Brainwashing 101

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
@Ag, you may not be pushing your views (and I'd imagine many professors try not to) but they still seep through, its inevitable. The real question would be whether your students consider you to be a leftist or not. Any school I've ever been in the students were remarkably perceptive about those things.

I'm really good at this.

I know for a fact that some students have thought I was (a) gay, and (b) a fundamentalist Christian. This probably from my explaining Greek homosexuality and for sticking up for the God side as best I could in lectures (sometimes the students tend to be for one side or the other, so I take the opposing side for the sake of argument.

I always tell them I am doing so, and not to bother about my own views.

I don't know if its in that video or not, but the percentage of liberals vs. conservatives in higher ed is terribly slanted. Conservative professors have trouble getting hired, and conservative views have trouble being heard on campus. I think that's an issue worth being concerned about.

No it isn't. All views are not equal on campus. Conservative views don't get heard because they are ill thought out prejudices.

A philosopher I am acquainted with was hired to produce a series of short primers on various political ideologies. When he got to conservatism (I believe the Libertarians were treated separately) he found it really difficult to write for the simple reason that there is no real thought behind it.

[Agathon]

I always laugh at conservative students who moan about this.

They complain to me that their view isn't taken as gospel in lectures, and I point out "who's is?". Then I say: if you want to make a point, do it in your papers -- that's what you are here for. I have to read it, so look on this as an opportunity to expound your grand unifying theory of the world to a captive audience.

[Fake Boris]

I don't understand all the fuss about supposedly biased courses. The vast majority of my profs are quite liberal, and I've yet to attend a single lecture where one of them would take cheap or inaccurate shots at conservatives (aside from some jokes, the days after the Iraq invasion for instance).

In any case, if a course is unacceptably biased, chances are that students will notice. Part of your job as a student is to read optional literature on the subjects you're taking and compare it with your notes. People who work at universities are professional, they don't fail students just because they don't agree with them. Such cases are exceptional, and there exists many possibilities of appeal for those who feel victimized.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
The reason conservatives feel left out on campus is the same reason that proponents of intelligent design feel left out - the majority of educated people simply do not take their ideas seriously. And it's their own fault. They don't really have a coherent worldview and their intellectual heroes tend to be second rate bores like Rand, Burke and Hayek.

We can see exactly the same thing here on Apolyton. For years now I have challenged conservatives to provide an account of what conservatism is - i.e. what moral principles it is committed to and why. The only people who stepped up were the Libertarians. The rest of them produced guff that didn't withstand obvious objections. And apart from libertarianism (which is coherent, but rather impractical) conservatism is just a collection of prejudices - the prejudices that wealthy white male people tend to have.

Don't blame us if you have a fundamental inability to understand what conservatism is.

[notyoueither]

Nobody sees a problem where a Republican club poster at one end of the country results in the university administration trying to censure expression through doing damage to individuals, while at the other the threat of gunshot to the face of a conservative student is excused by the officialdom of that school?

[Fake Boris]

To be fair, I watched part of the video. The guy interviewed students and did not even bother to ask the university's authorities version of the story.

[notyoueither]

He tried to get the administrations side of the Cal Poly incident. He was escorted off campus by the police for being impudent enough to request an interview with the President of the institution.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Don't blame us if you have a fundamental inability to understand what conservatism is.

I can blame Apolyton's conservatives with justification. There have been repeated threads where you have failed to give an adequate account of the unifying principle or principles of conservatism.

The best try I have seen is that it stands for resisting change in favour of established institutions. That's a fair description of what conservatives do, but as an action guiding principle it is completely moronic if you think about it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He tried to get the administrations side of the Cal Poly incident. He was escorted off campus by the police for being impudent enough to request an interview with the President of the institution.

That's par for the course with university officials no matter what your political persuasion.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to equate the position of the university faculty with that of the administration. To say that both parties have a semi-adversarial relationship would be closer to the truth.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

I can blame Apolyton's conservatives with justification. There have been repeated threads where you have failed to give an adequate account of the unifying principle or principles of conservatism.

The best try I have seen is that it stands for resisting change in favour of established institutions. That's a fair description of what conservatives do, but as an action guiding principle it is completely moronic if you think about it.

Go ahead. Think for us, Aggy.

Tell us how retarded it is to place importance on history and tradition in guiding current actions.

The truth is you reject the value of the view point, not that the point of view has no value to others. Of course, I would expect many conservatives to feel that your beliefs are as moronic as you view theirs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's par for the course with university officials no matter what your political persuasion.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to equate the position of the university faculty with that of the administration. To say that both parties have a semi-adversarial relationship would be closer to the truth.

What sort of university is that? Not one I am familiar with.

The administration is normally drawn from the faculty in schools I am familiar with.

But go ahead, continue to hold forth on how a university that suspended a fraternity because 5 members dressed in black face for halloween remained consistent on sensitivity issues when it excused a student for wanting 'ragheads' to be 'shot in the face'.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Go ahead. Think for us, Aggy.

Tell us how retarded it is to place importance on history and tradition in guiding current actions.

Easy...

History and tradition are often not very good as guides to action. That's just a fact. So you need to tell us when they are good guides to action and when they aren't. For that you need another principle, but conservatives don't seem to be able to provide one that doesn't take precedence over their original rule, thus rendering reliance on history and tradition pointless.

For example, if you said that we should follow history and tradition when it does more good than harm, then you have substituted "doing more good than harm" as your primary principle, and no-one is going to disagree with that, but then your theory is trivial.

Of course, you could just randomly decide when to do so and when not to do so, but that would be silly and would make the theory just a generalized fear of change.

And if you want to change your principle to that of limited change, then the same argument basically applies. By what principle do we decide when and how much?

The truth is you reject the value of the view point, not that the point of view has no value to others. Of course, I would expect many conservatives to feel that your beliefs are as moronic as you view theirs.

But they're conservatives, so there view doesn't really count for much.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Easy...

History and tradition are often not very good as guides to action. That's just a fact.

No, it's your socialist fantasy. You dearly wish that everyone would follow you off the pier of radical social engineering, and you resent that some people think of you as a whack job. So you return the favour.

So you need to tell us when they are good guides to action and when they aren't. For that you need another principle, but conservatives don't seem to be able to provide one that doesn't take precedence over their original rule, thus rendering reliance on history and tradition pointless.

And you need to tell us why your latest theory of the day should upend all that has gone before.

Incidently, conservatives don't have any one guiding prinicple. I have mine, but they are different from Ben's, and his are radically different from those found elsewhere and in different times.

Conservatives don't have a Marxian playbook for you to read. Get over it.

For example, if you said that we should follow history and tradition when it does more good than harm, then you have substituted "doing more good than harm" as your primary principle, and no-one is going to disagree with that, but then your theory is trivial.

Why is a 'good' society 'trivial'?

Of course, you could just randomly decide when to do so and when not to do so, but that would be silly and would make the theory just a generalized fear of change.

Or you could be a radical who wants to randomly embark on wild policies, but that would be silly and would indicate a generalized loathing of the current order.

And if you want to change your principle to that of limited change, then the same argument basically applies. By what principle do we decide when and how much?

By the principles of individual conservatives and what they hold dear. Some might embrace Smith, or the Pope, or Burke, or...

Conservatism is a point of view that emphasises the strengths of what we already have although we all appreciate 'what we have' for different reasons.

But they're conservatives, so there view doesn't really count for much.

Matters more than those of washed up revolutionaries.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

No, it's your socialist fantasy. You dearly wish that everyone would follow you off the pier of radical social engineering, and you resent that some people think of you as a whack job. So you return the favour.

This is risible. My point has nothing to do with radical social engineering. If you want to hold that tradition is a reliable guide in every case (even when we have to deal with entirely new problems) then be my guest. Enjoy a world where women know their place and blacks can be bought and sold.

And you need to tell us why your latest theory of the day should upend all that has gone before.

You don't even understand the argument. What a laugh. You pathetic clown.

Incidently, conservatives don't have any one guiding prinicple. I have mine, but they are different from Ben's, and his are radically different from those found elsewhere and in different times.

So you're confirming that the term is essentially meaningless. I already knew that, but thanks for confirming it.

Conservatives don't have a Marxian playbook for you to read. Get over it.

You don't have anything, because you're all thick.

Why is a 'good' society 'trivial'?

You haven't understood the argument. Read it again, or get someone to read it out to you and explain it very slowly.

Or you could be a radical who wants to randomly embark on wild policies, but that would be silly and would indicate a generalized loathing of the current order.

Read the argument again, you've missed the point wildly. My argument applies with equal force to those who wish change for its own sake.

By the principles of individual conservatives and what they hold dear. Some might embrace Smith, or the Pope, or Burke, or...

So it's an empty theory. Burke is without doubt a moron for a start and the others won't get you anything coherent.

Conservatism is a point of view that emphasises the strengths of what we already have although we all appreciate 'what we have' for different reasons.

And you repeat the same idiocy.

Conservatism is a point of view that is essentially meaningless. It's espoused by people who desire inequality, although they dare not say that openly these days.

You've failed to deal with my argument. That's not really a surprise, since conservatives tend to be stupid.

[Arrian]

Wow. You are deluded.

-Arrian