Buffalo wrote:The only thing Stak has done was try to redefine the word liberal until it has no meaning and applies to no one. All because he couldn't admit he was wrong about the dominance of liberalism in academia.
Is there any chance that this self-identified 'liberalism' has more to do with chosen occupation (or other cultural factors) than education?
Blixa wrote:I already pointed out that you were assuming that "conservative" only covered a small subset of contemporary american punditry. And what did you do? You just made the same silly point again, in effect agreeing with my criticism of your ignorance without seeming to understand that you were doing it.
This has been Stak's point all along. It is not the case that he "doesn't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal." He's not provided any commentary on that at all. All he has done is patiently unpack the problems with your line of argument in order to show the silly generalizations and binary thinking which dominate it.
And now Morley is doing the same thing.
The only thing Stak has done was try to redefine the word liberal until it has no meaning and applies to no one. All because he couldn't admit he was wrong about the dominance of liberalism in academia.
Even though you are still missing the thrust of Stak's posts, which are about your argument, it is not wrong to question the assumption that liberalism dominates academia. My views on this topic---which I will spare you---come from a different angle: that of being a Marxist in the American Academy for more than twenty years. What you are "defending" is one of the weakest tropes of the American New Right, a specious assertion that has gained the appearance of "fact" since the 80's and the rise of "anti-political correctness" discourse. In other words, the kind of thing that is foundational to the views of someone like Droopy.
You simply owe it to the arguments you want to make to learn to make them better, Buffalo. You have a tendency toward hyperbolic, over-generalized assertion. And when people point this out to you, you retaliate by comparing them to "mopologists." Why is that? Because you seem to be caught in an eternal binary: if someone disagrees with you they are on "the other side."
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Buffalo wrote:The only thing Stak has done was try to redefine the word liberal until it has no meaning and applies to no one. All because he couldn't admit he was wrong about the dominance of liberalism in academia.
Is there any chance that this self-identified 'liberalism' has more to do with chosen occupation (or other cultural factors) than education?
No, there isn't.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
yours truly wrote: Is there any chance that this self-identified 'liberalism' has more to do with chosen occupation (or other cultural factors) than education?
Buffalo wrote:No, there isn't.
LMAO. You're not kidding, are you?!
Are all so-called increases in 'liberalism' (no matter where and when they occur) due to increases in education?
----
edit to add: No offense intended with the tone, Buffalo.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
yours truly wrote: Is there any chance that this self-identified 'liberalism' has more to do with chosen occupation (or other cultural factors) than education?
Buffalo wrote:No, there isn't.
LMAO. You're not kidding, are you?!
Are all so-called increases in 'liberalism' (no matter where and when they occur) due to increases in education?