How do we stop leftist academic elitism...

Not to sound like I'm carrying water for the right, because I'm not, but the left has fucked up a lot when it comes to science. We've needed a thread about this for a while. Lots of "leftists" (mostly just academic liberals and Daily Show watchers, but a good chunk of actual socialists too) think they know more about science than they do, and this has triggered a wave of anti-academia sentiment. There have also been other assorted fuckups which contributed to this. A few examples:

>The American left's approval of the censure of the Rind study, which says a lot about US age of consent law supporters knowing that they're unable to refute opposing arguments

Neither academic liberals nor the actual left have any particular grounds to criticize anyone else for being anti-intellectual or anti-science as it stands.

I dont know.
Participate in prole culture?
volunteer at homeless shelters?

Be the yale philosophy professor that likes wrestling and insane clown posse

And then you make a series of pseudo-academic Institutes with oil money and employ a bunch of second-rate academics to "fight back" this academic elitism.

Btw whoever wrote this OP should search terms like "marx" or "socialism" on econjobrumors.com or just follow mainstream economic journalists to see what academic blop elitism is really like. "Leftist academic elitism" is usually just the one or two Marxists every social sciences department has telling people to actually read the guy, and articles about how dumb conservatives are tend to come from liberal centrists (and they're right)

This is a problem in the left. Mostly due to guilt by association from shitty liberals, but it's still there.

I'm trying to check it myself. There's a mental rule of thumb I use whenever I feel like I'm saying, writing or being overly condescending towards others:
If the answer is "yes" or "probably" then I shut up.

It should be encouraged primarily as a supplement, not as a replacement. Moving things online is just as much an excuse for top-heavy institutions to cut costs without forcing the Chancellor or President to give up their free yearly SUV.

Different people probably so not hypocritical, science actually is inherently left-wing. Evidence trumps all in science and no amount of social hierarchy changes that. There was even a case of a delivery worker contributing heavily to mathematics recently if I remember correctly.
The law doesn't use the scientific method, a lot of it ends up being he said vs she said. The judge or jury or whatever makes the final decision based on feefees. Communism likely won't even need law since so much of it is meant to defend private property under capitalism.
I don't know much about this but I can understand it since science is about identifying universal truths. A lot of unscientific shit happened in the past with the all white all male community, like phrenology for example.
Maybe social sciences, but I've never dealt with any of that in the hard sciences. I tried to avoid social sciences like the plague.
Again social sciences with lots of political lobbying going on, add medicine to the list because they have reproducibility problems too. Basically humans suck at studying humans, which is unsurprising considering how many laws there are prohibiting it.
Social sciences again.
This. Many of my professors have encouraged and taught us how to research online however, maybe you just got unlucky with professors.
Don't know anything about this, no comment.
I see this a lot from everyone, regardless of ideology. It's easy to think everyone knows everything you do and that you don't need to explain yourself. I think there's a word for this phenomenon.
Libtard, sjw, cuck, commie, etc… basically arrogance is not a uniquely leftist thing, especially with the dunning-kruger effect existing.
Agreed, this video helped me a lot to understand why it was bad form to do this. youtu.be/YezbREhH_Eg

This. I constantly see it happen here when Holla Forumsyps come here either to learn more about us or when their disillusioned with what their side become.

go away pol you're drunk

not all conservatives are liberals

yes it is, free markets tend towards monopolization unless you have a kindly state to go in and kick some teeth.

it's not hypocritical to hate redditor engineers who brag about their expected future wage differentials.
that you manage to shoehorn this into a question of science rather than law says an awful lot about where this is going. i'll tone down my expectations.
doesn't actually matter tbh. a 'god who cares' issue and a very american one at that.
don't see how this relates to the left at all
that's a lot of words to say very little.
sometimes bad people present in good faith and should still be told to fuck off because the opportunity cost of engagement is too high, tbh. also, stupid people sometimes need to be made to feel stupid when they think they're smart. if they fuck off back to stupidtown, so be it. specifically thinking of Holla Forums types who read austrian "economists" here lol
often this is deserved. (and often it isn't, but i want to present a case for being nasty to those who deserve it.)

overall even after toning down my expectations this was a very disappointing post and you should feel stupid for having made it.

25/100
see me.

...

Basically conservatives think that "muh freeze peach" automatically gives validity to their claims and that the "free marketplace of ideas" should just be an endless circlejerk of tools dispassionately agreeing to disagree instead of trying to actually go somewhere academically. I'm sorry about their feefees but most of their positions are either outdated or intellectually fallacious, and maybe they'd realized it too if they stopped pretending Holla Forums infographs constitute a valid form of education because they hate the nebulous concept of "universities" for not agreeing with them. Sure, there are some liberal eye candy courses here and there, but for the most part academia is not making any political statements, it's just that leftist positions tend to be more accurate and better reasoned. Also, adding more conservative lecturers like I've seen some skeptards on youtube suggest would basically be diversity quotas.
That and universities are places where people explore new ideas, that as a concept should not sit very well with people whose default position is to preserve the status quo or even go back on certain issues.

Grow a thicker skin cuckflake a bloo bloo bloo :^(

Conservatives ought to be as marginalised as possible, perhaps then they'll read a book. Anyway, Universities are liberal, not leftist.

Not an argument.
Sorry bud, literally every eugenicist and "race scientist" has been vindicated. The vast majority of those who have produced pseudoscience in the last 150 years have been jewish egalitarians and/or blank slatists

He's trying to derail the thread into the usual bitchfight about race realism.
Don't take the bait.

Nobody cares

Mega brainlet.

who cares. the only contemporary "right wing" thinker worth engaging with is Land. The only reason he got dropped from the new centre was because he doesn't like muh slims, not because he's some cryptic ancap rightist.

Kill the leftcom

wow i meant to sage im wasted

lmao imagine being this asshurt
if not for kneejerk science deniers like you, the alt-right might not have gained such traction

Holla Forums is pathetic

L O L
O
L

Imagine being this scientifically illiterate.

muh social sciences are only valid when they affirm my narrative

...

Is this supposed to mean something in a political sense?

But Leftists ARE smarter though. This isn't up for debate. Right wing ideas are for brainlets who get riled up by emotional and hormonal urges which they can't control because their brains are underdeveloped, near-animal tier.

Given that the idea of universal and absolute equality (among humans, at least) being not only a moral good but a scientific truth is the axiom upon which much Communist (and broader left leaning) thought and rhetoric resides, of course it means something in the political sense.

It would seem as though these facts spit in the face of that assessment. That is not to say it is impossible to make a society in which all are still regarded and treated as equal under the law in spite of these differences, as a matter of fact, from my point of view. that is preferable to either alternative. There is a point where, broadly speaking, to be too soft is to be a fool, and to be too harsh is to be an asshole.

Somewhere along the line, we have to find a middle ground where the facts aren't being ignored for mere political reasons, and basic human goodness and justice aren't being ignored just for scientific ones.

I don't think you actually know what evolution means. If you want to group people you need to look at their genetic code, not their skin color, especially since humans now travel everywhere and breed with everyone. Allopatric speciation doesn't really exist for humans and I can't see any reason for sympatric speciation happening, as far as I know any human can breed with any human so we're all the same species until something changes.

You're also showing you have no idea what you're talking about by saying any organism that shares characteristics with another organism must be related. Take a bat wing and bird wing for example, according to you these two species must be the same race because they share the same physical trait of having wings. Or conversely a lizard and a chicken cannot be related when one has feathers and the other doesn't even though their genetic structures are very similar and they're both reptiles. Until we have the genetic data of humans all sorted out you're not being very useful with your pseudoscience.

racialism is stupid because it works backwards.
first you draw up the 'races', then you look for data that correlates with those 'races', rather than starting with 'raw data'

race is only interesting in socially perceived terms.

Wow, weird, I think the same thing. So what you're saying is that I'm right and what you said has nothing to do with political policy?

I never once mentioned skin color, nor have I made the claims you present to me. And that's all "anti-racialism" is these days- reactionary backlash, kneejerk anti-refutations based on nothing more than strawman arguments.

"Wow, these two flowers look different. Maybe they are different in other ways, too!"

How you want it to work would be like this
"Well, this one long, yellow flower and this one bushy, red flower don't look different at all to me, but just to be safe, let's base my breakdown on the differences of each starting off on the molecular level and working my way up!"

Well, gee. If we both believe the same thing, and yet are somehow on completely different sides of the conversation regarding this and other issues and their implications on the future of global/domestic social and economic policy, that's either a massive miscommunication spanning a full century, or you're full of shit.

i just want you to know you typed more characters than i did
dummy.

Bring up things liberals are wrong about and bring up things working class rural people are right about. Stop calling them retarded.

they discriminate themselves by professing retard positions like conservatism

They deserve to be discriminated against for their stupid opinions but they also deserve an equal platform from which they can reveal their stupid opinions to the world so they can be rightly discriminated against as well. If you never hear their stupidity, how will you know they are worthy of your hatred?

I'm not 100 years old, user. Do you have autism or something?

Where don't they have the equal rights?

Any kind of Free Market is a liberal bullshit. Every process and institution in society is a struggle and balance between powers and interests.
No, it does not. The opposite is true. Everyone who aren't us need to be disarmed.

Oh, and please I don't hate everyone whom I disagree with, only those with more wealth and power than me.

Well then how are you classifying races? Because it certainly isn't on a genetic level. The rest of your post just proves my point even further. Evolution isn't about things looking like each other, it's about heredity. Completely different species look similar and closely related species look different far more often than you seem to know. Please please please read a biology textbook before making a fool out of yourself even more. I suggest Campbell & Reece, you can even pirate the book so there is no excuse for ignorance.

I was referring, broadly, to the ideology of Communism, not you as an individual.

After all, the proletariat is truly free when he is subjected to arbitrary influences beyond his control, and stripped of his freedom to critique the state or fight for himself.

Oh, got it, you're just here to feel good about yourself. Why didn't you just say that from the start?

that's stupid
the criteria for getting on the platform is not being so painfully stupid. the thing that disqualifies you from being on that platform is being stupid.

you can be stupid and go on one of the alternative platforms (they do, then they cry about the less influential platforms that told them to fuck off.)

That simply isn't true you burgerstani fuckball.

Well, there is nothing wrong in letting a person speak his mind, just prevent him from getting any platform or form any organisation. Well, kinda what all that Liberal freedumb of speech is all about.
Everybody is free to fight for himself. It's just that other people are also free to fight for themselves and may, if they are willing and able, beat that one guy to a bloody pulp.

hello Holla Forums
read a fucking book

...

This is completely justified though.
The average physics student thinks they are gods chosen, just because they passed calculus.
I would know, I studied it in undergrad.

How is this board so goddamn gullible?

I don't think of myself as being god's chosen or anything, but I do think everybody should be learning hard sciences even if they won't use it in their daily lives.
"The best reason to learn science is to avoid being tricked by other scientists" - Albert Einstein, probably.

feel like this is just a repurposing of a joan robinson quote
(and on that justification, economics flies far ahead of hard sciences in terms of stopping people being tricked, although really 'economic history' would be even more efficient in terms of trickery avoided to time-and-boredom invested ratio.)

I'm not sure I would agree that economics is better at avoiding trickery than sciences. I took only one economics course throughout my entire schooling life but many science courses. I only learned about real leftism recently but I don't feel as if I've become any more skeptical after having done so. Climate science especially irked me towards the left, after you know how the atmosphere works and how everybody's constantly lying about it to push their agendas you kind of put together the pieces that lead you to leftism on your own. I blame science for my becoming left, not economics, but to each their own I guess.

They are entirely correct in this assumption (although students do tend to overdo it), just like the students of a more elite university are entirely correct to look down upon a trashy one: it requires more effort and talent to do what they're doing, and it results in a better outcome post graduation.

You might want to tell that to all the Lysenkoists and homophobes in the Soviet Union using poorly reasoned, irreproducible pseudoscience to support their views while loudly proclaiming to have science on their side. Also, American ephebophobes doing the same thing, but we could have a whole thread devoted specifically to that if the mods would actually allow it. Science is not left-wing, it's inherently apolitical.

It should.

And? This isn't about what happened in the past. The point is that a lot of qualified people feel slighted that someone with lesser academic achievement got a high-paying job over them, and as seen in cases like what happened with James Damore, it's causing them to shift toward the right. If the left expects to survive, it's going to need STEM folks on its side.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_biology

Depending on how hard of a science you consider medicine to be, this is happening there as well.

It makes for some interesting reading. Just don't take the Wikipedia article about it at face value. It's full of feminist garbage, such as claims that "numerous studies" have shown the US status quo position (read: the same studies under questioning for being done with unreliable methodology). A real scholar gathers information from as many sources as they can before making a decision.

This is very true.

As expected of a rose, this entire post is crap. The only part worth responding to is this:

It relates to the left because, right or wrong, people see academia as being leftist. If the left is perceived to be associated with these unreliable studies in psychology, economics and whatever else while being engaged in the sort of pseudointellectual shaming this thread is about, it makes the entire left look like pretentious wankers who know nothing and gives the right more fuel.

I've seen the left do the same many times. Being anti-intellectual or anti-science isn't uniquely right-wing.

Admission to an elite university is often a crapshoot, plenty of groundbreaking research has come out of "lesser" schools, and plenty of kids who were good enough to get into an elite school got turned down because of the need to only admit a small number of students to maintain the appearance of superiority. I think the STEM superiority complex arose out of certain people's lack of respect for intelligence or science. In the past that complex used to be directed mostly against the right, but now the left increasingly finds itself under fire from this as well.

Why contain it?

petit bourg as fuck

Lysenkoists are rife.

lel

Is that the PC word for "dumb as fuck"…?

I would say the majority of economics professors are libertarians. It's very convenient how these calls for more ideological diversity never mention the fact that economics departments are totally dominated by neo-classical bs and there are essentially zero anti-capitalist professors.