SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren't conservatives. Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We're fine with people who don't look like us, as long as they think like us.
O.K., that's a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical. "Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black," he told me. "But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close."
I've been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
"Much of the 'conservative' worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false," said Carmi. "The truth has a liberal slant," wrote Michelle. "Why stop there?" asked Steven. "How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?"
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don't have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.
The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 29 2016, @10:12PM
I've read Marx, apparently you haven't.
I am still reading him. But if you didn't spot the fundamental flaw right up front you are either dumb or so emotionaly invested in the outcome you engaged in a leap of faith over it. I.e. it is a religion for you. I will give you a hint: The Labor Theory of Value. Take that out and the entire edifice falls over, kinda like Christianity without the immaculate conception. And it is so obviously false you should not have to think very long to see through it. Christians freely admit they must accept the immaculate conception purely as an article of faith, but if Marxism is "Scientific" then you are not allowed to.
Their party still believes that Iraq was a great idea and that fetuses are the same thing as babies and that tax cuts to the rich will benefit the poor.
Do you even get CNN on your planet? Did you happen to notice how the one candidate who smoked the rest of the field said Iraq was a bad idea? The Neocons still like the idea of nation building but they are the ones raging at being written out of the Republican Party.
Since you went there lets go. When does a fetus become a baby? Science certainly can't answer that question. A strict reading of the U.S. Constitution says one thing but Science makes that position problematic. What magic happens in the birth canal that transforms a fetus into a baby? So is it a baby an hour earlier? Is it still a fetus an hour after? Abortion is an issue where both extremes are sign of our moral understanding hitting a limiting case and becoming silly or evil. On one end you have "Every sperm is sacred" and on the other infanticide. We should apply the most recent information Science provides and put the line around a point where it is more baby like, certainly at or before the point where premies are routinely delivered and survive to adulthood.
And while it isn't true that ALL tax cuts benefit all, the ones Conservative economists propose have proven to increase general GDP and even increase revenue to the Treasury every time they have been tried. Every single time. Not a theory, not a belief, math backed by historical evidence. Meanwhile your economic theories lead to human misery and hardship every time they are tried in direct proportion to the extent they are implmented. Every time. Who is science based and who is practicing the politics of envy?