3 ms·

I'm well aware there's nuance but it's still a problem. A country club is extremely biased towards conservatism even if there isn't an all encompassing authori

I'm well aware there's nuance but it's still a problem. A country club is extremely biased towards conservatism even if there isn't an all encompassing authoritarian mind control scheme for it. Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy, I'm aware, but that is still a problem if it lets so much misbehaviour pass and keeps gaslighting critics. >being left-wing does not mean a scientist will accept to reject the truth I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. Although there has been recent cases of literal socialist conspiracies in Ivy League universities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...

cauch 3y ago
> Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy Even if indeed "academia is left-wing" (which I'm still not sure it's properly proven: everyone who said that appeared to just "feel it's the case" and turn out to have some sympathies with more right-wing values. Of course you think it's more left-wing if you see left-wing event and right-wing event in same quantities: the right-wing events are not "right-wing", they are just "normal", so you end up thinking "this uni is doing 50% of normal and 50% of left-wing, so it is left-wing". Not saying it's not the case, my problem is that if it is left-wing, I would expect it will be said by people who are less biased). I was saying ... even if it is left-wing, it is interesting that you are attributing that to "selection bias". There are plenty of other hypothesis: - people in academia thinks a lot, and right-wing ideas are just not very good (I don't think it's true, but it's as charitable as 'selection bias') - approach in academia is more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - socio-economic and culture of people going to academia are more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - ... > I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. How is that relevant? It's like saying "academia is dominated by right-wing: we can see some collusion and then it being brushed under the carpet", such as whatever you can find by googling "pro-iran academia in us" or any other right-wing dictatorial countries. I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. China would have been a right-wing dictatorship, the same thing would have happened. But again, you are doing a confirmation bias: you want to see reason why academia is ideologically communist. It does not change anything to the initial argument: what you call a paradox is not a paradox. You are just pretending here that someone the students who do the protests are the one in charge of vetting the events they are protesting about in the first place, which is just stupid.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  Iran's current government is socialist though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_%E2%80%93_Syria_Region https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Part... It's the most deadly conflict of the region and it's brushed off because it's the fault of a socialist dictator. I am not right wing. Last election I voted for a socialist union leader despite not being socialist. As someone in academia I'm frustrated with so much corruption and harassment and bullshit passing off as science by leftists. This is where I come from. >I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine Their intention is ideological, the goal is to destroy liberal democracy, this is documented. Yes the far right would do the same. I argue they are the same movement.
  - cauch 3y ago
    Your link goes to Syria government, not Iran. But that's missing the point: if you don't like Iran as an example, replace it by any right-wing dictatorship. > It's the most deadly conflict of the region and it's brushed off because it's the fault of a socialist dictator. Are you serious? "because it is a socialist dictator"? Iran regime is extremely criticized in academia, the idea it's a deadly horrible regime is a very agreed consensus. And Syria too, by the way. (edit: and if you say "but it's what I see locally in USA, maybe it's not the case worldwide", you shoot yourself in the foot: you were saying that the whole western academia is left-wing and stand by the same goals of cancelling some opinions. If some opinions are cancelled by the big bad lefties in US but not in Europe, then again, they are not cancelled: their thesis will be largely published in Europe, and the big bad lefties in US will be exposed as fraud) Also, political game is not as simplistic as "Syrian are socialist, I'm left-wing so I will pretend they are great": tons of left-wing people are very harshly critical of left-wing countries and inversely. Take Russia for example: while historically communist and with still strong roots to it, _some_ left-wing politicians will tend to minimize all their fault, but _some_ right-wing politicians will tend to minimize all their fault because their are politically allied with the nationalist Putin (cf. Trump who said he admires some aspect of Putin and minimises his crime). Because of that, _some_ left-wing politicians recognize in Putin a right-wing ally and are against Russia. They idea that the "left-wing academia" "brushes under the carpet" crimes of Iran because a blind allegiance to the word "left" when in practice their ideologies are very incompatible is just ridiculous. > I am not right wing. What I mean is: if there is a bias, it should be raised by people who are also supporting what this bias support. Once again, there is someone saying "they are left-wing" and then say "and I don't like the way they are left-wing". As I've said, if someone is fair, promote 50% left-wing and 50% right-wing, people who don't agree with the right-wing direction will say they are right-wing and people who don't agree with the left-wing direction will say they are left-wing. > As someone in academia I'm frustrated with so much corruption and harassment and bullshit passing off as science by leftists. This is where I come from. Ok, so you are extremely biased. I'm sure you may have had very bad experience. But in science, we know that opinion from someone who had bad experience is extremely unreliable, especially if they have to judge the general environment after being confronted to a very small part of it. No wonder you think all academia is left-wing if you have experienced a small part of it where there was things you've found unjust and that you attributed it to left-wing reasons. > Their intention is ideological, the goal is to destroy liberal democracy, this is documented. Yes the far right would do the same. I argue they are the same movement. You realise that this document is not the result of ideology, but that the ideology this document depicts is the fake justification to attack the other country, right? If they are against "western values", it's not because they really are against "western values", it is mainly because they need a justification to depict a concurrent country as "bad". As you said, if US was more left-wing and China more right-wing, the same document would explain why left-wing politics is bad and they are against it. Americans are really brainwashed about "the communist threat". Other powerful countries, especially dictatorships, are threats. China is a threat. The stupid idea that China is the enemy "because of the communist ideology" is ridiculous. They are the enemy because they are a concurrent country and that USA is preventing them getting more power. While Russia is becoming more complex because it's both communist and popular amongst right-wing nationalists, Russia is as much as a threat to USA (and there too, there are numerous documents proving their political interference for their profit). And it is also deforcing your previous arguments: academia is left-wing, so they love China because they are left-wing too, while at the same time, China is planning to kill them all. It's so ridiculously simplist. You seem to think every left-wing person is very very stupid. Even if some left-wing persons are stupid (and they are), your whole reasoning falls apart when you have one non-idiot left-wing person who says "wait, I'm left-wing, I like the left-wing ideology, but what China wants is not at all what I want, because they want to rule over me instead of me being able to do my own socialist adventure. So, wait a minute, I will not protect China, I have absolutely no reason to do so". From this whole discussion, it just looks like to me that you were in an unfair situation, and that you rationalised the situation with "it's because they are left-wing" (which may be true, or not, people always blame it on the ideology instead of thinking that maybe these people were just dicks, independently of their ideology), and because of that, now, you see proofs everywhere that the big bad academia is both dishonest and left-wing.

cauch 3y ago

> Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy Even if indeed "academia is left-wing" (which I'm still not sure it's properly proven: everyone who said that appeared to just "feel it's the case" and turn out to have some sympathies with more right-wing values. Of course you think it's more left-wing if you see left-wing event and right-wing event in same quantities: the right-wing events are not "right-wing", they are just "normal", so you end up thinking "this uni is doing 50% of normal and 50% of left-wing, so it is left-wing". Not saying it's not the case, my problem is that if it is left-wing, I would expect it will be said by people who are less biased). I was saying ... even if it is left-wing, it is interesting that you are attributing that to "selection bias". There are plenty of other hypothesis: - people in academia thinks a lot, and right-wing ideas are just not very good (I don't think it's true, but it's as charitable as 'selection bias') - approach in academia is more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - socio-economic and culture of people going to academia are more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - ... > I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. How is that relevant? It's like saying "academia is dominated by right-wing: we can see some collusion and then it being brushed under the carpet", such as whatever you can find by googling "pro-iran academia in us" or any other right-wing dictatorial countries. I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. China would have been a right-wing dictatorship, the same thing would have happened. But again, you are doing a confirmation bias: you want to see reason why academia is ideologically communist. It does not change anything to the initial argument: what you call a paradox is not a paradox. You are just pretending here that someone the students who do the protests are the one in charge of vetting the events they are protesting about in the first place, which is just stupid.

hotdogscout 3y ago
Iran's current government is socialist though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_%E2%80%93_Syria_Region https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Part... It's the most deadly conflict of the region and it's brushed off because it's the fault of a socialist dictator. I am not right wing. Last election I voted for a socialist union leader despite not being socialist. As someone in academia I'm frustrated with so much corruption and harassment and bullshit passing off as science by leftists. This is where I come from. >I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine Their intention is ideological, the goal is to destroy liberal democracy, this is documented. Yes the far right would do the same. I argue they are the same movement.
- cauch 3y ago
  Your link goes to Syria government, not Iran. But that's missing the point: if you don't like Iran as an example, replace it by any right-wing dictatorship. > It's the most deadly conflict of the region and it's brushed off because it's the fault of a socialist dictator. Are you serious? "because it is a socialist dictator"? Iran regime is extremely criticized in academia, the idea it's a deadly horrible regime is a very agreed consensus. And Syria too, by the way. (edit: and if you say "but it's what I see locally in USA, maybe it's not the case worldwide", you shoot yourself in the foot: you were saying that the whole western academia is left-wing and stand by the same goals of cancelling some opinions. If some opinions are cancelled by the big bad lefties in US but not in Europe, then again, they are not cancelled: their thesis will be largely published in Europe, and the big bad lefties in US will be exposed as fraud) Also, political game is not as simplistic as "Syrian are socialist, I'm left-wing so I will pretend they are great": tons of left-wing people are very harshly critical of left-wing countries and inversely. Take Russia for example: while historically communist and with still strong roots to it, _some_ left-wing politicians will tend to minimize all their fault, but _some_ right-wing politicians will tend to minimize all their fault because their are politically allied with the nationalist Putin (cf. Trump who said he admires some aspect of Putin and minimises his crime). Because of that, _some_ left-wing politicians recognize in Putin a right-wing ally and are against Russia. They idea that the "left-wing academia" "brushes under the carpet" crimes of Iran because a blind allegiance to the word "left" when in practice their ideologies are very incompatible is just ridiculous. > I am not right wing. What I mean is: if there is a bias, it should be raised by people who are also supporting what this bias support. Once again, there is someone saying "they are left-wing" and then say "and I don't like the way they are left-wing". As I've said, if someone is fair, promote 50% left-wing and 50% right-wing, people who don't agree with the right-wing direction will say they are right-wing and people who don't agree with the left-wing direction will say they are left-wing. > As someone in academia I'm frustrated with so much corruption and harassment and bullshit passing off as science by leftists. This is where I come from. Ok, so you are extremely biased. I'm sure you may have had very bad experience. But in science, we know that opinion from someone who had bad experience is extremely unreliable, especially if they have to judge the general environment after being confronted to a very small part of it. No wonder you think all academia is left-wing if you have experienced a small part of it where there was things you've found unjust and that you attributed it to left-wing reasons. > Their intention is ideological, the goal is to destroy liberal democracy, this is documented. Yes the far right would do the same. I argue they are the same movement. You realise that this document is not the result of ideology, but that the ideology this document depicts is the fake justification to attack the other country, right? If they are against "western values", it's not because they really are against "western values", it is mainly because they need a justification to depict a concurrent country as "bad". As you said, if US was more left-wing and China more right-wing, the same document would explain why left-wing politics is bad and they are against it. Americans are really brainwashed about "the communist threat". Other powerful countries, especially dictatorships, are threats. China is a threat. The stupid idea that China is the enemy "because of the communist ideology" is ridiculous. They are the enemy because they are a concurrent country and that USA is preventing them getting more power. While Russia is becoming more complex because it's both communist and popular amongst right-wing nationalists, Russia is as much as a threat to USA (and there too, there are numerous documents proving their political interference for their profit). And it is also deforcing your previous arguments: academia is left-wing, so they love China because they are left-wing too, while at the same time, China is planning to kill them all. It's so ridiculously simplist. You seem to think every left-wing person is very very stupid. Even if some left-wing persons are stupid (and they are), your whole reasoning falls apart when you have one non-idiot left-wing person who says "wait, I'm left-wing, I like the left-wing ideology, but what China wants is not at all what I want, because they want to rule over me instead of me being able to do my own socialist adventure. So, wait a minute, I will not protect China, I have absolutely no reason to do so". From this whole discussion, it just looks like to me that you were in an unfair situation, and that you rationalised the situation with "it's because they are left-wing" (which may be true, or not, people always blame it on the ideology instead of thinking that maybe these people were just dicks, independently of their ideology), and because of that, now, you see proofs everywhere that the big bad academia is both dishonest and left-wing.