Diversity of Everything but Thought

I think this is my problem as well. I am constantly perplexed when I see what I thought were good progressive ideals suddenly being characterised as conservative, and vice versa. The labels thing really confuses me. Especially when it is so easy to be branded as something simply for one stance on one issue, ie. the war in Iraq or George Bush.

Foxfyre wrote:


The above may be found in the wonderful new "Who The Heck Needs Citations for Anything: Definitions from Whole Cloth."

Here's another entry; "Evolution: a communist-sponsored counter-intelligence strategy designed to turn your lovely blonde children into welfare-sucking sodomites who hate guns."

Here's another; "Intellectual Integrity - an inconvenient and unnecessary criterion for opening one's mouth that one ought not to concern oneself with when cheering for Jesus, the flag, stiff-backed seating, clitorectomies, and generally fascist modes of governance."

How is it the rest of you guys here let Foxfyre get away with such shallow idiocies?

"Ow, Mommy, stop spanking me! I'm trying as hard as I can...!"

Revel writes:


You're right. In his day, JFK was more progressive than were many other Democrats or some of the staunch old guard Republicans, but he was far more conservative than is George W. Bush now.

One thing if we are to achieve tolerance for diversity of thought is to rid ourselves of the notion that "progressive" = "liberal".

And the classical definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' bear no resemblance to the modern understanding of 'liberal' and 'conservative' today.

As I see it, modern conservatives put faith in the individual and the private sector more than they put faith in government. Traditional values are usually cherished including community customs, marriage, public decency, personal freedom, patriotism, industriousness, excellence etc.--every member of the family is considered important including the unborn. Modern conservatives believe charity is a matter of personal conscience and not a function of government except to provide for those who are truly helpless and cannot provide for themselves. Modern conservatives put importance on things being real: education, the benefits of a program or initiative, etc. and will look for a better way to achieve competence and excellence when it is obvious that these are lacking. Modern conservatives put less importance on a person's ethnicity or color or gender or background but rather judge all people on what they say and do and contribute. Modern conservatives believe we each much bear responsibility for the choices we make. Modern conservatives believe the best charity is creating an environment and opportunities so that charity is unnecessary and government should contribute to that or get out of the way so as not to hinder it.

Modern liberals put faith in the government more than the private sector and look to government to solve the problems of society. Modern liberals often see inadequate government funding more than process/policy as the root of social problems. Modern liberals frequently reject more traditional values in the name of free expression, inclusiveness, tolerance, self esteem, equality of situation and outcome. Modern liberals generally see the intent as much or more important than the result. Modern liberals put great importance on ethnicity or color or gender or background in order to understand degrees of victimization of various people or groups and thereby determine what society owes to these people. It is more important to understand and care than it is to require results. Allowances must be made for victims of society and these cannot be expected or required to contribute as the privileged can be expected (or required) to contribute. Liberals believe the best charity is providing for the less fortunate and advantaged and it is the function of government to do that.

There is a lot more that I think about these two ideologies of course, and I fully realize that almost nobody is 100% anything but we are all a mixture of all. I personally am far more conservative than liberal, but I do hold a liberal view or two.

In response to DTOM's question about extremes:

I see the abortion clinic bombers, murderers of abortion doctors, those who demand creationism be taught and evolution not be taught in the schools, the white supremists, and such as that as the radical wild-eyed lunatic fringe on the conservative side.

I see the tree spikers, those who throw blood on women wearing fur coats, those who demand all evidence of religious faith be removed from all public settings, those who seek to punish people for having a different point of view, the sit-in-on-legal-business people and such as that as the radical wild-eyed lunatic fringe on the liberal side.

I think both liberals and conservatives value personal freedoms equally, but I think they see such freedoms differently. I think both liberals and conservatives are compassionate equally, but they see the best way to be compassionate differently. I think both liberals and conservatives are patriotic and value good citizenship, but I think they see those things somewhat differently.

The point is, can we ever get to the point where we can see things differently without seeing those who think differently as being evil?

Revel,

If your spouse doesn't dig museums, then spend the day alone. Wear comfortable shoes, and you might like to take a small notebook. Its surprising how much standing and walking one can do once you start prowling the exhibition rooms. You probably will see some art that really "speaks" to you, note down the artist's name, the title of the picture, and perhaps a line as a reminder of what it was that "grabbed" you. Most of the art museums I've visited have a lunch counter or restaurant, and a gift shop. Plan on lunch (say $10), and sometimes museums will have a nominal charge for entry. Many museums these days will rent a set of earphones and a tape player that has interesting information about the various paintings and artists represented in the museum's collection. For your first visit to an art museum, you might find the recorded tour worth the few buckeroos it will cost to rent.

If you can convince your spouse to accompany you, you might be surprised to find that they become interested in seeing and learning something new. Some folks will plant their heels and absolutely refuse to "waste their time" looking at a bunch of pictures. Don't push them too hard, after all they can spend the day doing something they enjoy that you find boring.

Between now and the time that you may get up to Louisville, visit your local library. Survey the Art Section and checkout some coffee table size books with large color representations of art work. You might like to look at works by the various painters of the Impressionist Movement. Impressionism is popular, and most museums have at least some impressionist works in their collections. If you like landscapes the Hudson River School of American Painters are worth spending some time with. Books of fine reproductions are available for almost any school/style, or well-known artist you can imagine. The text in the books will help you to understand, and greater appreciate, the pictures you see. What should one look for? Well ... composition, color, texture, paint technique, and even subject. Some paintings "tell a story", others have symbolic content, and still others have no meaning beyond they are eye-candy and look great. The more you look at artwork, the more you will appreciate it. The more you learn about art, the more sophisticated your personal aesthetic will become. Art can transform you, if your just a wee bit open to it.

Have fun. And now back to the subject at hand.

I actually thought that Foxfyre's original opening in this thread wasn't so much to show that there are more liberals teaching in today's institutions of higher learning (as PDiddie tried to insinuate in his "re-railing" of this topic), but rather how little diversity there is in the liberal offerings at these colleges and universities.

Did no one read my post about Columbia a few pages back? Am I the only one that finds this type of thing disgusting and intolerable?

There are plenty of conservatives in academia, and there are plenty of instances of conservatives being blackballed for tenure for their conservative views.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I send my future children off to college, I would expect that they would not be persecuted for their political beliefs.

If you don't think this is happening on today's liberal campuses, watch Brainwashing 101.

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.academicbias.com/bw101.html

I used Quicktime, but Real Player and WindowsMedia work as well.

Thanks for the link JW - very apt for this thread.

As someone who actually IS on a campus, I gotta tell you, Fox, JW, you guys are full of crap. I had plenty of conservative professors as well as liberal ones in the last few years.

You see, it's not a matter of brainwashing as you would put it; it's the correlation between higher intelligence and liberalism.

Lola,



You give up fighting it after a while; every time you challenge her on them, she pouts, claims you 'don't understand' what she's talking about, and leaves the thread.

Cycloptichorn

... or goes off on you and implies that you are an idiot.

The current dichotomy of the Right -- the inability to reconcile the fact that they are currently firmly in charge of everything with their incessant whining about their victimization -- is just about as tiresome a subject as I can imagine at the moment.

Their solution, naturally, is to whine about the oppression they face in secondary arenas, such as academics. In other words, go after the college professors. Not the administrators, not the chancellors, not the board of regents -- those Bush Pioneers are already safely ensconced in their onion-topped towers, moat bridges raised, oilpits aboil, ready to aggressively discourage any "diversity of thought'.

Someone elsewhere wrote of Hannity urging his younger listeners to tape their professors and expose their liberal malfeasance for all to see, yadda yadda. I'm not sure if this can be verified, as I dare not listen to that fuckwit (or click on his website). Presuming this is correct, he wants us to become a nation of informers in the fine Homeland Security tradition, or maybe more accurately, to become tattletales.

And (just to tie into some conversations about religion in other threads on the forum) if you've been watching O'Reilly lately, you know that Falafel Boy is "watching out for Christmas!"

Because nobody else is, apparently.

This is big on Fox and talk radio in general this year -- this backlash against the perceived secularization of the holiday season. Christmas is in jeopardy! As if. As if religious faith is in any danger whatsoever in this nation. As if a politician could get elected dog catcher without professing his deep and abiding faith in a Supreme Being.

These are sixth-grade-level debates. Which is enough rationale for them to be continued, exclusively if at all possible, at the finest institutions of higher conservative learning, such as Bob Jones University, Oral Roberts University, and the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

Yes. Cal Poly (and the taxpayers of California) paid Stephen Hinckle $40,000 because there IS no liberal bias on their campus.

Keep drinking that Koolaid, folks.

As I said in an earlier post, JW; it's not a bias, it's the way intelligent people tend to think.

Also, you have to consider the fact that many of these people chose to stay and teach, or advance research, at a much lower rate of pay than they probably could have made in the private sector. All the REAL republicans, the ones concerned with making money (the most important thing in life, right?), leave the campus to go work in the 'Real World.' Therefore; there remain only liberals to teach.

Cycloptichorn

Unlike the Ukrainian political candidate, I won't be drinking anything without guaranteeing the purity of its source, jW.
Those who are concocting such massive batches of the toxic swill should be ashamed of themselves.

(Rabid militant ideologues really seem to be stimulated by fomenting discord and conflict, don't they?)

Pdiddie,

Excellent post!!

Cycloptichorn

Glad to see you agree with me, Cyclo, that there is indeed rather startling bias on campuses today.

Most people are aware that no one goes into teaching (at any level) for the money.

Does this mean we should have to listen to a liberal professor's political screed in, say, an Engineering course?

Are you condoning arresting conservative student's for expressing their rights of free speech?

I have to thank blatham for the phrase "onion-topped towers".

I never would have thought of that.

What? Take your crappy straw man elsewhere!

I don't think there is an inherent bias on college campuses, unless it's a bias against stupidity, which definately does exist. If you choose to see that as an anti-conservative bias, feel free.



Only if he has radical, liberal ideas about the way things should be engineered; otherwise, why is he talking about politics instead of teaching? And besides, you don't HAVE to listen if you don't want to; feel free to transfer to Bob Jones University.

Cycloptichorn

So, Cyclo, just so I'm sure...you're saying that if a student prefers not to have to listen to a liberal professor (in an Engineering class) rant for 45 minutes on nothing remotely connected to the course, that student has to put up or shut up? Transfer?

And that's your idea of fair?

Just so I'm sure.

I've sat through my fair share of engineering/math/science courses and found politics completely absent. If this has happened it would be a rarity.

I can see how people could interpret instruction in the social sciences as being liberal in general in that you don't usually hear say, an economics professor discussing how poor people could stop being poor if they really wanted to.

Well why, unlike Cyclop, I don't accept anecdotal evidence as the way things are everywhere, I do have relatives who have been (or are) college professors. Most I believe would agree with the article that started this thread. A couple are more likely to deny their liberal ideology even while they impose it on their students.

I personally think educated people understand that the way it is with them is not the way it is for everybody. Some can actually express a different opinion without having to insult the opinion they oppose.