it can have it instead. . . actually, I’m not even sure most leftists want what you have. I get the feeling, they just don’t want you having it.

Thus, a philosophy that once stood for moral and economic equality (wrong though their views were) has devolved into a hateful club of subhumans who only want to hurt others. I honestly see nothing else that they believe in.

And if you think I’m wrong, then by all means, I challenge you to tell me what exactly the left wants? And don’t give me any generic crap about “fairness” and “equality,” those are words out of the leftist past that no longer have any modern meaning. Tell me exactly what the leftist utopia would look like. . . because from what I’m seeing, it looks an awful lot like a gulag.


DUQ said...

Good points Andrew. Now that I think about it, I honestly can't tell you what the left wants other than to tax rich people.

T-Rav said...

"a subspecies of retarded human that feeds on spite, excretes arrogance, and revels in ignorance and hypocrisy, all the while self-righteously claiming moral and intellectual superiority"

See also, most liberal arts departments in higher ed.

I heard the other day about this study on black women you mentioned. Although I didn't see the data behind it, either, I think his basic argument was that both black men and black women tend to have higher levels of testosterone than their fair-skinned counterparts; in the case of the females, this would mean more masculine features and behavior, making them less attractive to men. I have absolutely no idea if this is true or not--it would answer a few things--but if it's an above-the-board academic study, it should be taken seriously, not serve as the basis for a latter-day Inquisition against the guy.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I haven't heard anything. In almost a decade now, all I've heard from the left is that they hate addressed at one group or another. I've never heard anything constructive or that you could translate into a view of how their ideal world would work. It's literally just spite aimed at people they don't like.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Liberal arts departments are the worst offenders -- they are where most of this garbage gets started before it is disseminated like a virus to the rank and file orcs.

On the study, that's exactly the point. If the guy is wrong then prove it. And if he lied or manipulated his data because he wants to promote racism, then call him on it. But to shut him up before they even look at his data is the worst kind of thought crime. But that's what you get on the left now. Being "politically correct" is more important than being truthful.

In terms of the study itself, you're right, his ultimate speculation (and he labeled it as such) was that this could be the result of increased testosterone. In fact, he noted that females of all races were viewed as more attractive than males of any race, which is why he speculated about the testosterone.

This is actually consistent with a statistical study I saw on interracial marriage. That study found that there were definite preferences in interracial date -- (white men+Asian women and white women+black men, with Asian men and black women being the least desirable). That author concluded that this may be related to perception of masculinity and femininity based on body fat percentages, with males looking for something more feminine (i.e. higher natural body fat percentage) and females looking for something more masculine (i.e. less natural body fat. It's an interesting hypothesis, and just as interestingly, body fat and testosterone are related -- which is why this guy's study is plausible.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You probably know a lot of leftists, being near a nest of them in college.... have they given you any idea what their utopia would look like today?

Ed said...

Interesting rant Andrew! I think the comments to Adele are despicable, but that's all you see from these people now. They have gone off the deepend and now spew out hate like it's air.

I think you're right that they have nothing to offer. I can't think of the last thing anyone on the left said that was interesting? All you hear are things like "Bush is evil" and "we need to tax the rich." But the Bush stuff was a lie because now that Obama is doing it, they're cool with it. Also, when you ask them what they want to do with the taxes they get, all you hear is "spend more money." There is no end-game to their plan, just never ending taxation, suppression and spoils.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That's my impression. That's also the basis of my challenge. If anyone thinks they can explain to me what the leftist "end game" is -- what their version of the ideal society the actually want to achieve, then please do.

When I listen to the left, all I hear is "punish this guy" and "get even with them." I don't hear anything about what they are trying to achieve.

CrispyRice said...

Interesting rant Andrew! I have no idea what the left's ideal world would look like. You're right - all I ever hear is talk about taking things away from people. At most, they want to take from the "haves" (their perception of the "haves" anyway) and give to the "have nots."

Well, when is it ever doing anyone a favor to make them a ward of someone else and let them live on handouts? Ugh.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I can't pretend to fully know what goes on inside the heads of my leftist friends. I think it's one of those "paradigm shift" things--if you're not one of them, you can't really understand where they're coming from. That said, I honestly believe that leftists have no utopia in mind. They have certain aspects of one--total sexual equality, for example--but I don't see a comprehensive goal that they're working toward. It really seems like the Left is in love with progress for its own sake, not for any particular end. The "ideas" seem to become more and more extreme over time--ten years ago, for example, there would have been a good chance that the parents of this "genderless baby" in the news last week would find themselves under arrest for child abuse. Now, they are able to openly pontificate on their superiority, and while I don't think most liberals agree with them, they also can't really tell them they're wrong. We just seem to be in a situation where leftists are driven by the force of their own logic to increasingly radical ideas. Which may be why they have suffered this "intellectual collapse": there's so much flux in their political/social thought that it's gotten completely out of control.

BevfromNYC said...

The problem is that the definitions of "equality" and "fairness" have changed. I bet if you asked Thurgood Marshall what his definition of "equality" was, he would have said he wanted all people to have the same access to opportunities regardless of race. The same for MLK. And neither would have ever envisioned a time where "equality" would be based on outcome.

I felt that the Civil Rights legislation forced people to act a certain way immediately rather than allowing a transition of thought and it created a lot more resentment on both sides.

One of the reasons I fought so vehemently against the Equal Rights Amendment for women. We needed to change minds by showing men that we could compete rather than forcing them to accept us.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: This has been evolving for a very, very long time. The first mass attack I remember seeing was back in the 70s when Stanford Nobel Prize winner William Shockley published a tract that suggested that those of the African race might have a lower IQ than Asians and Whites. He was certainly no racist, since he had written the article intending to prove exactly the opposite. He was a full-blown liberal. He was attacked as if he had just become the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. He once had a silly altercation over a paper cut he had gotten and blamed it on his secretary. For that incident, the doctrinaire left claimed he was "psychotic," or just plain crazy.

Move forward to the 90s and the publication of The Bell Curve. in 1994. The New Republic blasted authors Murray and Hernstein for their racism because the result was similar to that attained by Shockley twenty years earlier. TNR's review came a day before the book was released to anyone outside the publishing house (Freedom Press).

Within the angry article, TNR asked why National Review hadn't attacked Murray and Hernstein for their racist views. National Review's editors replied "Unlike the editors at The New Republic, we thought it might be a good idea to read the book first before reviewing its results." William F. Buckley added: "Have you ever tried to explain the statistician's scientific expression 'standard deviation' to a liberal in high dudgeon?"

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, That's how I see it too. All I see is a desire to take from the haves and maybe, at some point, share with the have nots -- except that lately, they seem much more interested in attacking the haves just for the sake of it. And of course, you are right, giving someone a wad of cash does nothing except generate dependency. It's the old give a man a fish v. teach a man to fish thing that the left doesn't seem to want to learn.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I attribute this to a collapse of their ideology. I don't see an ideology at this point. What I see now is a purely reactive "ideology" where their ideas are largely "oh, I don't like that, we should fix it." So rather than working toward any single goal, they are essentially going moment by moment with whatever strikes their fancy. Add in the growing extremism and their utter indifference to their own hypocrisy, and you have a real recipe for idiocy.

What amazes me even more though is the truly vile way they behave now. They think nothing of saying and doing nasty things that a decade ago they would have described as human rights violations. I think the Adele comments in particular are telling. They don't like her policy position, so they verbally attack her based on looks, on gender stereotypes, (she's lucky she's white or she would be facing racist attacks), and then they literally wish her physical and economic harm. That's so far beyond the pale, yet these people think nothing of it. And I know it's cliche to say this, but that's the tactic used by the Nazis.

There is a documentary to be made out of this -- documenting the nastiness of their rhetoric.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I just want to point out that Thurgood Marshall never understood that sloppy legalisms lead to bad decisions and easily-manipulated jurisprudence. When arguing for the plaintiff/petitioner in Brown v Board of Education, Marshall expressed the ringing but essentially meaningless phrase: "Separate is inherently unequal." The Warren Court adopted that language, and we've been paying the price ever since. Instead of simply stating unequivocally that the Constitution expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin or prior condition of servitude, Marshall came up with that catchphrase. Your battle against the ERA grew out of that sloppy bumper-sticker phrase. Marshall's opinions after being seated on the Supreme Court bench were just as ambiguous as the bumper sticker phrase he created as a lawyer in Brown v Board.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's very astute. You can force equality under the law, but you can't force respect by law -- respect is earned.

Anyone who thinks that respect and true equality (which, again, I do not equate with "sameness") can be forced upon people by fiat is deluding themselves. Yes, they might be able to force people to say the right things in public under threat of termination or imprisonment, but there's a huge difference between people telling you what you want to hear and actually believing it. And I can tell you, I've met a lot of very talented women, blacks, etc., and none of them thought for a moment that anyone would hand them anything and they were all mortified when they ran across someone who did think that way.

On the changes in "equality" and "fairness" etc., I think that's right. I think the left at one time adopted some very moral positions, i.e. equality, human rights, dignity, etc. But over time, those words lost all meaning as they stretched them to mean ridiculous privileges. By now, they are nothing more than advertising phrases for an ideology that no longer believes any of those original concepts. Indeed, they've reached the point where they actually mean the opposite of the word in many cases -- like how the promote "hate crimes" and "speech codes" in the name of "free speech." It's all PR based on things they haven't believed in decades.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Another aspect of this is something I saw a lot too. When you tell people that they can't succeed unless the law forces others to accept them, they never bother developing the skills or work habits that it takes to become successful. It's like imposing a handicap on the very people who need to be push themselves the hardest.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I love Buckley, he had intense wit! I remember the stink about "The Bell Curve" and I thought it really highlighted why this whole PC garbage was so bad. First, you're right, they attacked before they even knew what the book was about -- just the suggestion that it would be negative to a protected class was enough to set the wheels of personal vilification into motion.

Secondly, if what the book says is true, then someone who actually cares about blacks would ask the next question -- why? And then -- how do we help them? Covering it up as racism does nothing but deny the problem. It's like your doctor denying you treatment because he doesn't want to hurt your feelings.

Third, the obvious interpretation from this behavior is that the left felt that blacks were delicate and could not face the harsh light of truth. How does that help prove that racists are wrong and blacks are ready for equality? In other words, the book's conclusions weren't anywhere near as damaging to the image of blacks as the left's demands that we ignore the book for fear it might offend blacks.

But I'll tell you what, what seemed pretty nasty at the time they attacked Murray and Hernstein, was nothing compared to what they dish out today for the slightest infractions. Nothing is out of bounds for them anymore, including death threats.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk and Bev, By the end of his life in particular Marshall became a disgrace as a justice. He wasn't writing his own opinions for years, apparently couldn't understand what his clerks had written -- and didn't bother trying to understand, and signed off on any crazy theory the "victim" side could come up with.

I also think he completely missed the obvious points (like the one Lawhawk points out) and instead went for sloganeering which just created loads of confusion and never resulted in any of his decisions becoming clean doctrines, i.e. they always had to be reinterpreted dozens of times to try to fix them, and were eventually abandoned by the modern conservative court.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I had just come across the Adele story last night. I think it's telling that it was the Guardian article and comments which were so full of sneering and nastiness (being Britain's biggest left-wing newspaper) while the Telegraph counterpiece was supportive of her but in a restrained, sensible way. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the commenters didn't throw out some weight jokes (come to think of it, they probably did and I just didn't read down far enough).

BevfromNYC said...

Of course the other obvious point is that now everyone can comment about everything at any time of the day or night anonymously. So that allows for one to say anything without fear of retribution except from some other anonymous commenter.

What one may have thought or said in one's own private Idaho, is now splashed all over the internet at lightening speed for all to read. It is enpowering to make a statement and have people respond. It makes one feel that they are being listened to. That's pretty addictive and enbolding.

And of course it also sets people like Adele up for ridicule for commenting about her tax situation too.

And Rep. Andrew Weiner (D/NY) allegedly send pictures of his crotch to his Twitter buddies. Or some hacker...

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, They did. I saw a lot of "fat" and "fat bitch".

I don't think it's a coincidence that the nastiness is on the leftist paper and not the conservative paper. The right really hasn't gone off the cliff like the left has. There are a few on the right on certain issues who are crazy, but for the most part, the right just doesn't engage in the raw hate the left specializes in these days.

What's more interesting to me is that the article written by the Guardian is itself rather nasty, sarcastic and full of false logic. I find this interesting because it means that it's not just a few crazy trolls being nasty, but this is being actively encouraged by their opinion leaders -- hence Olbermann's worse person award to dehumanize his opponents and Schultz calling Ingraham a "slut." That's not language that opinion leaders would have even considered using a decade ago, but now it's common place. Look at Pelosi calling Bush "stupid," that was a first. They've decided that they can say anything now and they are actively encouraging their readers to follow suit. Hence, the comments in the Guardian article are 100% vile.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew, the simplest way to get people to brainwash people and to change their minds without them knowing it is by "sloganeering".

Don't Mess With Texas
Click It or Ticket
Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute
and the visual of a single tear from a Native American...and our all time favorite -
Hope and Change

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's true. The anonimity of the internet has played a big role in this. For one thing, it's a lot safer to say these things when no one can see you. Thus, you get more of them. For another, it becomes a vicious circle. If you get attention by being nasty, and everyone knows this. Then more and more people will be nasty. That reduces the attention you get. So you need to get even nastier to keep getting attention. At the same time, when you're in a room full of people who are running around saying "death to XXX!" you get numb to it and saying something like "I hope XXX suffers" becomes a lot easier and doesn't even sound extreme to you anymore -- and leftists do live in bubbles.

But to me, the real key is that the left is not moderating these people. They are actively encouraging them. For all the anger they heave at Fox, Fox never allows nasty or slanderous comments by their guests. MSNBC almost requires it. So when you see everyone on TV doing it.... and the websites you visit are spinning out of control and no one stops it (or they even actively encourage it).... it doesn't take much to establish a new lower level of normal.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Very true. Slogans are highly effective for brainwashing because they are generally vague and meaningless and yet they appear to have specific meaning and they are highly memorable. And, sadly, it's usually hard to explain the morality or the logic behind something, but it's very easy to turn it into a silly bumpersticker. So you get a lot of bumpersticking arguing in politics.

Take the example of "Believe the Children" -- perhaps the most idiotic bumpersticker of them all. What does it really mean? It means nothing. But it sure sounds like it does. So you get people to line up behind it because it sounds innocuous and so gosh darn nice... but what does it mean? No one ever asks that question.

And that really bothers me. People need to learn to look past the ads and slogans and start asking hard questions. Sometimes, I suspect that would could open work camps in this country and as long as we called them "Happiness Camps," no one would ask what's really going on -- and those who did would be accused of being opposed to "giving people their fair share of happiness."

Patti said...

andrew: PEW PEW PEW! you be shootin' up the joint. oh how i hope some leftist stumbles in here and gives. you. what. for. wouldn't that be delicious?!

they would open with something like this: do you know what your problem is?! your problem is you like to base your logic on facts and not *feelings*. blahblahblahYOURACIST!blahblahblahOBAMA2012!blahblahblahetal.

and then the rest of us would lol before we tore them a new logic hole.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, LOL! You're probably right, though you may be giving them too much credit. I figure they'll start with "you racist" and then proceed to wish my death to my relatives and pets and then finally an eternity of suffering to me. And I'll laugh, because that's all the leftist has in his little intellectual quiver. :-)

But I am serious, if any leftist wants to come explain what their ultimate goal is, then I am happy to listen.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, the Guardian piece puts me in mind of a couple years ago, when Michael Caine made similar comments about taxation, to the effect that he might consider moving to America if things across the pond got any worse. I don't know what sort of response that got from the Left in Britain; maybe considering his prestige and all, they didn't go after him the same way, but nothing's for certain anymore.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I don't recall how they reacted to Caine. But I know that they've been very, very nasty to Andrew Lloyd Webber, who is a conservative in theater -- one of about five.

Tennessee Jed said...

fine examples, Andrew. Your point is very similar to the arguments of William Voegeli in "Never Enough" and is absolutely correct in my view.

BevfromNYC said...

Patti - I was thrilled yesterday that some Lib on HuffPo yesterday was reminding people to vote for Obama in 2014! Obama 2014! I (and several others) jumped on it- Obama 2014! Obama 2014!

Spread the word. We can do a little sloganeering too, ya' know...

T-Rav said...

I love it! Obama 2014!

Best part is, if we say it often enough, Joe Biden will actually start believing it and then repeat it at every turn.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed! It's always glad to hear I'm not alone in my opinions!

You know, it's funny. On the one hand, I am almost happy the left has become this way because they've become toxic and we no longer face any danger that America will fall for their policies -- we just need to get Obama out of office.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that it would be a lot nicer world if they hadn't gone insane and weren't out there acting like trolls all over the place.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev and T_Rav, We should take up a collection to buy Biden a six month vacation in the middle/end of 2012... since nothing's happening! ;-)

Euripides said...

Don't hold back your feelings. Tell us what you really feel about leftists.

"They have lost any semblance of a philosophy and have devolved into a subspecies of retarded human that feeds on spite, excretes arrogance, and revels in ignorance and hypocrisy, all the while self-righteously claiming moral and intellectual superiority."

Oh. You did. And I agree with that.

Writer X said...

Excellent article, Andrew. Whenever I hear hysterical rants from the Left (which is quite often, lately), it's a clear signal that the argument, whatever it is, is weak.

AndrewPrice said...

Euripides, My scorn is earned, trust me. Like I say in the article, there was a time I knew good leftists -- people who were calm and rational and could talk like adults. I didn't agree with them on much, but we could still agree to disagree. Not anymore. Leftists these days are just so incredibly nasty and they say nothing. So what's the point in even listening to them?

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Writer X! There have just been a whole series of incredible comments that I've seen lately in articles and in the comment sections of articles that are so borderline insane that it finally got to me and I had to point it out.

I agree, this is evidence that they have nothing to offer. If they had anything to offer, they would have done so. But they didn't. Instead, they skipped straight to character assassination. That's shameful.

Euripides said...

Andrew: One reason leftists have become so odious is that this generation grew up listening to idiot leftist professors. OK, two reasons: and because they are now the power elite. Um, three reasons: and that leftist dogma doesn't admit any other ideology can exists. OK, four reasons....

AndrewPrice said...

Euripides, All excellent points. I've had my share of hateful, strident leftist professors. We had one guy who showed us home movie of him picking beans for the Sandinistas and who turned his Intro to Sociology class (required) into an anti-Bush/Reagan rant.

The thing about them becoming the power elite is very true. It's funny how all their talk about never stifling debate, etc. etc. only applied when they were trying to work their way up. Now that they're on top, it's all speech codes and re-education.

How do you get along where you teach? Do they know you're a conservative?

Euripides said...

Andrew: I wonder how I got through a history PhD at UCLA while remaining conservative. It's a marvel considering my dissertation chair was an avowed marxist from the Frankfurt School.

I live and teach in a fairly conservative place in Arizona. There are enough conservatives in my department to balance out the radical left. None of my students have ever complained about being "indoctrinated" although some have tried to get me in trouble by complaining about my blog as "hate speech."

It wouldn't be funny in a different department, say in English.

AndrewPrice said...

Euripides, Good question! However you did it, congrats!

That's good that your school is relatively conservative. That makes a huge difference. I started in an ultra-conservative engineer school in upstate New York (Rensselaer) and I enjoyed the experience a lot, except for the engineering part. From there, I came home to the U of Colorado at the People's Republic of Boulder and I found that HIGHLY annoying. I could easily see teaching at the NY school as a joy, but "teaching" (read= indoctrinating) at Boulder would drive me insane. In fact, I butted heads with my professors all the time. I didn't want to be a pain in the ass, but I couldn't sit there and let them lie to me when I was paying for the privilege.

That's ridiculous that anyone would call your blog hate-speech. So much for believing in the free exchange of ideas!

darski said...

<<. . . actually, I’m not even sure most leftists want what you have. I get the feeling, they just don’t want you having it.>>

I think you have it all said in that one bit. May God have mercy on their souls.

AndrewPrice said...

darski, Agreed. From what I can see, I see nothing these days on their side except a desire to tear others down. I see nothing constructive.

Post a Comment