The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Liberals process information emotionally; through the lens of what they emotionally feel should be fair or proper while conservatives process information logically based on facts and logical analysis

exactly!

and also, Never Forget! 9/11 Patriotism! Never Forget! Global Warming Commie Terrorists kill'em all! Never Forget! (9/11 God Bless America etc.)

[Womble]

wait you saying that mathematicians, physicists & biologists are more conservative? that's a hellofa claim since popular perception suggests the complete opposite (no need to cite Einstein)

besides this also implies that atheists tend to be...conservative?

That's not what I said. It's what you (and Annoyed) are reading into it but it's not what I said.

What I actually said is that there's a significantly larger share of conservatives among the university teachers of exact sciences.I also gave a reason for it - exact sciences are not being ideologically pruned quite so thoroughly because the teachers cannot use their class for political advocacy the way teachers of history and various "differently abled gender fluid people of color studies" teachers can.

[SoulReaver]

That's not what I said. It's what you (and Annoyed) are reading into it but it's not what I said.

What I actually said is that there's a significantly larger share of conservatives among the university teachers of exact sciences.I also gave a reason for it - exact sciences are not being ideologically pruned quite so thoroughly because the teachers cannot use their class for political advocacy the way teachers of history and various "differently abled gender fluid people of color studies" teachers can.

alrite, nuance. but all the same now that you & Annoyed touched on the topic I'd be curious to know the progressive/conservative proportion within the scientific community: do the majority of scientists tend to lean on the left or the right? (reliable sources not easy to google up)

that said I remember a physics teacher back in junior high who, when a comrade made an off-hand remark about god (meant as a joke), replied something like "don't tell me about god there has to be an explanation to everything" & he was quite adamant (he even mentioned how he once got into an argument with a pupil's parents from a previous class because the parents were religious & their kid had told them about something this teacher had said in class which the parents didn't like too much - something similar to what I quoted, I reckon - and which prompted the mother to go to school & confront the teacher)
whether that teacher's right or wrong is another debate but the upshot is even exact sciences aren't that much of a hindrance to politics

[SoulReaver]

would economics also be an exact science?

[Annoyed]

alrite, nuance. but all the same now that you & Annoyed touched on the topic I'd be curious to know the progressive/conservative proportion within the scientific community: do the majority of scientists tend to lean on the left or the right? (reliable sources not easy to google up)

I don't have time to spend on a google machine right now but for an off the cuff answer I'd say the best guess would be to look at who employs them. If they are employed by a private company or similar that has to make a profit to continue to exist (and allow them to keep their jobs) I would say they lean to the right. On the other hand, if they work for a government or government funded institution I would wager left.

[aretood2]

I don't have time to spend on a google machine right now but for an off the cuff answer I'd say the best guess would be to look at who employs them. If they are employed by a private company or similar that has to make a profit to continue to exist (and allow them to keep their jobs) I would say they lean to the right. On the other hand, if they work for a government or government funded institution I would wager left.

I wonder how that truly measures up to reality. It's one thing to feel that way, but thinking doesn't always make it so.

Let me guess, dems? Got a link to show that?



Ahhh.. Gotcha. Let me go see if i can find a link to how much chrysler or some of the other automakers have lost from all their bloody recalls..
well this was the closest i could find with a quick bing search..
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/...y-back-500000/

It mentioned that of the 200k or so trucks they need to buy back from the recall, if they just did a quarter of them, it would be a 1.2 billion hit..
And that's one company.

The car companies? The fact that you compare him to the very companies that failed to generate enough revenue to stay afloat without government bailouts should be of concern...but he is your god after all. Faithful till the end.

I love the comment on this someone else said on a different news site..
"If credit card companies can tell me how many times, at what times and at what locations my ATM card, Credit card AND debit card were all scanned in the past 6 months, and by checking the DMV i can see how many times my drivers license was scanned by cops, WHY can't we do some tracking method like THAT on people's IDs during Voting season.. And tie that voter ID they use TO their citizenship."

However, do you notice WHICH party is the one that's always hot and heavy against ANY form of voter ID or even Requirement to proove someone is a US citizen before registering someone to vote?? DEMS!! That right there should tell you all you need about how little they care about voter fraud..

You'll need to print ID's out with that magnetic strip that credit cards have and then have readers in the ballot machines. The problem is...people will know who you voted for.

That's not what I said. It's what you (and Annoyed) are reading into it but it's not what I said.

What I actually said is that there's a significantly larger share of conservatives among the university teachers of exact sciences.I also gave a reason for it - exact sciences are not being ideologically pruned quite so thoroughly because the teachers cannot use their class for political advocacy the way teachers of history and various "differently abled gender fluid people of color studies" teachers can.

The question is still why? If it is discrimination where and when and how did it start? Why did conservatives lose? How?

[aretood2]

Here's a link about the party affiliations of doctors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/up...crat.html?_r=0

Surgeons are mostly republican. Surgery, I guess, can be an "exact science" (There's so much wrong with that term). Psychiatry is mostly democrats. Now, Psychology is the social science, psychiatry is a bridge between the two. But Pediatricians are even more democratic than psychiatrists. But I fail to see how pediatrics is not an "exact science". The article makes the guess that it has to do with salaries. The richer you are (Surgeons) the more concerned you are about the rich being taxed (republicans). Also, only 46% of all doctors (lot's of hard/exact/natural science there) are republican, meaning the majority are democrats. Another theory is the influx of women changing the numbers a bit (In the past it was a majority of doctors who were republican).

Just something to add to this whole, liberals vs conservatives question Womble brought up. I wonder if involvement of women/pay may play a similar role in the numbers for professors and such?

[SoulReaver]

Surgeons are mostly republican.

I reckon dentists are also mostly Republicans

sux if you're a poor guy on public insurance who has to get operated by such a surgeon

[garhkal]

Damning............

Pity most of her voters imo won't care.
Just like many of us trump voters won't care about his comments from 11 yrs ago about women that was leaked.

Two options. Either Conservatives are stupid and unfit to work in universities, or there is a severe discrimination by political views in the universities' hiring practices.

Now imagine that there exists a 30:1 disparity in representation of any other group among university teaching staff, and you will know what the answer is.

Heck even if it was just 10 to 1 disparity in the conservatives favor, imo we would be hearing about how 'discriminatory' that was..
Let alone 30 to 1..

You'll need to print ID's out with that magnetic strip that credit cards have and then have readers in the ballot machines. The problem is...people will know who you voted for.

No, they will now when and where you voted. Not for whom though. Unless that gets linked.

The question is still why? If it is discrimination where and when and how did it start? Why did conservatives lose? How?

Not really sure to be honest.

[Annoyed]

The question is still why? If it is discrimination where and when and how did it start? Why did conservatives lose? How?

You might benefit from looking at liberal/Democratic hellholes like NY.

Almost all publicly employed educators are members of unions. This is how they've obtained and maintain their obscenely generous wage & benefit packages. Particularly in light of the number of days off, vacations, etc.
Democrats are very much in the union's corner. In fact, a very large portion of their campaign financing comes from education unions.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, aren't so favorable to unions.
So it is in the best interests of the education unions to indoctrinate their students to think and vote towards the left.

Make a little more sense now?

[SoulReaver]

You might benefit from looking at liberal/Democratic hellholes like NY.

NY was in fact a ****hole especially in 1994-2001

Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, aren't so favorable to most unions.

fixed

[aretood2]

Pity most of her voters imo won't care.
Just like many of us trump voters won't care about his comments from 11 yrs ago about women that was leaked.

I don't know about that. Personally, I care more about Trump's evil than I do about Clinton's evil. Thanks to you and others like you we are going to have Hillary as a president instead of...I don't know. Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? John Kasich? Hey even Ted Cruz seems better. Congratulations.

No, they will now when and where you voted. Not for whom though. Unless that gets linked.

If you swipe to get into the poll station (like the table they usually have you sign in at), sure. Of course, you realize that this would cost a lot of money. Credit card companies can afford it because credit cards generate a profit. Voting doesn't generate a profit.

Not really sure to be honest.

I think things are more complicated than what Womble stated. Just research how other careers and jobs are divided along party affiliations. It's not just professors and it's not just liberal majorities either. Thus the example of doctors that I mentioned, pointedly so to show how it may not necessarily have to do with the "objectivity" of the field of work/knowledge involved nor "indoctrination". I don't rule it out completely, but I can't agree that it is the only main source of that disparity.

You might benefit from looking at liberal/Democratic hellholes like NY.

Three words. New York City.

Almost all publicly employed educators are members of unions. This is how they've obtained and maintain their obscenely generous wage & benefit packages. Particularly in light of the number of days off, vacations, etc.

Measured hour by hour it's not that different from other jobs that involve a 4 year college degree. Especially when you take into consideration that teachers are required to get masters degrees or course work equivalent to one. I mean, graphic designers start at around 30K a year, but quickly reach upwards to 60-70K a year. Teachers typically follow that trend, but don't reach the upper pay scales until they're first students' grand kids make their way to their classrooms. Seriously, this is the first time I have ever "heard" anyone call teacher pay "obscene".

Democrats are very much in the union's corner. In fact, a very large portion of their campaign financing comes from education unions.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, aren't so favorable to unions.
So it is in the best interests of the education unions to indoctrinate their students to think and vote towards the left.

Two words. Police Unions. Police tend to be republican, and they have unions that make teacher's unions look like anti-unionist greedy supervisors. Also you're argument has a few problems. I can't decide if it is a non sequitur or if it's affirming the consequent.

It's true, a majority of teachers are liberal/democrats. It's also true that many are in unions (Many states don't allow unions, they have associations which don't have the right to strike and have a much weaker bargaining position. Other states have nothing but a token organization with little input). However, I have never been told by the union to do anything. No teacher gets told to do anything from anyone other than principles who are not part of those unions, or associations, or token organizations.

Also, do you think it might be because conservatives hate teachers? Why would you join a profession that you disdain?

But, and this is important, there are many conservative/republican teachers Simply out, teachers aren't sociopaths who are out to make money without a care in the world about the ethics involved.

However, here is a breakdown of several occupations

http://verdantlabs.com/blog/2015/06/...f-professions/

Interestingly. Home builders are as republican as architects are democratic. Guess who is more likely to be in a union? Construction workers are more likely to be unionized than architects (who have no such unions). Carpenters are as democratic as plumbers are republican...both are equally unionized.

Taxi drivers are as democratic as truck drivers are republican....Oh, guess which of the two occupations are famous for having a union? It's not Taxis, it's the Teamsters. And they're republican.

Flight attendants are as democratic as pilots are republicans. Both are equally unionized.

Cops are heavily uber unionized but they tend to skew conservative.

Make a little more sense now?

[COLOR="#000080"]

Teaching is hardly the only profession that skews one way or the other. Professors are not unique, and it is not limited to "Hard science" vs "Social science" as you can see from the data involving doctors. When you have Carpenters and Plumbers differ, and Cops and truck drivers skew republican, it's easy to see that unionization doesn't play too large of a role. Especially if you take architects vs construction workers into account where the former aren't unionized but the latter are and the latter skew republican.

So no, it doesn't "make more sense now". If anything, it looks like you made up your opinion without any base in facts and, as Gatefan days, "The feels".

[Coco Pops]

And thank God for that.

Why?

Why can't you let the younger generation run the world?

[Annoyed]

Let me tell you a story about a man named Jed. Poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed. ...

There is a large city nearby. Back in the 1980's, the schools were failing abysmally. The teachers, through their union president made a strong argument that in order to attract the best to the teaching profession, they had to offer above average wages.
The city administration (foolishly) went along with this, and a 40% raise was given pretty much across the board.
Fast forward to present day. This same school district now has one of the highest cost/pupil ratios in the U.S.; a tad over 20K/student per year.
For that we get a graduation rate of 45-50% in good years, and a competency rating by local colleges/businesses of under 10%. Less than 10% of the district's output is capable of either going to college or entering the workforce.

Oh, and that union president? He is still there, saying they need more money.

This isn't theory. It's not what might happen. This is real life history over 30+ years.

As I said. Welcome to a liberal/Democrat hell.

[Gatefan1976]

I suppose for someone who disdains Conservatives, it's a wonderful thing to have them discriminated against.

I don't disdain conservatives, and they certainly should not be discriminated against, no one should.

But for a democracy, I'd say suppression of opposition views in education is a death sentence.

Political views, no matter their stripe, should not be a part of education.

Imagine, for a moment, the shoe being on the other foot.

I did, I can't see it happening outside of religious based educational systems.

And for a second replace "conservative vs. liberal" by "white vs. black".

So, discrimination based on that which is beyond your control is equivalent to political or social or religious discrimination?
Really?

They taught what the government told them to. The liberal vs. conservative divide works differently in different societies, so you've chosen a poor point of comparison.

That was my bad, yes. I used the wrong words. I meant -progressive- Vs Conservative, not liberal/republican.
You did however answer my question.

Stop right there. "Mainstream patriarchal white system" is whose definition?

It's a pretty fair definition, or do you want to argue that mainstream Western Society is something else?

They are important. Are they being taught from all angles or strictly from the starting assumption of needing to oppose the "mainstream patriarchal white system"?

What "angles" would you find fair?

"Gender studies department", "transgender studies" "feminism studies" are the needs of the future? Or are they junk science field created by overlaying liberal politics over atomized subsets of sociology?

Junk science?
I think that is all that needs to be said really.

Seriously? Check out who teaches Christianity classes in the universities. As a rule, not Christians.

I did not say at universities, I said -go into the various religions-. Let me be more clear. How many socially liberal people go into the various priesthoods? I don't think you would even crack 100 to 1 on that count. A far more fair comparison as Priests are -also- teachers rather than trying to call race discrimination or (binary) gender discrimination an equal to learned behaviour.

Why, of course it is! It's the arguments for affirmative action mirrored right back at you. It's the question of why discrimination by political views is widely accepted whereas discrimination by race is not.

One you have no control over, one you do?

The fact that the ratio of conservative vs. liberal teaching staff becomes more slanted over time is an indication that we're dealing with discriminatory hiring practices rather than with some kind of inherent inadequacy of conservatives as university teachers.

Are we just?
Perhaps conservative minded people with the desire to be teachers just tend not to go into public schooling?
I would be interested to see the comparative rates between the two groups.

Actually, that part only goes to reinforce the article's conclusion.

No, it really does not.

Conservatives are better represented in fields which deal with exact sciences. Those study fields require no less intellectual capacity or teaching skill than history or sociology,

No less, no, but an entirely different skill.

but they are fields where one cannot teach their politics as science.

Not directly, no.

One cannot manufacture junk study fields like "women's studies" in order to pass political indoctrination off as obligatory study material.

More "junk studies"..............
How much time have you spent studying the junk science of religion? It, as field, certainly falls within the parameter's of what you would seem to consider junk studies, and it certainly indoctrinates people in more way than political and is dominated by conservative thought.