SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The latest manifestation of the conservative targetting of academia is the Professor Watchlist, created by the "activist organization" Turning Point USA, founded by rising star Charlie Kirk. It's stated purpose is to "watch" professors "who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom"
Of course, this is not new. David Horowitz has written a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America . HeterodoxAcademy.org has rational articles discussing the liberal slant to modern college campuses. Nicholas Kristoff writes an interesting piece on the same topic. However, with the election of President Trump, the stakes may have been raised. A professor in California has gone incognitio after criticizing Trump in the classroom and receiving death threats.
But more important is how the attempt to blacklist liberal academics has actually backfired. George Yancy [not the George Yancey from the Kristoff piece above] published a response, "I Am a Dangerous Professor" in the New York Times, and since then it seems to have become de rigueur for all academics to get their name on the Professor Watchlist in order to cement their tenure. An entire hashtag on Twitter has taken form: #trollprofwatchlist! People have taken to mocking the list by suggesting candidates such as Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus, not to mention Socrates, who obviously belongs.
Charlie Kirk may not be dangerous, but he did start this list. I am watching him now.
[Editor note - This story was substantially rewritten for balance. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:33PM
> Nowadays the new word for it is "fake news" which means "I disagree with the conclusions this writing wants me to hold."
Well, that's the reactionary definition.
The progressive definition of "fake news" is factual incorrectness.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:20PM
The progressive definition of "fake news" is factual incorrectness.
Correct. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:00PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:46PM
Well, that's the reactionary definition. The progressive definition of "fake news" is factual incorrectness.
I see people of all sides declaring stuff fake simply because they disagree with the author. I see a bunch of people who never went through all the "fact or opinion?" lessons I had to go through in school.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:50PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:56PM
> And then right after I posted this I had an email from someone saying that a particular term is "fake news." How can a term be fake news?
Convenient that you neglected to mention the "term" or the context.
Seems to me you absolutely know your outrage is based on bullshit but can't stand the light of critical scrutiny.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:53PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @01:56AM
He's right. You are wrong. And that's because, despite your lies, he's talking about the context around the term "election hack." If that phrase had zero contextual meaning then you'd be right. But it is loaded with meaning that refers to the current election and what the russians did with respect to it.
So my question to you - where you deliberately lying and you really knew all this deep inside, or was your post really a confession of your own ignorance?
I'd like it to be the former because that would be proof you actually understood what people were talking about and actively chose to lie in order to persuade. It a shitty way to persuade but at least it means you are operating on the same cognitive level as most of us. But if it is the later, it means you believe your own bullshit and really aren't fit to comment at all. Which would mean that arguing with you is fruitless since these are topics that you will never really grasp. Like square trying to convince the other flatlanders there really are more than 2 dimensions.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 21 2016, @05:38PM
No, and I haven't stopped beating my wife, either.
I literally don't care if the election was "hacked."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @04:09PM
Well, if I saw an article which made prolific use of the terms "thetan" and "Xenu" in a positive / non-ironic context then I could be pretty sure it was an article about how wonderful Scientology is, and so I probably wouldn't want to waste any more of my time on it.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:20PM
That's a conceit. There are lots of facts in the world, and cherry-picking those which support your narrative is not the acme of truthfulness, either. The major complaint of those levelling the very double-edged charge of "fake news" is that they cherry-picked other facts that supported a different narrative. They're mad that their scheme to rig the outcome didn't work.
Trying to back-pedal now, to try to redefine what they meant by "fake news" as something legitimate, is transparent and unsupported by research or experience. Humans have always traded in rumor, and claiming that rumor altered the outcome is risible. Reading wild rumors in email chains from my looney tunes relatives did not sway my vote in the 90's, and they have equally negligible impact on my when they're delivered via social media.
It's also profoundly patronizing for the champions of the "fake news" to tsk-tsk, tutt-tutt about the poor little dears, the Independents, who were led astray by said rumors. They are not children, they're not stupid, and they don't need some self-interested sack of pricks to tell them how to think.
Washington DC delenda est.