Why are rational people so scarce on campuses?

iBankedUp's picture
iBankedUp - Certified Professional
Rank: Human | banana points 12,507

I would say that Ben Shapiro represents the most articulate and full body of ideas on the right side of the center as a conservative.

I'll layout some of the social ideas of a more moderate right sider, to give context into what I mean by the right of center and to distinguish from the lunatics that make up the end of the right side on the political spectrum:

  • Homosexuality does not benefit the nation or society at large. If every man and woman was a homosexual, the human population would largely disappear from the face of the earth. Science is not to be used to change the nature of human beings but more so a tool to help human beings, and so, using science to solve problems like infertility between same-sex couples is not a reliable source of repopulating the earth with more humans.

    But, we should leave them to do whatever they choose to do in their own homes. Whether that influences the social fabric of this country is debatable. In most cases, it is not an important societal factor for gays to receive less benefits than straight marriages

    .
  • Transgenders are still humans even if they choose to accept gender dysphoria and alter the body given to them at birth. That means they should be given fair weight in judging the merits of what they can contribute to society, vs giving them an automatic pass on character simply because they're different. High trans suicide rates are not a factor of them being bullied, but rather a factor of them being people that have this dysfunctional dysphoria condition that causes them to have an alternate view of the world and who they are in the world, leading to emotional and mental issues.
  • Church and State are separate and the government should not use Civil Rights to force a church to teach certain religious practices or how to conduct their social practices on matters such as child birth and gay marriage.
  • The economy is built, as well as it thrives on the premise that all men are created equal and should be left to pursue their own definition of happiness in the endeavor that they are best suited in, and we should not create undue burdens such as high taxes and increased wasteful regulations.
  • Government in general should be reduced because in all areas the bureaucracy of government is slow, wasteful, and inefficient. The best way to see to it that people are able to live their best life is by the private market. A profit motive is the best way to encourage efficiency and improvement at whatever endeavor is being undertaken.
  • Abortion is not ok in most cases and we can and should have a debate on the rare case that a woman incurs conception during rape, and the men who are raping women should fear for their life.
  • Women are intelligent but they are not physically or emotionally equal with men. This goes both ways. Men are not more capable than women in every area, and it goes the same the other way. We should accept the gender differences and allow for both to thrive, both femininity and masculinity without electing for one to be more superior than the other.

I don't agree on all issues, like race. I think race is an area that is too often confused and one that is entangled with many other things that are actually unrelated. As a social issue, because whereas women and gays have lived in society for centuries (whether on the surface or in hiding), race should be viewed separately since it's actually more a result of globalization that the topic of races is even considered. Society never had to deal with racial diversity before exploration in the 15th and 16th centuries, which was around the time America was found. If we accept that the state and society has an interest in marriages, education, health, and child rearing, we should also have an interest in how racial minorities choose to live their life, given that integration in the 60s was so poorly instituted, and African slaves endured centuries of identity cleansing for the benefit of this country. AA is a prime example where the blacks who meet the criteria typically sought in those candidates deserve to stand out through these programs, and so should other racial minorities.

When I talk about conservativism, and moderatism, I'm not talking about some lunatic who enjoys Trump's diatribes on Twitter or Bernie's love of socialism. Instead, I'm referring to a center that is built on the love and respect of this country and all of its citizens. I know there are a not of moderate liberals out there who are willing to debate that the government should actually be larger in influencing society, which is where compromise is a good thing and where democracy can take shape.

But, this type of intelligent thinking on the right side is so rare. It wasn't until recent that I was able to find Ben Shapiro on YouTube and finally have someone to help me find the words to describe my own system, but to understand there is a way to think that is rational, though different.

What are your thoughts on why this view is represented in more places? If you disagree that this is a rational system, I'd be curious to hear on what points, and I'd also be interested in hearing the liberal side of the aisle's thoughts, as long as they are the more moderate ones and not the lunatic leftists.

Resume Review Service

  • Match with one of WSO's financial experts to get your resume reviewed.
  • We ensure that the most critical documents in your job search are ready.
  • Rigorous, iterative process with over 2,300 clients over 10 years.

Comments (98)

Sep 23, 2017

Very well said, you echo many of my personal thoughts.

I don't have a problem with homosexuality/transgenders per se. People are free to pursue their own hedonic endeavors, in their home, in private, whatever.

That being said, the problem is when these people try to pressure society as large in believing what they're doing is culturally normal. This is slightly annoying, as their practices are not evolutionary "normal". The same can be said for feminism, gender, equality, etc. It's quite scary to think about the long term ramifications for our species' genetic fitness.

A famous Greek philosopher once said (and I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here, forgot his exact wordage) "strong men create strong civilizations. strong civilizations create strong women. strong women create weak civilizations. we are here weak civilizations create strong men." <vicious cycle.

People forget that there's truth in every blasphemy.

"Wishing won't make it so." ~Ayn Rand

    • 4
    • 11
Sep 25, 2017

While I agree society is weak and the men people are tying to castrate are only getting stronger, I think it is important to consider the context of the world in which we are living. We do live in a very modern world that is unprecedented. There is a lot of advanced technology that sits right in the palms of ordinary citizens, and we're more physically connected in every way.

I agree with your point on pragmatism vs idealism, and I guess campuses are just places for people to live in a fantasy world. Most elect the idealism which I guess is why there's no representation and the world just keeps getting crazier.

    • 2
Sep 23, 2017

To your original title, people on campuses are irrational because they are blindly idealistic. I went to two very, very liberal universities (one ivy, one was not).

Idealism is the root of liberalism.
Pragmatism is the root of conservatism.

We need more of the latter.

    • 4
    • 2
Sep 23, 2017

Because they are kids. A persons thoughts and experiences are very different at 22 vs. 32 and 42. You're arguing with people who have just left the nest, who most likely are still dependent on their parents and who have limited life experience. Expecting them to be wise and rational is as dumb as expecting a 4 year old to drive a car.

Hence why this site is a horrible place to discuss anything.

Sep 25, 2017

That's true and a good point. I'm 24. And I think that people who are in college, going to the top schools, and being educated to endure what are considered to be very highly ranked places to work post-undergrad would be better at contrasting different ideas. Students are the best at reviewing and compiling different viewpoints to develop an opinion and I tend to think the best academic institutions produce students who are better at this. I just wanted to hear different opinions, thoughts, and to try to push the typical conversation in a different direction. Obviously, I think a lot of the beliefs are just wrong.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Sep 25, 2017

There are still people on this site who aren't students and if this site is so bad for discussion, why are you "The Pro"

    • 1
Sep 23, 2017

Well said. Masculinity is being demonised in general and as you said the left are trying to act like that men and women are equal, when in reality they are not, we have so many differences.

I'm 17 and the amount of guys who play the nice guy card at school and are afraid of confrontation is scary. That means there is a power void and you get horrible people doing what they please without being held to account. In the era of girl power and feminism, guys simply aren't confident and don't back themselves. When my generation have sons there are going to be some seriously weak men.

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

    • 4
    • 11
Sep 25, 2017

Damn bro, is your masculinity that fragile that you can't handle other men being nice? Jesus christ

    • 3
    • 2
Oct 17, 2018

I think you missed his point.

Sep 23, 2017

Spot on, I hear a lot about lack of diversity of thought these days, and i believe that most people these days are not open to people having different views than them. This goes vice versa. Rather than people holding middle ground on issues they have somehow caused a war of political extremes i.e. Left vs right. It boggles my mind how people can completely side with the left or right mudsling to the other side, believing their side is the most riteous. Gone are the days where you see someone standing in the middle.

    • 5
    • 2
Sep 24, 2017

Idk why you're getting monkey shit dude, because your point is spot on. While I do think there are a lot of middle ground people, the far left/right are in general not very grounded in their thought. Both sides of the political spectrum condemn anyone who doesn't sympathize with them, which in turn creates less middle ground people.

    • 1
    • 1
Sep 23, 2017
Bumblebtuna_analyst:

Idk why you're getting monkey shit dude, because your point is spot on. While I do think there are a lot of middle ground people, the far left/right are in general not very grounded in their thought. Both sides of the political spectrum condemn anyone who doesn't sympathize with them, which in turn creates less middle ground people.

I get monkey shit because some people on this website went to school, but never received an education

    • 3
    • 2
Oct 16, 2018

I saw this and had to SB you to bring back balance to the force.

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

Sep 24, 2017

Do you even VEGAN, bruh?

    • 2
    • 2
Sep 24, 2017

Take this monkey shit

    • 3
Sep 24, 2017

SB'd

    • 2
    • 1
Sep 24, 2017

SB'd you back ;)

    • 1
    • 2
Sep 25, 2017

As a straight male, I'm literally in love with Ben Shapiro. I finally understand what it's like to be in love with someone for their mind rather than their body.

On homosexuality and transgenderism, I think the conservative position is evolving but the Shapiro conservative position can basically be summed up like this--do whatever and believe whatever you want, but don't insert government into the realm of personal conscience. In other words, religious people should be allowed to hold a traditional (2,000+ year-old, mainstream) belief (held by Barack Obama until 2012) without being forced at literally the barrel of a government gun to violate their conscience (e.g. forced to participate in a gay wedding). I would say that basically sums up the "Shapiro conservative" position. Ben Shapiro has all kinds of gay fans/followers. Shapiro, like most conservatives, isn't militantly anti-gay or anti-transgender. By-and-large, he/we just believe that individuals should not be forced by government to violate their consciences.

Sep 25, 2017

I mostly agree. People wouldn't give a shit about gays and transgenders if they just kept it to themselves and didn't make their identity a matter of national debate.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
    • 4
Sep 26, 2017

Eh, while this isn't something I'm passionate about, it does create a somewhat arbitrary privileging of religious beliefs. What if my religious beliefs included not serving Asians at my restaurant? Just because a belief system has been around for a long time doesn't necessarily make it more respectable.

Oct 19, 2018
Masterz57:

Eh, while this isn't something I'm passionate about, it does create a somewhat arbitrary privileging of religious beliefs. What if my religious beliefs included not serving Asians at my restaurant? Just because a belief system has been around for a long time doesn't necessarily make it more respectable.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against customers based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation (in most states), etc. So you're example would be illegal.

Almost no Republicans / conservatives are debating most non-discrimination rules.

The problem comes with the way that these rules get manipulated by people on the left - most notably in regard to sexual orientation. A quintessential example of this was that Colorado baker who welcomed two gays into his shop for business, but refused to specifically create a cake that either (1) depicted/celebrated homosexuality, or (2) was used as part of a gay wedding celebration. They were not absolutely refused service simply because they're gay. As a result, THAT'S NOT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION (per the Supreme Court). They gay guys were just pissed that the baker disagreed with gay marriage, so they decided to drag him through the mud as long as possible to make a point.

Sep 25, 2017

Agree with all with the exception of his abortion stance. Why can't you have an (early) abortion? Not everyone who is pregnant should be having a child, and it's better to not have a child than it is to raise one and not care about it.

We try and use the anti-abortion as a sort of punishment for not having safe sex, and it isn't fair to the child who has to grow up living in a substandard situation.

    • 3
Sep 25, 2017

This argument about living conditions is absolute hypocrisy and a perfect example of viewing the world from a US perspective. 99% of all babies born in the US, including those born into rough situations, have a better chance of survival and success (by US standards) than any baby born in a third world country. Your argument is that if a baby will have a tough life, then it shouldn't be born. Don't tell me that is your view on child birth in India too...

Sep 25, 2017

To your point, up until the industrial revolution and the rise of modern banking about 300 years ago, grinding poverty was the norm, even in Europe/the West. I think you've got to separate the issue of "easy life" and right to live. Is abortion murder or isn't it? Now, I can't say I know the answer to that question, but from a moral perspective, that's the only relevant question.

Sep 25, 2017

Well if you think that we need to color every policy discussion with normative judgments, and therefore our own personal moral superiority.

I am a right of center sort of libertarian, and I think that morality is a fabrication and there are no moral truths. We all have our own "feelings" on what is right and wrong, and we are all entitled to live our life according to our own feelings and beliefs, but to assert that our own conceptions of morality are "true" or better than other conceptions is ridiculous. It follows, then, that imposing our own moral standards on others who don't agree with us is just an unreasonable exercise in moral superiority which cannot be defended except if our morality is "right" which it cannot be because morality does not exist except in our own self-aggrandizing minds.

    • 1
    • 3
Sep 25, 2017
TrackBack:

Well if you think that we need to color every policy discussion with normative judgments, and therefore our own personal moral superiority.

I am a right of center sort of libertarian, and I think that morality is a fabrication and there are no moral truths. We all have our own "feelings" on what is right and wrong, and we are all entitled to live our life according to our own feelings and beliefs, but to assert that our own conceptions of morality are "true" or better than other conceptions is ridiculous. It follows, then, that imposing our own moral standards on others who don't agree with us is just an unreasonable exercise in moral superiority which cannot be defended except if our morality is "right" which it cannot be because morality does not exist except in our own self-aggrandizing minds.

This is the most intellectually lazy piece I've read I think in 2017. You do realize that virtually every single piece of legislation in the history of America is based on value judgments and moral judgments, right? Murder is illegal because society considers it immoral. Robbery is illegal because society judged that theft is wrong. The right to a fair trial is society's moral judgment that people ought to have the right to a fair trial. Slavery is illegal because society considered it wrong. Rape is illegal because society considers it immoral. And on and on. You cannot divorce a form of morality from legislation. What you can do is determine what morality is worth policing.

Sep 25, 2017

Yeah I'm pretty far out when it comes to moral theory. I'm actually sort of a nihilist and I don't really care if people kill, murder, steal, etc.

I know it's better on utilitarian grounds if those things are illegal and I enjoy the protection the law provides, but I actually don't think anything is wrong. We all just do things and that's that. We can all be selfish hedonists or cruel masochists. It is what it is. There is no god to judge us and I don't care to judge others.

I don't typically (EVER) tell anyone that I feel this way and I have a whole facade of normal center-right beliefs, but yeah I basically am a complete nihilist.

Sep 25, 2017

I mean, that's a pretty outrageous philosophy. Society even distinguishes homicide based on levels of morality and/or culpability--first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide.

Maybe we're just highly evolved animals alone in the universe, but in practice society uses moral judgments to make law, so I can't accept the premise that abortion should be legal just because one thinks it's bad policy to legislate morality. I mean, even our progressive tax schedule is a form of morality.

Sep 25, 2017

Yeah society does draw those distinctions, and I acknowledge that it's optimal in a utilitarian sense to outlaw murder, theft, rape etc. I argue for public policy that legislates morality accordingly. I just don't think that murder or any other action is "wrong" per se. I accept that it needs to be punished to deter lawlessness, and I accept that since most people think it's wrong, the laws that outlaw it will be written as such. I just personally don't care to waste time drawing arbitrary moral lines in the sand.

    • 1
Sep 26, 2017

    • 2
Oct 16, 2018

I'm a complete nihilist too; growing up in a communist authoritarian regime, I was conditioned to not care about immoral behavior. I can't stand when people pose as being moralistic to make themselves look better. SB for you

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

Oct 17, 2018

You're really going to go with the argument that "living conditions in third world countries are really bad so any child born to a broke / abusive / emotionally scarred women that was raped in her 20s that might end up bouncing around foster homes for years is "relatively" better off than a child born in Insert shitty third world country"

If that's the basis of your argument then I guess we should just completely cut funding for police in the united states and allow criminal to run around freely right? Since we aren't anywhere near the murder rates of say, Los Cabos or Caracas...

Oct 21, 2018

My argument is more of if I don't have a child at 18-20, I am more likely to excel in the career of my choice and thus be more productive.

Then I can have children when I can afford to, and can support them to help them become contributing members of society.

If abortion were not legal, and an accident were to happen, I would not be as productive, more than likely be stuck in poverty, and have children who are less likely to excel in their careers.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Best Response
Sep 25, 2017

Have a long road trip coming up, Shapiro and Schiff will be the main courses while I'm logging windshield time. From what little I've gathered, essentially Shapiro is just a free marketeer, but based upon your post, it blends somewhat into gov't control of social issues.

on homosexuality, agree they should be allowed to do whatever they want and be given the same rights as hetero couples (by virtue or marriage), but what difference does it make if biologically it's inefficient? if he's a free marketeer, he should be thrilled that a market has popped up for sperm donation and conception clinics. what angers him (this is more Peter Schiff esque) is gov't mandates on things like diversity, discrimination on services, and so on.

on trans, no comment.

church & state: agree, let the market decide if they want to stop giving donations to places like westboro baptist church. don't force your beliefs on other people, and don't allow them to force their beliefs onto others. lobbying comes into play here, because of the massive power evangelical christians have. I think a lot of these issues would be taken away if we had shorter election cycles, no lobbyists, and no private money going into campaigns (this is a murky area though)

agree on economy & government

abortion puzzles me. why is it not okay in most cases? this is where shapiro has me confused. if he's a free marketeer, wouldn't he just say "let the market decide!" if people are willing to help someone abort a fetus at a reasonable price, why should you not let them? however, what I take issue with is the gov't forcing private enterprises to give coverage for those sorts of things (but health insurance is a totally separate argument for another day).

to answer the initial question @iBankedUp the reason views like this are not more pervasive is because it's not socially acceptable to think differently. most rhetoric is inflammatory and uses awful logic but emotionally charged comments to win support. saying things like "if you don't think that bakery in Denver should be punished for refusing service, then you're a Nazi and a homophobe" or "if you don't think Michael Brown was 100% innocent, you're a racist and support slavery."

however, I'm optimistic because eventually the bernie sanders generation will die out along with the evangelicals, and maybe them we'll begin to have some rational debate about how to make things better. in the mean time, I'm going to focus on how to make my tiny universe better, and go back to apathy for the country at large.

    • 8
    • 1
Sep 25, 2017

Thanks for the note thebrofessor. Definitely check him out for yourself. It's unfortunate that now we can no longer rely on books, but must turn to podcasts and videos for reasonable political thought, since the pundits have realized how lucrative it is to publish a text full of complete shit.

I don't deny that Ben is ok with a market being created for sperm donors. I think his main contention on most social issues is that the government should stay out of it. But ACA deliberately goes against this. My stance has been that Planned Parenthood doesn't just help in women's health, but it goes way beyond that and pushes a feminist ideology. When I found out that a minor can receive contraception, hormonal treatment, and consultation without telling a parent or without PP being compelled to tell the parent, I was shocked. This is a government funded program pushing a feminist leftist ideology onto us.

In discussing homosexuality, it's mostly just looking at the absurdity of the arguments used to defend the way mainstream society views gay marriage, which is that it's normal and we should all accept it into our homes on tv and in teaching our children. All of the mainstream media has a great time of upholding it as a righteous way to be. Doesn't make a difference if it is or isn't, but when culturally we're being forced to accept it or teach it, no matter our beliefs, it becomes a problem. Basically it's where Ben shows his love of rationality over mental tricks in discussing the validity of social policy. It took time, but I'm ok with gays, so long as I don't have to swallow it every time I turn on the tv (unless if somehow actually pushes a story forward, i.e., not tokenism) or in the way I'm governed.

Church and State--I can see where it's a problem in lobbying. I don't disagree. But I also think the market can decide if they believe in God and whether religion will play a role in national politics during the election with the result showing the consensus on the issue.

    • 4
Sep 26, 2017

I'm confused - why does it bother you to see news stories about gays? The media can report on whatever they want - you don't have to watch it. I don't read Stormfront but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to publish. It's still a free press and they can report on what they want, so this just seems more like a grievance you have with them than something that can legitimately be altered...

Sep 25, 2017

In the news, they enjoy it as "breaking news". It's stupid. Just let people live their life. But in movies, they turn every good guy into a gay dude and it's depressing and wrong.

    • 3
Sep 26, 2017

Wow, persecution complex much? Here are the top 25 movies of 2017 so far:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2017. One of them (Beauty and the Beast) features a gay character (a minor one at that). One. That's not exactly "every good guy". How does portraying gay characters in movies hurt you in any way? They're not making them up...gay people do exist. Would you prefer every single character to be a straight male? Would you feel safer then?

Sep 25, 2017
thebrofessor:

abortion puzzles me. why is it not okay in most cases? this is where shapiro has me confused. if he's a free marketeer, wouldn't he just say "let the market decide!" if people are willing to help someone abort a fetus at a reasonable price, why should you not let them? however, what I take issue with is the gov't forcing private enterprises to give coverage for those sorts of things (but health insurance is a totally separate argument for another day).

Huh? The "free market" doesn't apply to murder. If you believe abortion is murder (as Shapiro believes) then you don't say that the free market should control the outcome of the issue (instead, the law should protect potential victims, as it does with murder of "born" people). I don't understand why that's a confusing position. If you believe abortion is murder then the only intellectually consistent libertarian position is that the government should protect the victims/potential victims. (On the other hand, if you don't believe abortion is murder, then the only intellectually consistent libertarian position is to say that gov't shouldn't be involved in it at all.)

Sep 25, 2017

Yes, Dachshunds is right. He, I, believe abortion is murder. PP's site calls it, "ending a pregnancy". It's disgusting, but I can see why it's controversial. Everyone is defining what represents conception of life in ways that suit their beliefs. I prefer the argument that PP should be defunded as policy that goes too far into the rights of citizens vs the moral one on whether abortion is murder or not. To let the "market decide" PP should be defunded, else the government is actually deciding.

    • 1
    • 2
Sep 25, 2017

no idea shapiro thinks it's murder, that's a different issue entirely. in my opinion, that's an unanswerable question because it depends on point of view. I was under the impression that he just thought it was morally objectionable (like peter schiff, who says people just shouldn't have children until they're able to afford them, not that abortion is murder).

Sep 25, 2017
thebrofessor:

no idea shapiro thinks it's murder, that's a different issue entirely. in my opinion, that's an unanswerable question because it depends on point of view. I was under the impression that he just thought it was morally objectionable (like peter schiff, who says people just shouldn't have children until they're able to afford them, not that abortion is murder).

His position is that abortion is murder, which is why he sees no moral distinction between abortion for rape and incest and abortion for personal preference. That's a tough political/policy position to hold, but an entirely intellectually consistent principle.

Sep 25, 2017

got it. not touching that issue with a 10 foot pole.

meanwhile, Aaron Judge just tied McGwire's rookie HR record

Sep 25, 2017

One issue with your hope, theres a new idiot born every day.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 21, 2018

Other point on abortion--conservatism as a whole is fairly against the wellfare state.

The link between teenage pregnancy and poverty has been pretty well supported, and I'm surprised conservatives are so against abortion given that it can be argued it will cost the government money when the parents cannot afford to raise the child

Sep 25, 2017
teaktable:

Other point on abortion--conservatism as a whole is fairly against the wellfare state.

The link between teenage pregnancy and poverty has been pretty well supported, and I'm surprised conservatives are so against abortion given that it can be argued it will cost the government money when the parents cannot afford to raise the child

I genuinely don't understand what's hard to understand about the position of pro-life conservatives. They are against abortion because they believe it's murder. That not committing murder might lead to less poverty among the non-murdered is neither a moral nor logical argument for abortion.

Oct 21, 2018

Oh I understand the view that it could be viewed murder. I just don't see the link between that and conservatism. In addition, its a bit more complicated as everyone has differing views on at what point its murder.

Sep 25, 2017

It starts with the professors. With the exception of hard sciences are generally people who fall on the stunted end of the social development spectrum. We have a group of people who actually didn't or just believed they couldn't succeed in the private sector who teach young impressionable people their world view. What do we expect a large number of these young people to come out of the university system thinking? There is a reason there is a reason and rationality curve during human development, much of it has to do with experience and when you have an entire existence that revolves around people who all see the world the same way you get kids (products) who think that way too. For example in the 90s you had roughly 2 to 3 out of 10 in the soft sciences who held conservative views. Now the average is closer to 1 in 25 to 50+ in some places. We have replaced diversity of the most important kind (thought) for diversity of things that to a truely good person have no value.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 2
    • 1
Sep 25, 2017
iBankedUp:

Women are intelligent but they are not physically or emotionally equal with men.

Haha, I have to admit that sentence triggered me the first time I read it. Then I realized I was upset so I reread and realized I misunderstood the word "equal".

Honestly, my reaction is evidence that women are more emotional than men. Being emotional is a good thing, it keeps you in tune with the thoughts of those around you. It makes for great managers. I do think there is a problem with people use rationality as a crutch and refuse to acknowledge the role of emotion, and vice versa.

My theory is this stems back to education. We rely on multiple choice tests. Kids grow up thinking there is a definite answer and are taught to not second guess themselves, plug and chug, etc. It's a solid test taking strategy but not such a great approach to critical thinking.

    • 2
Sep 25, 2017

I'm kind of dreading posting in this topic but some comments:

Homosexuality - there are economic benefits to gay marriage. Homosexual couples may not "produce" children, but there are economies of scale to marriage regardless (like less money to spend on rent). I still think keeping the government out of the marriage business and in the civil union game is the most elegant solution.

Separation of Church and State - If even Jesus was for it, I'm not sure why so many people have an issue with it.

The economy - are taxes and regulations always undue burdens? Not necessarily, and that is why this issue is so tricky. Market failure is a very real phenomenon and can wreak havoc on people having "equal opportunities."

Government - while the private market generally outperforms the government, it isn't always so and being dogmatic about it (or anything) is stupid. Case in point would be public transportation. Why does it cost 5 times more for the MTA which is a bizzarro public-private entity to put down a mile of track than it does the Paris subway which is fully public? What about healthcare?

Abortion - moral considerations aside, banning abortion seems distinctly illiberal considering how casual people are about their guns in this country.

As far as people I would consider "moderate conservatives who are smart", hat tip to Reihan Salam and Andrew Sullivan.

    • 5
Sep 26, 2017

I even think it is undemocratic to seperate church and state. If enough people choose to vote on someone who is religious and uses their values/point of view from their religion to govern a country, does he not have the democratic right to do so?

Sep 26, 2017

What if he or she is voted in to impose Sharia law?

The reason "church" (i.e. religion) is meant to be separate from state is that all religions at their most fundamentalist consider members of other religions to be less or evil.

Sep 26, 2017

Atheists also believe in something, and at their root also think members of a religion are less for believing in a God.
IMHO everyone follows a set of beliefs or a religion and I do not think you can make the distinction between someone believing in a God and therefore having certain values for someone who also believes (in the absence of a God, or in humanity) and therefore has certain values he wants to follow. All the same shit so I do not think there is something you could ever classify as a seperation between church and state.

Sep 26, 2017

You're absolutely right about atheists. That's why it's equally important to not allow an elected official to ban religion as it is to not allow an elected official to impose one outright. That is the separation of church and state in my interpretation.

Sep 26, 2017

Fair play, then I'm with you!

    • 1
Sep 26, 2017

I think we just had a civil exchange on the internet. We probably broke a law or two.

    • 3
Sep 25, 2017

I don't think having someone in office whose views are influenced by religion is mutually exclusive with the separation of church and state. I think curbing individual rights and liberties based on these views is where the trouble lies.

    • 1
Sep 25, 2017

And to answer the question in your title, college is the perfect time for people to expound on their douchetastic political views they think hold the key to everything in the world.

The thought of my sophomore intro to political thought group sessions is enough to give me hives.

    • 1
Sep 25, 2017

@iBankedUp - I went to a VERY liberal ivy and I can speak to a lot of this. It's mostly entitlement, personal guilt and a fear of social ostracization.

First, none of these kids have ever worked and they don't understand the value of hard work. We are a generation born into the most comfortable and advanced world man has ever seen. We want for little, especially at elite universities, so why work hard? It's complacency and a lack of real hunger and ambition. I saw it every day and it disgusts me.

But within that framework, the real kicker is that liberals make everyone feel guilty for this comfort and constantly demonize people who work hard or build anything. They artfully depict the world as entirely zero-sum, and imply that making a lot of money or simply not wanting to redistribute your work product to others means letting others suffer and being a selfish oppressor. They then seek to rally all of those with them (and all of the beneficiaries of the welfare state who are on the take and economically motivated to buy into this ideology) and try to socially ostracize anyone who doesn't agree with them. They make it "cool" to be on the vanguard of "progress" and have built up a whole social culture based around liberal values through their partners in the media and hollywood.The most vociferous liberals have plenty of time to do this because they do little real work and jerk themselves off that they're doing good work by making others feel like shit. They are loud, they are ugly, and they are completely unwilling to negotiate or listen.

People are mostly by their nature docile and they yearn to fit in and avoid conflict and criticism. Made to feel guilty and faced with the prospect of being castigated as immoral and an entitled oppressor, they simply give in. They don't bother to think deeply or stand on their own against the liberal onslaught.

Unfortunately it has spilled outside of campuses though:

The other day I went on a date with a girl from Tinder. We were getting drinks and she asked me what I did and I said finance, she's getting a masters in a useless field at Columbia on her parent's dime.

She asked how much money I made. I proudly was like "I made almost a couple hundred grand last year," and she looked horrified like I told her I was related to Jeffrey Dahmer or some shit. She then asked how much I gave to charity. I was like wtf, are you kidding me, I'm an analyst, I can't afford to give to charity yet - taxes take like 40 percent of my income, I pay too much in rent to live in Manhattan, and I work too hard not to treat myself a little bit. She went on a fucking lecture about how the average American works really hard and the only reason I make what I make is that my parents were rich and that otherwise I would be working at a McDonalds. I was going to leave but she said something about it being sort of hot that I was a bad person. Wtf, I'm a bad guy just because I work 90 hours a week in banking to help the capital markets function and to make a reasonable living because I like nice things? I did get her home though and she was crazy in bed so worth it, but still. Fucked up.

    • 5
Sep 25, 2017

The Left of the 2010's has replaced the Moral Majority of the 1980's. They are the most judgmental people on the face of the Earth. One of my friends is a recent convert from conservatism to moderate independent now to full-blown liberal, and now that he's made the conversion he is the most insufferable and judgmental person. In 2015 I date a girl who was a conservative. We broke up and got back together 6 months later (and then broke up again). Within 6 months Donald Trump had converted her to a full-blown liberal. In 2017, saw her updated dating profile--"No conservatives need apply."

The Left is like a cult.

Sep 25, 2017

Reproductive rights turn a lot of the ladies left.

Sep 23, 2017

In the long term, think a few thousands years from now, feminism (if left unchecked) will make the species less attractive/genetically fit. It's a way for ugly women to achieve power/secure mates. You have to ask yourself why, outside of Hollywood, there are very, very few beautiful women who are feminists.

    • 2
Sep 25, 2017

True. My friend from college has a 2012 GOP convention poster because he went as part of the college Republicans and some girl apparently tore it down at a house party and asked him how it felt to be a Nazi and a member of the KKK. He's only half white and is a first-generation American.

Oct 18, 2018
TrackBack:

True. My friend from college has a 2012 GOP convention poster because he went as part of the college Republicans and some girl apparently tore it down at a house party and asked him how it felt to be a Nazi and a member of the KKK. He's only half white and is a first-generation American.

What does his ethnic background or family history have to do with it? He's publicly associating himself with the GOP, which in it's modern, Trump-ian form, is unapologetically supportive of neo-Nazi's. If he doesn't want to be associated with a party that thinks there is moral equivalency between fascist white supremacists and folks protesting the systemic discrimination against people of color in the American justice system (that would be the BLM folks), then he shouldn't have the damn poster up.

    • 1
    • 3
Sep 25, 2017
Ozymandia:

What does his ethnic background or family history have to do with it? He's publicly associating himself with the GOP, which in it's modern, Trump-ian form, is unapologetically supportive of neo-Nazi's.

Off all of your moronic remarks on WSO, this one has to take the cake.

Oct 19, 2018

This person is seriously a complete nightmare

    • 1
Oct 18, 2018
real_Skankhunt42:
Ozymandia:

What does his ethnic background or family history have to do with it? He's publicly associating himself with the GOP, which in it's modern, Trump-ian form, is unapologetically supportive of neo-Nazi's.

Off all of your moronic remarks on WSO, this one has to take the cake.

I don't see why. Trump explicitly drew a moral equivalency between neo-Nazi's and folks protesting racial inequality. I guess I could have been more restrained, as no one is throwing out a Sig Heil or draping the swastika on the White House, but I'm not sure how you hear a sitting President laud white supremacists and avowed neo-Nazi's as "fine people," suffer no political repercussions for it, and think anything but that President Trump is at least tacitly supportive of their agenda.

    • 2
Sep 26, 2017

"I was going to leave but she said something about it being sort of hot that I was a bad person. Wtf, I'm a bad guy just because I work 90 hours a week in banking to help the capital markets function and to make a reasonable living because I like nice things? I did get her home though and she was crazy in bed so worth it, but still. Fucked up."

You my friend have found the Red Pill. Look to the Right and read everything under "Theory Reading."

Work hard, work clean, & most of all do not give up.

Sep 25, 2017

Thanks for the story man. Had to laugh at that last part. Yeah, it's hypocrisy. I've met more liberals than conservatives in my time, and all of them want more than they have. But they also want to spend their time high and don't like to make necessary sacrifices to get ahead. People who don't have the two mentioned problems/habits, typically do well and hold on to more conservative values, because they don't like or accept excuses for their denial.

Glad you didn't chicken out and actually took that chick home. She sounds like an idiot, but do you really want to bang a chick simply because she's just a slut?

    • 1
Oct 19, 2018
iBankedUp:

She sounds like an idiot, but do you really want to bang a chick simply because she's just a slut?

The answer should always be yes.

Sep 25, 2017
C.R.E. Shervin:
iBankedUp:

She sounds like an idiot, but do you really want to bang a chick simply because she's just a slut?

The answer should always be yes.

I think I've grown a lot in the past year, and while I still may not want to bang a chick just because she's slutty, I almost certainly will just do it, anyway.

Sep 25, 2017

This post will get you fired from google.

Sep 25, 2017

What are your thoughts on Trey Gowdy? He and Shapiro both seem to be the most level headed conservatives I've heard in some time.

Sep 26, 2017

I think these views you describe are not scarce at all. I think they are actually very wide spread, as demonstrated by this thread and I believe, to some extent Trump votes. That is to say, I think Trump votes show an anti-liberal sentiment/rational, which many people here seem to hold. I know many people at the very liberal college I attend hold these views. The reason why you would think they are scarce is because they are taboo in the US.

I think the American political spectrum is very limited because of its two party system and I think that "center" left (liberal) and right (conservative) wing views are reactions and for that reason I don't like them. Liberal views are self victimizing (minorities are oppressed/white privilege is bad), as a reaction to a self-deprecating view of society and history, and result in the identity segregation of society into too many compartments. This causes disharmony.

As a reaction to that, we have to listen to people on this thread, self-proclaimed rational people, say irrelevant things such as being gay is not "natural evolution", or they should not act as if it were "culturally normal". We have (all men) discussing abortion, which is usually just the removal of some cells, or at worst something non self aware that is shaped like a mini human, from a woman.

I think liberals believe strongly that people do things based on societal forces (deterministic), whilst conservatives believe people can do whatever they set their minds to (free will). I think both is true. I also think we are moving towards an automated world, with plenty of resources, where capital will accumulate with the owners of the means of production, at the cost of others. I think a free market with little government intervention, generally causes necessary innovation and production. I think that a lack of government intervention also causes a lack of infrastructure, poor general healthcare, and inequality.

Basically, I think that we should accept people's differences and focus on our similarities. We should determine if we define human progress as a material one, or a social one (both are fair because I think this will converge, if we last long enough). We should humble ourselves in terms of how rational we consider ourselves, because often we make "rational" arguments and observations, because we are uncomfortable with people's behavior, or for the sake of provocation, because we are frustrated at people's emotional fragility - not because the shit we (want to) argue about is actually important/relevant.

Sep 26, 2017

Rational people are not scarce on campus - you just only notice or hear about the irrational people. Don't fall for the hysteria.

Oct 16, 2018

I dislike Shapiro for reasons I won't get into, but your OP was actually well thought out and reasonable IMO. It's a shame that such a legitimate OP got so much monkey shit thrown at it.

Oct 17, 2018

If we are going into ''the intellectual dark web'' types, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson and Majid Nawaz are worth listening to.

I like Ben, I actually agree a lot with his positions, he's quick witted, great debater, a bit hypocritical when it comes to Israel but noone is perfect. I give him credit for being able to change his opinion as the time passes and admit when he's wrong.

Oct 16, 2018

Rational people exists on campus. They just prefer not to be a nuisance to others.

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

Oct 17, 2018
Oct 17, 2018
DeepLearning:

https://theoutline.com/post/6414/why-universities-...

'' it has been, and in many areas stubbornly remains, a majority white male profession.''
In a country with a white majority. What an argument.

Also, if this piece had been written months ago, I could have said ''fine whatever''. The ''Grievance studies'' scandal however is there to testify that specific disciplines, namely the ones stemming from ''critical theory'' and focusing on race, gender and sexuality primarily, but also literature, anthropology and sociology, are indeed overrun by Marxists. People willing to publish a ''Black Feminist'' rewriting of the Mein Kampf as an academic paper, so long that it supported the racial and gender ideological preferences of the Left, rewarding a ''dog rape'' hoax as an exemple of excellent scholarship and similarly publishing other bogus articles on ideological grounds without any solid scientific validity.

This is crucial because the entirety of ''diversity and inclusion'' policies on campuses and in corporations are result of those disciplines ''research'', meaning our education and corporate world has been spoonfed extremely dangerous, anti-American, destabilizing ideas that are a key component of today's political polarization.

Now, if turning the academia into training grounds for race and gender activists unable and unwilling to discern facts on ideological basis is ok for you, the discussion might as well end here.

PS: before you even attempt the ''right wing conspiracy theory'' argument, keep in mind that the Grievance studies hoax was orchestrated by a group of liberals themselves, who at least were intellectually honest enough to sound the alarm of what's clearly not science and does not belong in the academia. Those deserve praise indeed, regardless of their political orientation.

Oct 17, 2018

There's an issue where certain low brow academic journals will publish basically anything. The vast majority of academics do not take those journals seriously. Anyone can start a "journal" and accept submissions from anyone. So, people take advantage of these basically fake journals and "publish" nonsense. It's a troll. A very dumb troll at that.

I'm sorry but the whole "look an ACADEMIC JOURNAL published something" argument is as old as the peer review process itself. It's tired and done and proves literally nothing about anything.

    • 2
Oct 17, 2018
DeepLearning:

There's an issue where certain low brow academic journals will publish basically anything. The vast majority of academics do not take those journals seriously. Anyone can start a "journal" and accept submissions from anyone. So, people take advantage of these basically fake journals and "publish" nonsense. It's a troll. A very dumb troll at that.

I'm sorry but the whole "look an ACADEMIC JOURNAL published something" argument is as old as the peer review process itself. It's tired and done and proves literally nothing about anything.

So if the peer reviewing is bullshit and so are academic journals, what's the point of research?

Oct 17, 2018

Like media outlets, there are scientific journals out there that are for all intents and purposes illegitimate. Fake news. Fake research.

With the advent of the Internet, anyone can start a website or a journal or whatever and then accept people's submissions and post it.

The vast majority of serious academics know what the journals are that actually have a rigorous peer review process in place. Nobody really gives a shit about these troll journals except for dumbasses on the right who write a bunch of stupid shit, send it to illegitimate journals, get it published and pretend like they just owned academics because they got some dumb shit published.

The peer review process is not bullshit. There are just journals out there that do not adhere to any peer review process and are just out there to take $ from desperate people who want to "publish" something.

The fact that people are STILL pretending like getting something stupid published is a big libtard own in what is basically a fake academic journal is so fucking funny to me.

    • 4
    • 2
Oct 17, 2018
DeepLearning:

Like media outlets, there are scientific journals out there that are for all intents and purposes illegitimate. Fake news. Fake research.

With the advent of the Internet, anyone can start a website or a journal or whatever and then accept people's submissions and post it.

The vast majority of serious academics know what the journals are that actually have a rigorous peer review process in place. Nobody really gives a shit about these troll journals except for dumbasses on the right who write a bunch of stupid shit, send it to illegitimate journals, get it published and pretend like they just owned academics because they got some dumb shit published.

The peer review process is not bullshit. There are just journals out there that do not adhere to any peer review process and are just out there to take $ from desperate people who want to "publish" something.

The fact that people are STILL pretending like getting something stupid published is a big libtard own in what is basically a fake academic journal is so fucking funny to me.

Except that the targeted journals were legitimate ones. One of the paper was published on the most prominent ''feminist'' journal, Hypathia. So if the most prominent of the discipline is bullshit, then the entire discipline is bullshit.

And again, it's not just the academia. The overwhelming majority of ''race and gender'' corporate policies are based on such research. ''Gender gap''? ''Systemic racism''? That's where your political discourse comes from. Every time there's a ''diversity officer'' it's because of this fraudolent research. But of course, it's only ''dumbasses on the right'' who care about this. Not your dishonest, lying piece of garbage Marxist academics, their products in human resources and liberal media the problem. The problem is ''the right''.

No dude, the problem is you, your side, their insane agenda, your dishonesty in covering it up. You are destroying the country, wasting the youth's money on worthless degrees by defrauding gullible people, refusing to acknowldge the massive takeover of disciplines by ideological extremists and dumping all the blame on those who point it out or simply minimizing its impact. Ridiculous.

The fact that they were exposed by reasonable leftists is enough to dismiss your dodging attempt. There are liberals with intellectual integrity and love for truth. You are just not one of them. The entirety of these disciplines should be banished from the academia and similarly policies and departments based on them should be cancelled. Anything less does not belong to the field of science.

Oct 17, 2018

Hypatia is not a scientific journal. It's a feminist philosophy journal and does not generally publish scientific research. Yet again, you have failed to "expose" anything.

Research supporting pay gaps and systemic racism are not fraudulent. I'm sorry that a body of experts who have devoted their lives to conducting sociological research have found results, which your fragility can't handle. The research that supports the policies, which you refer to have been replicated and validated. Few experts outside of right wing ideologues dispute the results of these experiments and studies.

The people who went about this troll being leftist is not any kind of refutation of my point. It is fallacious to assert that just because a set of people did this troll are similar to me ideologically they are correct and invalidate me. Your flagrant fallacious reasoning indicates that you're either incapable of or unwilling to understand the nature of the social sciences. There is likely no amount of evidence or a high enough t-stat in a study that would convince you that any of the beliefs you hold is incorrect.

I invite you to actually read some of the research in any of the top journals in sociology and you will hopefully notice just how rigorous they are in these fields. Academics in these fields know that the research they conduct in these fields is politically sensitive and they are under a microscope. They are very careful not to misinterpret their results or use poor methods.

Science, as much as you might dislike it, can produce results, which many people disagree with as it violates deeply held beliefs. Based upon your posts, it is clear that you do not believe that there are any issues with racial or gender inequality in the US. It is clear that you do not really care how rigorous the study or how replicable the experiment, if it produces a result, which goes against your deeply held beliefs about the state of equality in our society. You will dismiss it as fraudulent.

This all isn't to say that there are not scientists out there who do research in bad faith and have an ideological agenda that they will sacrifice their scientific integrity to support. The scientists who do this on the left are largely dismissed. The scientists who do this on the right get funding from oil companies to discredit climate change. A small subset of bad actors within a field does not discredit the field overall. Trolls who go and find bad actors in some field to attempt to discredit it are neither clever nor funny. They also do not prove anything. The fact is, everything you purport to be fraudulent is strongly supported by empirical and experimental data.

    • 6
    • 1
Oct 17, 2018
DeepLearning:

Hypatia is not a scientific journal. It's a feminist philosophy journal and does not generally publish scientific research. Yet again, you have failed to "expose" anything.

Research supporting pay gaps and systemic racism are not fraudulent. I'm sorry that a body of experts who have devoted their lives to conducting sociological research have found results, which your fragility can't handle. The research that supports the policies, which you refer to have been replicated and validated. Few experts outside of right wing ideologues dispute the results of these experiments and studies.

The people who went about this troll being leftist is not any kind of refutation of my point. It is fallacious to assert that just because a set of people did this troll are similar to me ideologically they are correct and invalidate me. Your flagrant fallacious reasoning indicates that you're either incapable of or unwilling to understand the nature of the social sciences. There is likely no amount of evidence or a high enough t-stat in a study that would convince you that any of the beliefs you hold is incorrect.

I invite you to actually read some of the research in any of the top journals in sociology and you will hopefully notice just how rigorous they are in these fields. Academics in these fields know that the research they conduct in these fields is politically sensitive and they are under a microscope. They are very careful not to misinterpret their results or use poor methods.

Science, as much as you might dislike it, can produce results, which many people disagree with as it violates deeply held beliefs. Based upon your posts, it is clear that you do not believe that there are any issues with racial or gender inequality in the US. It is clear that you do not really care how rigorous the study or how replicable the experiment, if it produces a result, which goes against your deeply held beliefs about the state of equality in our society. You will dismiss it as fraudulent.

This all isn't to say that there are not scientists out there who do research in bad faith and have an ideological agenda that they will sacrifice their scientific integrity to support. The scientists who do this on the left are largely dismissed. The scientists who do this on the right get funding from oil companies to discredit climate change. A small subset of bad actors within a field does not discredit the field overall. Trolls who go and find bad actors in some field to attempt to discredit it are neither clever nor funny. They also do not prove anything. The fact is, everything you purport to be fraudulent is strongly supported by empirical and experimental data.

Dude, your ''body of experts'' that have devoted their lives to this come specifically from the disciplines that have been exposed as lacking any scientific standard. You can't say ''Hypathia'' is not scientific while at the same time supporting ''gender pay gap'' theories that come from it or similar journals. You can't say something is scientific and at the same time it's not. Those who have ''replicated'' the same crap over and over are indeed from the same field, which has been shown lacking any truthfulness and fact-based analysis while focusing on ideological prefernces... by liberals with intellectual integrity. No whining about ''right wing'' can change that. The right is not involved in this, save from laughing at the intellectual debacle from outside.

Your argument is contraddictory in every point. Your experts are experts but their journals are fallacious? Your researches are not-scientific but they are when they are relevant to the gender gap? Sorry, they are not. Period. Sociology, that you keep bringing up, is infected by Marxist ideologues and that has been proven;until the entire field of social studies is cleansed from those people there's no reason to believe in any of its findings.

As for me ''disliking science'', that's another lie. I dislike frauds. STEM fields are actually rather safe disciplines for now, though there's a constant attempt to shove down the throats of STEM students the same ideological nonsense that has taken over the humanities, starting with ''women in STEM initiatives'' and curricula requiring a number of classes in social justice disciplines.

Do I believe that there are racial issues in the US? Sure. The most obvious, blatant, disgusting racism comes from White Liberals at Harvard who have been actively discriminating against hard-working Asians... because of their ethnicity and on the basis of.... diversity. That is racism, in the dictionary definition of the term and I look forward an exemplary sentence from the Supreme Court in that regard. That is actually ''systemic racism'', yet your favoured ''scientific research'' not only barely addressed it, but often plainly endorses it, since the case for diversity comes straight from those fields.

Finally I'm not even a climate change denier nor even close. I'm aware a lot of conservatives are, but I'm not obligated to agree with them on every issue, that's actually one of those I strongly disagree with their stance as it has only helped alienating STEM fields, which I hold in a far higher regard than social ones.

Oct 17, 2018

What? You appear to willfully misinterpret in order to make your point.

There is a very small subset of scientists who act in bad faith and sacrifice integrity of scientific protocol in order to support their a priori belief. A small subset of bad actors who engage in fallacious science or create illegitimate journals is not a stain on the field as a whole. There are fraudsters and bad faith actors in literally every field.

There is in fact a large body of labor economic research that supports the idea that there is a statistically significant pay gap. The journal Hypathia deals with philosophy. In some cases, philosophers will cite scientific domains in order to bolster their point of view. Your argument conflating Hypathia and actual scientific journals because they sometimes relate to similar topics is nonsensical.

It appears then, that the only evidence that you have that sociology and other social sciences are infected by Marxist ideologues is that their research tends to suggest things about the state of society, which conflict with your deeply held beliefs. I understand that cognitive dissonance is painful. Being wrong sucks! You can kick and scream and say multiple fields within academia are widely infected by ideologues and all of the results are fallacious. It might feel better to bury your entire body into the sand and shout into the ground that the social sciences are a bunch of baloney and that nobody should listen to it. But you shouldn't.

    • 3
Oct 17, 2018
DeepLearning:

What? You appear to willfully misinterpret in order to make your point.

There is a very small subset of scientists who act in bad faith and sacrifice integrity of scientific protocol in order to support their a priori belief. A small subset of bad actors who engage in fallacious science or create illegitimate journals is not a stain on the field as a whole. There are fraudsters and bad faith actors in literally every field.

There is in fact a large body of labor economic research that supports the idea that there is a statistically significant pay gap. The journal Hypathia deals with philosophy. In some cases, philosophers will cite scientific domains in order to bolster their point of view. Your argument conflating Hypathia and actual scientific journals because they sometimes relate to similar topics is nonsensical.

It appears then, that the only evidence that you have that sociology and other social sciences are infected by Marxist ideologues is that their research tends to suggest things about the state of society, which conflict with your deeply held beliefs. I understand that cognitive dissonance is painful. Being wrong sucks! You can kick and scream and say multiple fields within academia are widely infected by ideologues and all of the results are fallacious. It might feel better to bury your entire body into the sand and shout into the ground that the social sciences are a bunch of baloney and that nobody should listen to it. But you shouldn't.

It's not a small clique. Let's pick the ''gender gap'' for example. The infamous ''79 cents per dollar'' argument. Once taken into account same job, same company, same department, same level of position it goes down to single digits differences. Once you take into account extra hours worked and basic personality differences like agreeableness, it goes down to pretty much zero. Yet it's portrayed as there's some sort of conspiracy by the ''patriarchy'' to keep down women. There is not. So where did the ''gender gap'' theory come from? ''Gender studies'' department and their dishonest, lazy research that simply averaged wages without differentiating basic variables. And this one is one of the core battles of so-called progressives today. A fraud.

That being said, define what you mean with scientific. Only natural sciences? If so, then I agree.

20% of social studies and humanities professors identify themselves as radical leftists or outright Marxists:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_preva...
You can guess where they are concentrated. If a field is called critical theory, or stems from it. it's Marxism applied to ethnic, sexuality or gender issues. That's 1 out of 5. Not a problem? Really?

Oct 17, 2018

"I am getting really sick of people who whine about 'civilian casualties.' When I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care."

-Ben Shapiro

    • 3
Oct 17, 2018

ppl forget this

Oct 18, 2018

Wait wtf? That's really, really bad and shows a complete disconnect to human life..

Oct 17, 2018
justphresh:

Wait wtf? That's really, really bad and shows a complete disconnect to human life..

Let me introduce you to the Neocon branch of the Republican party

    • 3
Oct 19, 2018

I think it was interesting how many [liberal] people I tried to speak with about the Brett Kavanaugh hearing and how opposed they were to intelligently discuss. Also, the majority of people I asked listened to Ford's testimony, but said they did not listen to Kavanaugh's because he "is scum" or something similar...a little scary that we are getting to a point where most people are so attached to identity politics

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 18, 2018
    • 1
    • 1
Oct 19, 2018
Oct 18, 2018
Oct 18, 2018
    • 1
Oct 22, 2018