Soros has ties to over 30 Major News Organizations

Post Reply New Topic

I'd be fine to take the position that Universities should have an acting political ombudsman to ensure that both left and right wing thought is thoroughly and equally expressed on campus, and, that no private influence is allowed, or, that private institutions supporting each side are allowed with transparency and an acting ombudsman to ensure fairness on both sides.

That is fine that you also take the position that you do above (the one I've emboldened), but it in a sense is a straw-man... you are throwing out there something that you know does not exist just for the sake of coming off as being fair

The method isn't even impure, a right-wing institution gives FSU money to hire a conservative faculty member. That's the professors salary+benefits over 10 years. They want a libertarian added to the Economics department. You think poorly of the "ends" because of the "means" but also stand by the status quo since the 60's. The means aren't dirty if you know from the onset that your getting money to hire a libertarian economist. If FSU wants to hire any professor, they shouldn't take the money.

Your constant boiling things down to either being just the Intellectuals, or the Intellectuals + Right-wing crackpots justify my statement:

You need to be more careful with your words, and explain yourself if I misread you, and not take every chance you get to look lowly on the Right. It detracts credibility from you.

Ideological purity in virtually every department?

I read it well and came to the conclusion that all of the things that you worry about already happens with regards to leftists vetting leftists. It's not like their hiring the very best possible... they limit themselves to only hiring those who adhere to leftist dogma or don't go against it. All of the terrible consequences are already lived out in every public university, its just that leftists are doing so with billions of dollars of tax-payer money(and why you don't consider this a scandal is beyond me). There is no way that leftist insularity in every field outside of business has been secured for this long without constantly vetting or hiring on a ideologically consistent basis. You are talking as if there are no qualified candidates on the right, or as if there aren't already leftist economists on the campus.

Hey, be fair. I'm only reacting to what your saying. You said: "They are not hiring the best scholars available for the job, but rather any right-wing shill they can find." It's either the best possible candidate or any right-wing shill they can find?

I'm sorry, but no straw-man here. You should be more careful with your words. I'm not always, but at least I correct myself and re-clarify and admit if I'm wrong.

Are conservatives not interested in teaching history? Why is that department disproportionally employing leftists? A field that you'd think would be more diverse or equal in who teaches it is disproportionally left-leaning.

Ideological purity and insularity in academics is not self-supporting or did not come about on its own. It was constructed and strictly maintained.

I would like to see universities hire a closet conservative in a math department who then vocalizes anti-left sentiments, and see him keep his job.

I'd be fine to take the position that Universities should have an acting political ombudsman to ensure that both left and right wing thought is thoroughly and equally expressed on campus, and, that no private influence is allowed, or, that private institutions supporting each side are allowed with transparency and an acting ombudsman to ensure fairness on both sides.

I am at least consistent in either they do it for both sides, or they do it for no sides. I don't think that the status quo is fine, or if they did what their doing now by restricting left-wing thought on campus by only vetting and hiring right-wingers who either adhere to right wing thought and values or did not go against it.



I didn't say you said that. I assumed that from what you wrote. That is fine that you also take the position that you do above (the one I've emboldened), but it in a sense is a straw-man... you are throwing out there something that you know does not exist just for the sake of coming off as being fair, but it is a double standard to excuse the current - ideologically pure and insular - reality as nothing more then just leftists wanting to enter academia more then conservatives.

The method isn't even impure, a right-wing institution gives FSU money to hire a conservative faculty member. That's the professors salary+benefits over 10 years. They want a libertarian added to the Economics department. You think poorly of the "ends" because of the "means" but also stand by the status quo since the 60's. The means aren't dirty if you know from the onset that your getting money to hire a libertarian economist. If FSU wants to hire any professor, they shouldn't take the money.



You didn't really have to reply to that. That was an emotional rant. But it still illustrated the fact that libertarian view points aren't presented on campus. You also said "Fringe" and brought up a lot of silly examples - I was merely suggesting people whose views are right-of-center. Your constant boiling things down to either being just the Intellectuals, or the Intellectuals + Right-wing crackpots justify my statement:

I think it's fair to assume that right-wing scholarship is an oxymoron to you. I don't set things up to defeat you. You need to be more careful with your words, and explain yourself if I misread you, and not take every chance you get to look lowly on the Right. It detracts credibility from you.



Ideological purity in virtually every department?



I read it well and came to the conclusion that all of the things that you worry about already happens with regards to leftists vetting leftists. It's not like their hiring the very best possible... they limit themselves to only hiring those who adhere to leftist dogma or don't go against it. All of the terrible consequences are already lived out in every public university, its just that leftists are doing so with billions of dollars of tax-payer money(and why you don't consider this a scandal is beyond me). There is no way that leftist insularity in every field outside of business has been secured for this long without constantly vetting or hiring on a ideologically consistent basis. You are talking as if there are no qualified candidates on the right, or as if there aren't already leftist economists on the campus.




Hey, be fair. I'm only reacting to what your saying. You said: "They are not hiring the best scholars available for the job, but rather any right-wing shill they can find." It's either the best possible candidate or any right-wing shill they can find? The only thing the university is limiting themselves of is the best left-wing or centrist they can find. There are great professors on all sides, and perhaps FSU can get land an amazing right-wing professor, who is not a "Right-wing shill" - your words, not mine. I'm sorry, but no straw-man here. You should be more careful with your words. I'm not always, but at least I correct myself and re-clarify and admit if I'm wrong.





Are conservatives not interested in teaching history? Why is that department disproportionally employing leftists? A field that you'd think would be more diverse or equal in who teaches it is disproportionally left-leaning. Unless you are saying that teaching _______ (any subject outside of business) is only of interest to Liberals... Are only Liberals interested in 17th Century German Philosophy? Are liberals only interested in teaching Geography? Ideological purity and insularity in academics is not self-supporting or did not come about on its own. It was constructed and strictly maintained. I would like to see universities hire a closet conservative in a math department who then vocalizes anti-left sentiments, and see him keep his job. If not from within, pressures from outside the department will put things in order. And of course, it will be followed with the excuse that he had other problems, and that he wasn't a very good teacher who also did not get along with other faculty members. I will go into depth, correct, or reply tomorrow after work.

To OP.

So what?

ruveyn

cuz he is a Jooooooooooo.

if conservatives would stop having an active anti-intellectual agenda.
then maybe more of them would be teaching.
when I have 10 qualified applicants 9 being "liberal" and 1 "conservative"
I have obligation to hire the right-winger?
why?
to promote diversity?
if you all can't compete why should I help you?

The austrian school is excluded cuz they can't do math.
and come to think of it that is the main reason the Marxists.
have a hard time getting hired too.

Actually, it's more of liberals can't stand diversity of opinion, and liberals just tend to be full of themselves.

I'm also assuming that Mr. Soros would fit the description of a "Liberal" (or Ms. Inuyasha wouldn't raise a stink), and "Liberals" aren't supposed to spend their money as they wish.

Anyway, everyone knows that the only purpose of news is to get people to watch advertising.

Implying that people here are anti-semites is flamebait, particularly when some of my friends happen to be Jewish. It is especially flamebait when you are doing so with absolutely nothing to corroborate your statement.

Actually, it's more of liberals can't stand diversity of opinion, and liberals just tend to be full of themselves.

Some of my best friends are gay black Jews!

You are basically Glenn Beck's lap dog, and the anti-Semitic roots of Beck's conspiracy theories (as well as a disproportionate number of his boogey men coincidentally being Jewish) have been well documented in various places.

1. Glenn Beck is not an anti-semite, just because someone has a problem with one individual that just so happens to be Jewish, doesn't mean they are an anti-semite. That's like calling people racist because they disagree with Obama's policies or don't trust Obama because he's from Chicago (if you lived in the midwest you'd know about Chicago's reputation for corruption). If you want to continue to use little snippets that are completely out of context, I'll continue to call you on it.

1. Glenn Beck is not an anti-semite, just because someone has a problem with one individual that just so happens to be Jewish, doesn't mean they are an anti-semite.

That's like calling people racist because they disagree with Obama's policies or don't trust Obama because he's from Chicago (if you lived in the midwest you'd know about Chicago's reputation for corruption).

2. My Grandfather served in World War II and helped liberate one of the Concentration camps.

Beck and his rabid followers are total anti-semites. Just go to his web site, and you'll see. Most progressive pundits get death threats from his minions, just dripping with anti-semite rhetoric.

Please stop lying outright. At least dress it up a bit.

Do you mean www.glennbeck.com? If so, I've been on his website, and quite frankly I'm disgusted with your disingenious comments.