Its so baffling that people think compromising is the mature thing to do. Compromising is for the weak who don't actual believe in something. What do these middle ground people think is gonna happen?
One side says gays and queers should be killed.
One side says gays and queers are people who deserve equal respect and support.
So lets compromise, like mature adults. Gays are people who deserve equal respect, but they can't vote. Or can't own property, or all gays have to register with their state government.
Because we're trying to compromise here, so both sides give up something, but both sides need to get something too. So the "kill all the gays" side needs to feel like its interests are being met, that whatever solution we come to they've had part of their belief enshrined into law.
There are not complex political or philosophical realities when it comes to equal rights, and not killing people for being different. There is no gray area here. There is the correct side, the liberal side, and then there is the wrong side, the conservative side. And that's just the end of it as far as complexity goes. One side is right, one side it wrong.
The exact thing Haidt is talking about...
Funny how those claiming to be silenced are so constantly loud.
Funny how a scientific journal like Cochrane took more 2 years to release a mask study that was done in 2020 but you couldn't say such things at that time...
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 will check that out.
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.
You can just search for all the speakers that weren't allowed to speak at colleges, guess what type of affiliation most of them are? You know that if someone comes to speak at your college that you know you don't like, you can like not go to the auditorium and not hear the speech vs protesting to not have them speak.
The left is all about diversity in the physical sense (like race or gender) but against the diversity of ideas, which is literally the advantage of diversity is that you will get people with different perspectives and ideas.
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.
I'm also not a fan of democracy but I don't really have a better idea for something that would in practice actually work out better. Maybe it's just the American experience that is the cause because I feel like other countries (like the Nordic countries) have much better working democracies. From the outside looking in (and not really knowing much about them), I feel like they probably just have a better foundation in education, a better support system, and culture that leads to more selflessness.
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.
Obviously, no one is going to be 100% spot-on about anything, but I think he's on the right path or at least talking about things to get us on the right path. I definitely think social media is bad for people. But getting rid of social media isn't going to magically fix everything either. People today, just normal people, are more extreme than they've ever been IMO. Most people just see the one side to said issue, then with social media and the algorithms, they just see more and more of that. I used to only pay attention to very liberal media exclusively and forced myself to at least humor the other side's takes on issues. I guess it started because of a few guys at work that would bring up politics that were against my beliefs / preconceptions and they were good guys so there had to be a reason why that had such stances. So instead of just writing them off as "right wing" and ignoring their opinions, I would look into some of the things and realized they have some points and I would sometimes end up agreeing with them and even if I didn't (which would be most of the time), I would at least have a different perspective on the issue and see it rather different even if I was still on the "left" side of it. It made me notice the liberal media plays the same tricks as the right media, but they are just better at the tricks.
Is this true? 'cause I can't think of a single thing conservatives think that's a good idea. Immigrants in camps? Bad idea. No gun control? Bad idea. Low/no taxes for the super wealthy? Bad idea. Right wing Christian white nationalism? Bad idea.
Like is sounds smart to say both sides have their pros and cons, but honestly its a pretty lazy take. Once you start breaking it down issue by issue, the right and wrong side start to become clearer. Not everything is shades of gray, and pretending that it is is just an excuse to be lazy and shrug off both sides as equally bad.
Then why do conservative polices in Texas have less homelessness than California? Or is less homelessness a "bad idea".
