9 ms·

Just a couple of years ago. Masters.

vkou 4y ago
I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. (Or, like communism, have quietly been forgotten about.)
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. Sure, but it was the student body expressing their support (and not stomping on alternative viewpoints. It also wasn't the college administration and faculty stomping on alternative viewpoints back then.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawayacc5 4y ago
  >I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists. That’s not really true though. There’s a huge gap between old-school Marxism and contemporary progressivism. Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, and class issues are moved to the background. African-American Marxist Adolph L. Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at UPenn), criticises “wokeness” as a capitalist scheme to distract and divide the working class-he’s definitely a “leftist”, but I don’t think he’d agree that many of the people you are complaining about really are “leftists” at all.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, I don't see any difference of substance.
      - skissane 4y ago
        The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things. What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
        skissane 4y ago
        > you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        Your response vindicates my position.
recuter 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  We've banned this account again since you haven't stopped posting flamewar comments. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

vkou 4y ago

I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. (Or, like communism, have quietly been forgotten about.)

lelanthran 4y ago
> I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. Sure, but it was the student body expressing their support (and not stomping on alternative viewpoints. It also wasn't the college administration and faculty stomping on alternative viewpoints back then.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwawayacc5 4y ago
>I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.
- skissane 4y ago
  > They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists. That’s not really true though. There’s a huge gap between old-school Marxism and contemporary progressivism. Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, and class issues are moved to the background. African-American Marxist Adolph L. Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at UPenn), criticises “wokeness” as a capitalist scheme to distract and divide the working class-he’s definitely a “leftist”, but I don’t think he’d agree that many of the people you are complaining about really are “leftists” at all.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, I don't see any difference of substance.
    - skissane 4y ago
      The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things. What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
        skissane 4y ago
        > you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        Your response vindicates my position.

recuter 4y ago

[flagged]

dang 4y ago
We've banned this account again since you haven't stopped posting flamewar comments. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.