The Actual Threat to Democracy

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,656
841
118
Country
Sweden
Was it John Cleese who recently (unironically) claimed that the BBC was silencing him... while on the BBC?
I've followed him on Twitter. One thing he has said there repeatedly is that he considers British news media to have utterly failed in doing their job and that the drop in trust in news media among the British public is reflective of that. He includes the BBC in that. He has also linked someone that apparently uncovered the story of why that is and was therefore shunned by the British press, but I don't know what that story was.

What I'm saying is that he might have more of a thorn in the side against the press at large than he has at the prospect of being silenced.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,136
6,403
118
Country
United Kingdom
I've followed him on Twitter. One thing he has said there repeatedly is that he considers British news media to have utterly failed in doing their job and that the drop in trust in news media among the British public is reflective of that. He includes the BBC in that. He has also linked someone that apparently uncovered the story of why that is and was therefore shunned by the British press, but I don't know what that story was.

What I'm saying is that he might have more of a thorn in the side against the press at large than he has at the prospect of being silenced.
The British press is godawful, and Cleese may well have some valid criticisms. But he has also certainly resorted to the old 'can't say anything these days in case people find it offensive!' canard. For example, complaining that the BBC hasn't shown Monty Python "for decades", even though the BBC showed it frequently until it sold the rights in 2019.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,059
2,472
118
Corner of No and Where
So, old man yells at not being allowed to yell.
Its always amazing all these "cancelled" people bravely speaking out against "woke" culture always seem to find a shit load of microphones and outlets to speak on. I thought they were cancelled?! Fuck Im still waiting for perpetually cancelled victim Bill Maher's show to stop airing. Been going on along time for a show that shouldn't exist anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind." It certainly explains a lot of the insanity over the last decade or so.
I don't know how true the thesis is. Students go out, speak up and fight for things they believe in. Is that really disempowerment, are they really "snowflakes"? In many cases, giving people a level of security helps them strike out and make themselves heard - a solid foundation for them to build on. The alternative may just be that they remain fearfully silent.

My suspicion of Haidt is that he wants everyone in some big, anodyne talking shop where people think deep thoughts and express them in a scholarly fashion. And I hope universities do plenty of that. But we're also in the era of mass education, and universities are full of people who aren't remotely intellectual but want a degree because it gets them to the job of their dreams, and maybe want to fight like hell about issues important to them. God knows, they won't have time to when they've got a job.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,386
3,512
118
I don't know how true the thesis is. Students go out, speak up and fight for things they believe in. Is that really disempowerment, are they really "snowflakes"? In many cases, giving people a level of security helps them strike out and make themselves heard - a solid foundation for them to build on. The alternative may just be that they remain fearfully silent.

My suspicion of Haidt is that he wants everyone in some big, anodyne talking shop where people think deep thoughts and express them in a scholarly fashion. And I hope universities do plenty of that. But we're also in the era of mass education, and universities are full of people who aren't remotely intellectual but want a degree because it gets them to the job of their dreams, and maybe want to fight like hell about issues important to them. God knows, they won't have time to when they've got a job.
Perhaps a glance at his non-profit (or tax avoidance, depending on one's angle) organisation would help contextualise the sort of intellect going on there;


In 2011, Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, gave a talk at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which he argued that American conservatives were under-represented in social psychology and that this hinders research and damages the field's credibility.[4][5] In 2015, Haidt was contacted by Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Georgetown University law professor, who had given a talk to the Federalist Society discussing a similar lack of conservatives in law and similarly argued that this undermines the quality of research and teaching.[5] Haidt was also contacted by Chris C. Martin, a sociology graduate student at Emory University, who had published a similar paper in The American Sociologist about the lack of ideological diversity in sociology.[6][7] Haidt, Martin, and Rosenkranz formed "Heterodox Academy" to address this issue.[6][8][9][10][11] Initial funding for the group came from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and The Achelis and Bodman Foundation.[5][12] The Heterodox Academy website was launched with 25 members in September 2015. A series of campus freedom of speech controversies, such as those surrounding Erika Christakis at Yale and the 2015–16 University of Missouri protests, coincided with an increase in membership.[5]

Membership was initially open to tenured and pre-tenure professors, but has been expanded to adjunct professors, graduate students, and postdoctorals. The group has a selective membership application process which is partly intended to address imbalances toward any particular political ideology.[5] In July 2017, the group had 800 members internationally.[5][13] As of February 2018, around 1,500 college professors had joined Heterodox Academy, along with a couple hundred graduate students.[3]

In 2018, Debra Mashek, a professor of psychology at Harvey Mudd College, was appointed as the executive director of Heterodox Academy, a position which she held until 2020, after which an interim executive director was appointed.[3][14][15][1] In 2020, the organization had around 4,000 members.[16]
It claims to be non-partisan, but is literally founded on the principle of getting more conservatives into "social psychology" so not sure who they think they're fooling there - also weird priority to make one's whole profession about not the subject, but the amount of ppl you can vibe with as colleagues within the subject. And after having taken a look over his pronounced work, style and philosophy, am wondering how low the bar is for someone to be considered an intellectual in these spaces.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Absent

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
It claims to be non-partisan, but is literally founded on the principle of getting more conservatives into "social psychology"
Which is like claiming that paleontology is biased because there aren't enough creationists in that field. Conservatives detest social science because it is precisely the science of what they wish/require to ignore, and, yeah, well, it's a field full of social scientists (oh noes).

In other words, they consider a science as "biased" if it contradicts them. Their argument is to have climatology studied by people who are already denialists because scientific objectivity means having all the scientific conclusions equally represented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Perhaps a glance at his non-profit (or tax avoidance, depending on one's angle) organisation would help contextualise the sort of intellect going on there;

Are there few conservatives in academia because conservatives don't want to be in academia, or because academia is hostile to conservatives?

Actually, I fear the former is a significant factor. People brought up on the glories of an entrepreneurial, hustling mindset are perhaps not quite so motivated to stand around in lecture theatres talking to young adults and writing long and complex treatises (for which they will be paid nothing). And indeed, when I had a look at some sort of comments section on that organisation's website, it was indeed full of people saying academia was a dead end and if you wanted to make a difference and go places in the world, quit and make money in business instead.

That said, I agree that conservative representation in academia is a good thing because diversity matters, and I can appreciate a movement to give them some support if they feel particularly isolated and embattled.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,059
2,472
118
Corner of No and Where
Are there few conservatives in academia because conservatives don't want to be in academia, or because academia is hostile to conservatives?
There are few conservatives in academia because to be in academia inherently requires a very good education. And educated people are more liberal. The more you know, the less conservative you are.
A 2010 study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, for example, found that the IQs of adults who described themselves as "very liberal" averaged 106.42, whereas the mean of those who identified as "very conservative" was 94.82.
They even have a term for it now. "Conservative Syndrome" https://www.psypost.org/2017/07/scientist-conservative-syndrome-exists-across-countries-49279
Those with lower IQs, lower intelligence and lower education are more conservative. Because, very specifically, they're not intelligent enough to be liberal.
So a Conservative would say that climate change isn't real, the world is cooling.
And then Climate scientists, who are part of academia, would say no, we actually did the research and have come to the liberal conclusion that climate change is real.
So too with trickle down economics, race integration and diversity, LGBTQXYZ+ support, tax reform, gun control, international diplomacy - the more educated you are, the more liberal your stance is going to be.
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Are there few conservatives in academia because conservatives don't want to be in academia, or because academia is hostile to conservatives?
Or... and this might be me being all crazypants and shit, people who think there aren't many conservatives in academia, should maybe go for a bit of a walk around and visit departments/schools that aren't social sciences or 'arts'.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,480
7,055
118
Country
United States
Or... and this might be me being all crazypants and shit, people who think there aren't many conservatives in academia, should maybe go for a bit of a walk around and visit departments/schools that aren't social sciences or 'arts'.
Had an Econ professor who was big into the Free Market is Always Correct and Capitalism is the Only Way. But even then, near the end of the semester he said something that stuck with me: Environmental regulations are Good Actually, because if one company making doodads is only able to have a lower price point than another company because they're polluting the local river or whatever, then they aren't paying all their Costs, because that's just shifting the cost (literally) downstream to other people.

And that's, at best, unfair competition.

I've got a hard time calling the modern GOP conservative, y'know?
 

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
5,769
2,110
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Democracy supposed informed citizenry. The destruction of education (replaced by religious/patriotic endoctrinment), the spamming of counter-information (networks owned by industries, self-appointed experts on alternative medias), the disqualification of science (political and religious authorities dismissing it in favor of ideology and tradition) and various encouragement to assholery (consumerism, ethnicism and dog-eat-dog competitive capitalism) ensures that voters' decisions stay as shitty as any psychotic dictator's. It's not democracy, which is in danger, it's the fact that giving the power to the people doesn't automatically implies that the people are less evil and ignorant than the murderous asshole who monopolized it.

And there's no solution. No solution but regulation of information, which, itself can be hijacked by either a centralized power (Lyssenko-like) or ore insidiously by the system's own perverse drifts (ego-driven, carrer-driven, lazyness-driven gaming of the peer-review principle).

Mankind won't produce anything more intelligent than itself. It accumulates knowledge, and the opts to discard it, as soon as said knowledge collide with individual ambitions (symbolic or material) or unconfortably redefines internalized beliefs (especially beliefs that, circularly, treat questioning as a blasphematory treason). And all of this for a simple reason :

We're a stupid, limited animal, produced by chance, physically (neurologically) adapted to a given environment which changes outpaced our biological evolution. Our brains can process too little, both cognitively and emotionally. In particular, we process information at very small scales, and we manage to care for very small clans - the outside (the other people, the future, the far away, the abstract) will never weight as much in our decision than our immediate close temporal, social and physical environment. Yet our decisions affect mankind and the planet way beyond our individual horizons. We cannot cope with that. We don't compute. The issue is simply what we are.

Democracy functions. We don't.
I agree, I've fallen out of love with the idea of democracy over the years. I don't think the average person is informed or intelligent enough to have meaningful input on how a country should run. I know I'm not, I don't watch the news and haven't payed any attention to political platforms since the first time that I voted when I was 18, I still vote in every election though. Personally, I'd like a system that selects some of the best, brightest, and most suitable among us and trains them extensively for leadership, while also holding them accountable for the welfare of the general public. A liberal meritocracy, if you will.

However, I don't see that it would be possible to keep the system free of corruption and self interest, at least until AI progresses far enough to be able to serve as an unbiased and incorruptible judge.

And funnily enough, John Cleese should understand exactly how any "argument" would go:
Maybe he'd put 'being hit on the head' lessons to better use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,148
3,890
118
I agree, I've fallen out of love with the idea of democracy over the years. I don't think the average person is informed or intelligent enough to have meaningful input on how a country should run. I know I'm not, I don't watch the news and haven't payed any attention to political platforms since the first time that I voted when I was 18, I still vote in every election though.
Ah, but supposing your input was to really matter, and there was a better political system, would you take more interest then?

I think at this point I just auto ignore anyone who makes the usual "the children are in danger" argument because you know it's just all going to be emotional appeal with 0 though behind it.
Paricularly annoying because the young people are in danger, from all sorts of things going without being meaningfully addressed.
 

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
5,769
2,110
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Ah, but supposing your input was to really matter, and there was a better political system, would you take more interest then?
It's hard to say, but probably not. What's going on in the world at large isn't something I've ever been much concerned with, I'd just like to be left alone in my own little world and not have to think about other people too much.
 

Summerstorm

Elite Member
Sep 19, 2008
1,475
117
68
I haven't watched the whole thing so far (Doing it a few minutes at the time at work)

But this is quite a bit interesting (I agree or can follow most of what this guy says so far, but i also would say: It's not all - there is more and like i always say: It's never that easy - his perspective seems a bit narrow so far)

Also this discussion seems to go well.

Just want to throw in: As someone who always thought about himself quite progressive: I never disdained "conservatives" and conservative thinking. For me it always seemed that it shouldn't be treated as the enemy of progress.
While i for example always thought politically it should "of course" always be in the minority - it is always a a reminder and a needed resistance to change.

Always a slight push to analyze WHY things are how they are now, why they were like they were before and to pressure you to think about what you want to change and how your changes interact with other established systems.

But i think everything described as "VERY xxxxx" - in this case conservative/liberal, is usually unworkable, unhealthy or willingly obtuse.
But might be just a matter of definition... also if you get (u.s.a) politics in this, well... republicans are not as much conservative as they are, in some perspective just lunatics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,219
969
118
Country
USA
The more you know, the less conservative you are.
Funny enough, I'd argue the opposite is true. While there is a correlation between higher education and liberalism, studies attempting to show that people get more liberal with more education haven't found that, but rather found that people with liberal positions enroll in greater numbers in the first place, which is almost unavoidable since young people are disproportionately liberal to begin with. The general trend is for people as they come into adulthood to start with liberal positions, and then as they get older and engage with the world outside of academia they tend to become more conservative. It's almost as if only by leaving academia, they're able to learn things they were ignorant of which changed their opinions. Like the more you know, the more conservative you get.

Academia doesn't make people more liberal than they were, but it does delay adulthood for many. I don't know if you want to take that as a win.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,136
6,403
118
Country
United Kingdom
The general trend is for people as they come into adulthood to start with liberal positions, and then as they get older and engage with the world outside of academia they tend to become more conservative. It's almost as if only by leaving academia, they're able to learn things they were ignorant of which changed their opinions. Like the more you know, the more conservative you get.
The issue with this position is that you're equating age with knowledge.

It is age that correlates with conservatism. And there are two available explanations for that: people get more conservative as they get older, and/or that it is not age but rather the membership of an older generation (with the corresponding experiences of society as it was back then).

So which holds more explanatory power? Well, we also know that each generation tends to be more liberal than the last even when they reach the same age.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,059
2,472
118
Corner of No and Where
Funny enough, I'd argue the opposite is true.
I mean argue whatever the fuck you want, its simply not true. The numbers don't bare it out - the more educated you are, the more liberal. That's just facts. They did the studies. The dumber you are, the more conservative.
As to age, again argue whatever the fuck you want, its again not true:



As it turns out, we millennials actually did mean it when we said we don't hate gays and trans and climate change is real. Who knew? Well we did, for one. Yeah turns out the whole getting older makes you wiser which somehow makes you conservative came from the baby boomers. And it turns out baby boomers are a uniquely sexist, racist, homophobic, bigoted and uneducated generation. Yeah turns out they're basically terrible. George Carlin said it best - they're just older version of the same uninteresting people.