Leftist Agenda in Academia explained

Post Reply New Topic

I recently read another thread here whether there is a Leftist Agenda in Academia.

I wonder why so many people are busy trying to say "there is no leftist agenda in academia".

It is obvious there IS a Leftist Agenda.

I am a Leftist myself, and though I am not in academia, I do believe there is a perfectly good explanation why the vast majority of those in academia in the U.S. - or anywhere - are leaning to the left:

Perhaps politics is more than just "gut feelings". If you know better, ie. know that the current climate changes are caused by human pollution, or know that a welfare state is a better guarantee for political, social and economic stability (look at the Scandinavian countries vs. many other countries) than just harsh penalties for stealing a loaf of bread if you're hungry, if you know that the Bible is written over many centuries and not written by Moses himself who probably never existed in the first place...

- all sorts of stuff you learn in acadamia, critical and rational thinking, logic by reason and the scientific method, I bet the vast majority would be leftists, and we wouldn't have a discussion whether or not Donald Trump is good for the world or not - everybody would agree he isn't.

Now, I am not saying rightwingers are stupid, but I do believe right wing mentality is all about forgetting critical thinking and just obeying orders and being a conformist and vote Trump in the U.S. Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary or Putin in Russia.

This is what I see as the biggest threat to the world.

If people would just realize the following:

* The Bible, Quran or any other "holy book" - is man-made fiction.
* Government leaders must be criticized at all times.
* Welfare gives political, social and economic stability - combine it with high taxes on both rich and poor.
* Citizens should be urged to only rarely take loans - only when it is absolutely neccessary.
* Citizens should be urged to educate themselves - provide the best possibilities and facilities for everybody to have a minimum degree of high education.
* A Guaranteed Basic Income will provide freedom to study, work or do other stuff in your life. It liberates the people more than tax breaks. Tax breaks, even if distributed to the poor/working poor, is not a guarantee for freedom. Basic Income is the ONLY guarantee for freedom.

Realize this, and you will become a leftist yourself.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 20 Feb 2018, 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is often claimed that academics are ‘brainwashing’ students with a ‘leftist agenda’ but the truth of the matter is that basically higher education teaches you to question things and research both sides of an arguement before coming to a conclusion.

This is something that, generally speaking the ‘right leaning’ don’t pay attention to - I’m also not saying all right wingers are this way, but 99% of those I have spoken to are of the ‘I don’t need experts opinions on things’

Global warming is such a case, where it is an issue that faces us all, yet some people prefer to ignore facts and pretend like nothing is happening.
(Being a refrigerant engineer I have to know a lot about this subject, and I’m not going to go into anymore detail here)

Again, I don’t want to tar a group of people with the same brush, but those I’ve met will argue against conclusive evidence until they are blue in the face and usually resort to name-calling or bullying when an arguement isn’t going in their favour.

"I don't need expert's opinions on things" is a common phrase used too often.

I hate when people say so. I just can't take it.

It is typically the same people who believe that conscription is a "good way to teach people to behave properly/take care of themselves/be good citizens - you know all that sh**) who also never want expert's opinons on stuff.

As if you can't be a good citizen if you haven't been conscripted...

The same people also usually have sayings like this:

"All students/pupils in schools should wear uniforms because then they will look alike and there will be no bullying"...

These illogical fallacies are too common, too widespread in the general population.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 20 Feb 2018, 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Firstly welfare has only been in place for a temporary period and is unsustainable pension schemes are the biggest ponzi schemes in history, the welfare state creates a system where people with traits that are not beneficial to society outbreed people with traits that are beneficial to society.

The left does not have a monopoly on science, the left criticises the right for not believing in man made climate change even when the majority of scientists accept it yet they are against GMO even though a higher percentage of scientists believe it to be safe. Then we have stuff like gender non binary.

What is beneficial to society?

Yes, a big welfare state with Basic Income would be poorer, economically speaking. And so what?
Why the race to speed up society all the time? Shouldn't we begin to slow down and just enjoy life?

It will also drastically reduce illness and other expenditures associated with the stressors that the modern society creates.

I'd say those who are speeding up society are definetly not beneficial to society.

What do you mean speeding up society? Do you mean people who create new technology?

People who are not beneficial to society are people who cannot take care of themselves (myself included), people who are less responsible (having children too young before you can afford them), people with lower intelligence, people who are more selfish (bringing your child into poverty is extremely selfish).

Then you have the power it gives the government the more people are dependent on them, the more we need them the more abusive they can and eventually will be.

There are also plenty of right-wingers like Alex Jones who oppose GMOs on religious grounds.

Yeah but its mostly people on the left. Alex Jones is neither right wing or left wing he is at best a fraud if not controlled opposition.

Agreed.



It's at this point I'm going to ask you to define terms. For example, I am liberal but neither a Liberal nor a Leftist. These terms have specific underpinnings to my mind, and it's important to know what your definitions are if any discussion is to be had.



Politics is many things to many people, and people tend to be more knowledgeable about such things as they're specifically interested in, politically or otherwise.



Define "better". What are your parameters for success, sustainability, suitability and effectiveness? How much climate change are humans responsible for and what are the demonstrable long-term effects of such. What is the precise amount of necessary welfare needed for political, social and economic stability and is that a static value or something which varies from state to state? What influences affect the relative effectiveness of variable rates of welfare?

Politics should be about more than simple, soundbite solutions to complex issues.



Why does it matter whether or not Moses was real or how old the Bible is? If there's value to be found in the text - and indeed the wider culture informed and influenced by the text - the veracity of some of its claims is immaterial. Despite being an atheist, I can recognise the merits of Christianity along with its flaws.



Where does the fact that 40% of degree holders voted for the Tories and Ukip in the recent UK General Election fit in with your assertion that academics would be more inclined to be "Leftists"? Is there perhaps more "Leftist" bias in some subjects than in others? That would certainly fit with my own observations, but it would be interesting to read a study if one exists.



Trump voters?



Realise? Let's go down the list.

- I'm an atheist. I have not been persuaded to believe in any gods which have thus far been presented to me. This does not incline me towards "Leftism".

- Agreed. They should also be held accountable. This is not a position unique to "Leftism".

- Disagreed. Whilst I agree with the idea of a welfare safety net, I also accept that welfare is prone to being abused as a political football and therefore also has the capacity to cause economic instability.

- Citizens should make their own decisions. Rather than "urging" behaviour, regulate lending.

- To enable the largest possible number of citizens to self-educate, educational and reference materials should be made freely available in a variety of formats on the internet and not placed behind paywalls.

- What amount of UBI/GBI would you set and how would you offset the necessary defunding of existing welfare programs that cater specifically to those who are most vulnerable (e.g. those with disabilities)? Would you provide additional welfare to the unemployed, the sick, the elderly and the disabled, or would you require them to seek alternative lines of support? How much unemployment welfare, disability welfare, housing welfare, etc would you grant? Would the UBI/GBI include a national health service or would that be paid for separately?

You're framing your argument as if you are asking me to "realise" implied truths, but what you're actually asking is for me to agree with a series of assertions with little-to-no supporting evidence. I regret to inform you that a selection of pithy soundbites is insufficient to persuade me to adopt "Leftism", but you have at least set a ball of discussion in motion.

Shh now. Let Big Momma Government take care of all your worries.

My mother has MS and is on disability. She's worked the majority of her life, and does not deserve to be homeless and starving because of a disease that isn't her fault and she can't control.

And I have no idea how non-binary gender comes into play here. I'm agendered, and it has squat to do with my political leanings.

I don't think anyone is advocating for you mother to be homeless or starving, I am not against the existence of the welfare state I am against how the welfare state rewards bad behaviour and punished good behaviour. The concept that someone can choose their gender or not have one is not based in science and promoted by the left.

The idea that you can't choose your gender is not based in science, either.

AJ agrees with the right about 80% of the time.

Controlled opposition? I find it ironic when people dismiss conspiracy theorists with more conspiracy theories.

Universities just teach you the truth.

Generally, people are more likely to be politically progressive if they are in history or political science.

Most of the university-educated conservatives are probably in engineering or computer science.

I think you demonstrated quite well with your post here, that alot of people "on the left" lack critical thinking too.
Personally, I think the moment people start subscribing to "left" and "right" as ideologies, is the moment a person stops thinking critically.

When americans use scandinavian countries as examples, there's a bunch of things you get wrong. The biggest one though, is that you think the welfare system we have in place here, is what made us rich. We have the welfare system we have, because we were rich in the first place.

In my country, sweden, our current level of social security is actually unsustainable, and we're getting poorer and poorer each year. This is mostly due to immigration.
I actually support the idea of a generous welfare state, but it only works under extremely specific conditions.