3 ms·

>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. not sure what you mean here, what exactly are you postulating? Is it that there's

>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. not sure what you mean here, what exactly are you postulating? Is it that there's a bias in any university curriculum? Is it that a large group of a younger (primarily 18-25) demographic create an echo chamber or that there's peer pressure to a specific ideology? There's a lot to unpack in your comment, and it all appears that it isn't really in good faith.

naruvimama 5y ago
It is true, the left has no bars when it comes to pushing its agenda into the curricula. Even targeting children for social engineering.
- therobot24 5y ago
  come on, there's no conspiracy going on, what you're calling 'the left' is probably rooted in empathy for others (which spirals into things the gov can do, e.g., provide resources, perform more functions/expand, etc.) - while there's a definite need for balance and consideration of what the gov should be responsible for/pay with via public funds, there again, isn't a 'targeting' of anyone
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    It is not directly "a conspiracy" but it is the result of a conscious approach of getting people in educational institutions who are willing to be activists for ideologically "left-wing" causes. This has exploded in the last few years with more and more institutions taking up critical theory as a guideline for their curriculum, leading to demands for "diversity, equity and inclusion" in more and more fields. If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression.
    - therobot24 5y ago
      >> If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression Dude, language evolves... this is such a weird thing to be hung up on.
      - the_third_wave 5y ago
        Yes, language evolves, a natural process which happens over an extended time period. What I am talking about is the online dictionary changing the definition of words a few hours from when someone used that word in a context where it does not fit, to make it fit that context. This has now happened a few times in the last year, did you miss that? This is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language - and it is not a natural process.
the_third_wave 5y ago
The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment. Also, there is nothing to "unpack", the message is clear and honest: universities are currently - and have been for a long time - largely left-leaning, especially in the humanities but more recently also more in other fields.
- therobot24 5y ago
  >> The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. fair >> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof? >> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment. What's obvious about it? We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment: >> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma. my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.

naruvimama 5y ago

It is true, the left has no bars when it comes to pushing its agenda into the curricula. Even targeting children for social engineering.

therobot24 5y ago
come on, there's no conspiracy going on, what you're calling 'the left' is probably rooted in empathy for others (which spirals into things the gov can do, e.g., provide resources, perform more functions/expand, etc.) - while there's a definite need for balance and consideration of what the gov should be responsible for/pay with via public funds, there again, isn't a 'targeting' of anyone
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  It is not directly "a conspiracy" but it is the result of a conscious approach of getting people in educational institutions who are willing to be activists for ideologically "left-wing" causes. This has exploded in the last few years with more and more institutions taking up critical theory as a guideline for their curriculum, leading to demands for "diversity, equity and inclusion" in more and more fields. If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression.
  - therobot24 5y ago
    >> If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression Dude, language evolves... this is such a weird thing to be hung up on.
    - the_third_wave 5y ago
      Yes, language evolves, a natural process which happens over an extended time period. What I am talking about is the online dictionary changing the definition of words a few hours from when someone used that word in a context where it does not fit, to make it fit that context. This has now happened a few times in the last year, did you miss that? This is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language - and it is not a natural process.

the_third_wave 5y ago

The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment. Also, there is nothing to "unpack", the message is clear and honest: universities are currently - and have been for a long time - largely left-leaning, especially in the humanities but more recently also more in other fields.

therobot24 5y ago
>> The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. fair >> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof? >> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment. What's obvious about it? We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment: >> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma. my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.