Repair-It

Holy shit. I love pieces like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opini ... r=msft_msn

It is very rare that you see such introspection from the mainstream media.

The effect in academia, specifically liberal arts (lol), is a particularly acute issue.

1325 comments. The comments are closed. Sigh.

I guess it's surprising to see that very few evangelical Christians choose to teach anthropology....

They're treating conservatives like conservatives used to treat gay people!

I guess even liberals who profess to believe in equality need an 'other' to discriminate against. Perhaps it's just human nature.

I am less concerned with being treated differently because of political alignment (you'd think this would be an ACLU thing but since it is against conservatives, it must not be an actual issue), and more concerned with the "all thoughts are good as long as they are like these thoughts" approach to modern university classrooms.

Some key snippets that I liked:

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.

“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”

Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.

That part about safety is pretty true. What we have today is rules that make sure no one is offended, and prioritize that above intellectual diversity.

Yeah, I hear that stuff. It's a pendulum. We went from the 50's (lots of racism.. afaik) to the 90's, where saying anything controversial about race was taboo. It'll probably swing back and forth less far each time, but there's no way it will ever stop swinging.

I just find it very hard to feel bad for conservatives on this point. Comparing conservatives "having trouble finding a job at a university" to blowing up abortion clinics is a bit of a stretch.

Oh, is that just "a few radical conservatives" who blew up the abortion clinics? Hmm, that's an interesting argument as well.

Religious conservatism/evangelism/fanaticism doesn't represent all conservatism, fortunately. And it is always dumb. No matter what the religion is.

And maybe we need to define terms. Things I feel strongly about:
- Personal responsibility (some things are just your own damn fault).
- More competition, more free market, more capitalism. Less regulation. In general. Exceptions exist.
- People should be paid according to the value they offer society (i.e. a company) - that said, we should make education/training more accessible so the people who DESIRE to be valuable, can do so - the rest of the people? Fuck 'em.
- I don't care much about social issues and don't enjoy wasting my time on things like abortion, gay rights, etc. That said, I think it would be rather inappropriate for the federal gov't to say "abortion is illegal" and "same sex marriage is illegal." That's not their job.

So three out of four of these would get a conservative label, right? So am I conservative because 75% of those fall under that umbrella? Or am I a liberal because an evangelical conservative would totally disagree with me on #4?

But I will tell you - the president I would choose would have to score highly on #1 through 3. I don't care that much about #4 in comparison.

kevm14 wrote:Religious conservatism/evangelism/fanaticism doesn't represent all conservatism, fortunately. And it is always dumb. No matter what the religion is.

And maybe we need to define terms. Things I feel strongly about:
- Personal responsibility (some things are just your own damn fault).
- More competition, more free market, more capitalism. Less regulation. In general. Exceptions exist.
- People should be paid according to the value they offer society (i.e. a company) - that said, we should make education/training more accessible so the people who DESIRE to be valuable, can do so - the rest of the people? Fuck 'em.
- I don't care much about social issues and don't enjoy wasting my time on things like abortion, gay rights, etc. That said, I think it would be rather inappropriate for the federal gov't to say "abortion is illegal" and "same sex marriage is illegal." That's not their job.

So three out of four of these would get a conservative label, right? So am I conservative because 75% of those fall under that umbrella? Or am I a liberal because an evangelical conservative would totally disagree with me on #4?

But I will tell you - the president I would choose would have to score highly on #1 through 3. I don't care that much about #4 in comparison.

1. Personal responsibility: Yes, we both want to be able to drive go carts in our backyards without legal representation. I agree.

2. I sure do see a lot of situations where companies are a crap ton more powerful than me because they have more lawyers and can stay in court until I am bankrupt. If Sprint decides I owe them $150, then I'm just gonna end up paying because I literally have no ability to argue. Wall street is way more powerful than that. Less regulation is one scapegoat for that recent large collapse. I'm sure you heard about that.

3. I do think that people of average intelligence are slowly being replaced by robots and computer programs. This means that people who work at certain menial jobs will not have a means to support themselves. Does that mean there should be a social safety net? I don't know. But I sure do see a lot of silicon valley types advocating a basic minimum income. Probably because they feel guilty for automating a bunch of those jobs. Or because they don't want the people from Idiocracy invading their homes for food money.

4. When I think of conservatism, I mostly picture the crap from the fourth bullet. Because that's the easiest one to see. I think we agree on that one.

Fast_Ed wrote:2. I sure do see a lot of situations where companies are a crap ton more powerful than me because they have more lawyers and can stay in court until I am bankrupt. If Sprint decides I owe them $150, then I'm just gonna end up paying because I literally have no ability to argue. Wall street is way more powerful than that. Less regulation is one scapegoat for that recent large collapse. I'm sure you heard about that.

Generally, if Sprint decides you owe them $150, you probably owe them $150. I don't think this is really abused. That said, I do think that being able to throw money (lawyers) at someone until they can no longer afford to meaningfully defend themselves really sucks. I don't think it's an indictment on capitalism though. I think our legal system needs some work. Similar example: try to defend yourself in a court over a traffic citation. Doesn't work nearly as well as when you use someone who talks the talk.

Fast_Ed wrote:3. I do think that people of average intelligence are slowly being replaced by robots and computer programs. This means that people who work at certain menial jobs will not have a means to support themselves. Does that mean there should be a social safety net? I don't know. But I sure do see a lot of silicon valley types advocating a basic minimum income. Probably because they feel guilty for automating a bunch of those jobs. Or because they don't want the people from Idiocracy invading their homes for food money.

Value comes from doing stuff. That stuff may be derived from intelligence or some other service that doesn't explicitly require academic intelligence (labor skills). That said, I think we are finding ways to better spend our time as a human race than doing manual labor, and this is progress. No one owes an assembly line worker $30/hr just because that's what that job used to pay. Things change. The demand signal went away - that guy is no longer needed. So we shouldn't pay him. In the short term, during transients, that creates all kinds of friction that has to be dealt with one way or another. He should find something else to do. Again, if he trained to do a single labor job in 1991, and got laid off in 2002, that's too bad, but no one owes him that job for life.

So the next step is to find something that society needs that he can provide. And if he requires some kind of training/education for that, there should be a way that he can access that training. I don't know if it should be free though.

Bullets 1 - 3 really represent libertarianism while #4 represents the pandering to the extreme right that the Republican party does to get votes from rural whites with a high school diploma or less. A perfect example of #4 being North Carolina's HB2 law (aka the bathroom bill). This was another pointless piece of legislation pushed through by the far right that serves no purpose other than to discriminate. In fact, it has already had a negative effect on #2 in our state as Paypal canceled plans to move some of their operations here, citing the ridiculousness of the law when they did so. Although he will never admit it in public, I believe that our Governor didn't want this law. He has always been more of a #1-3 Republican and I respect him for that. I voted for him in 2012 but I will not vote for him again because he has shown that he is powerless to be the voice of reason within his own party.