Why do 95% of people in STEM choose libertarianism and ancapism instead of leftism...

Why do 95% of people in STEM choose libertarianism and ancapism instead of leftism? One would think that such educated people wouldn't choose ideologies that would oppress them.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Terminology
randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf
public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/190/Mirowski Defining Neoliberalism.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Key_ideas
people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
amazon.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1469669361&sr=8-13&keywords="cultural marxism"
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They don't.


Because leftism sees them as enemies and because libertarianism is about the whitest one can get while still having plausible deniability.


Being educated means that you have been taught something. "Oppression" is the leftist version of haram.

Read this PDF.
Watch the documentary "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace"
Realize that STEMlords are almost entirely young people who have been raised on post-cold war neoliberal ideology where capitalism=freedom and job creators=Randian superheroes

The tech community used to be quite left wing, or at least apathetically liberal, because of a nigh universal hatred of "intellectual property" and a keen awareness of how porky has turned what was once a shining field of scientific theory and application into a bastion of mediocrity with Javascript fucking everywhere.

Then Tumblr happened and they got angry.

Doesn't exist, except as a necessary phantom.


How neo- is something that is thousands of years old?

I've never met a libertarian/ancap over 20 that didn't seem like they were on the spectrum

Read David Harvey

Thousands? It's just the next step up from feudalism.

Most Physicists are leftists actually.

One question.

Does cultural marxism exist?

Because merchants werent around before 1600.

only in the minds of delusional polacks

What is it that makes neo-liberalism real, and cultural marxism not?

Capitalism does not mean trade.

Because neoliberalism is an ideology and it's been put into practice for decades across the world.
Again, read David Harvey.

Because capitalism means marxism, and history not being a process of stages in which capitalism is one in a line of conspiracies, would undermine marxism. So capitalism must as word be copyrighted.

I don't care. Word thinker.

Neoliberalism is based off of the self-declared platforms of laissez faire capitalist advocates. "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory made up about an archaic academic tradition.

I…what? Capitalism does not mean trade, this is a fact based on concrete definitions. It's not a Marxist term.

I'd be laughing at this if it wasn't so depressing.

I was a STEM major, and the only AnCaps and Lolberts I met on campus were studying shit like Business.

Cultural marxism is an ideology that has been put to work for decades. Read the people who use the term cultural marxism to describe things that happened.

Neo-liberalism is an economic school of post-war german social democrat and liberal economists that has since because the name for the overarching phantom of the Great Conspiracy that leftism needs.


Cultural marxism is used to describe the self-declared platforms of leftists. There is no difference in the logic of the terms.

Words don't refer to other words.

There were also a stunning amount of right-wingers in a Military History course that I took, they would constantly spout memes like MUH HUMAN WAVE and MUH SUPERIOR GERMAN ENGINEERING.

Shit was annoying.

...

I know people like that. Ironically enough the most annoying one was Russian.

Cultrual Marxism has no definition and isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of strormfront and Holla Forums. Neoliberalism has been studied and defined by many different academics.
Now shut up and read David Harvey before you try to criticize him.

...

"It's serious and real, because we the serious people, treat it as serious and real"

Just think about the logic you are using for a moment.

Go and read Harvey famalam.

That's a vocal minority. Most are liberals.

That's just wrong. Neoliberalism even has a wikipedia page with the correct definition. Read nigger read.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Well this thread went to hell in a hand basket

So if I wrote a wikipedia stating what cultural marxism is, would cultural marxism then be real?

If I got 10 academics to agree with me, would it be real then?

If more people wrote stuff about cultural marxism than about neo-liberalism, would that make cultural marxism more real than neoliberalism?

READ DAVID HARVEY
E
A
D

D
A
V
I
D

H
A
R
V
E
Y

Man, Holla Forumsacks are dumb as fuck.

...

H A R V E Y
A
R
V
E
Y

literally all of the people who study or work in STEM ive met are at the very least social democrats. with capitalism and a profit-based system, theyd have to study and work on whatever made money, not whatever they wanted, its only natural they tend to be leftists.

If it was superior why did they lose two world wars?

Isn't Reddit Obesity some kind of physicist?

It doesn't, and even if it does, they don't describe themselves that way.


You cannot see only self-descriptions as real while using the term neo-liberalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Terminology

It says the exact opposite of what you claim. The austrian and chicago schools are the classical liberals.

The term cultural marxism has a better track record of consistency.

"There are several distinct usages of the term that can be identified:

As a development model, it refers to the rejection of structuralist economics in favor of the Washington Consensus.
As an ideology, it denotes a conception of freedom as an overarching social value associated with reducing state functions to those of a minimal state.
As an academic paradigm, it is closely related to neoclassical economic theory.[3]
Sociologists Block and Somers claim there is a dispute over what to call the influence of free market ideas which have been used to justify the retrenchment of New Deal programs and policies over the last thirty years: neoliberalism, laissez-faire or "free market ideology."[29] Others, such as Braedley and Luxton, assert that neoliberalism is a political philosophy which seeks to "liberate" the processes of capital accumulation.[11] In contrast, Piven sees neoliberalism as essentially hyper-capitalism.[30] However, McChesney, while defining it as "capitalism with the gloves off," goes on to assert that the term is largely unknown by the general public, particularly in the United States.[31]:7-8 Lester Spence uses the term to critique trends in Black politics, defining neoliberalism as "the general idea that society works best when the people and the institutions within it work or are shaped to work according to market principles."[32]

You are one lazy nigger if you can't even read a wikipedia page.


The reason why no one uses it is because "cultural Marxism" 1. Doesn't mean what right wing conspiratards think it is 2. Is generally seen as bad theory that doesn't have anything to do with Marxism itself. Since in Marxist theory the superstructure is always subservient to base materal analysis of economic relations.

The way the term "cultural Marxism" was used by Gramsci doesn't have anything to do with a conspiracy by the academia to overtake western values. But it was specifically the idea that the working class would replace bourgeois culture with it's own, in that it would be egalitarian, non-elitist etc. This of course was the problem Gramsci asked in with what do you replace bourgeois education and bourgeois ideology which has been hegemonic, with? And the answer was with a new culture made by the working class. There isn't any kind of "Marxist culture" and never was, not even in the soviet union.

Because it faced off against the rest of the world, but ti did kill the British Auto industry
.>>819234
Because STEM people are real high IQ individuals unlike leftist majors like arts, or philosophy.

randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

Philosophy majors are right up there with mathematicians and physicists for average IQ

In WW1 they were facing mainly France and Britain and they still lost. Even without American engagement they never managed a breakthrough even though they were the first to use gass based chemical warfare.

In WW2 they mainly faced the Soviet Union and got their shit wrecked by 1943, way before Normandy happened. All those fancy and expensive panthers and tigers couldn't do shit against a legion of T-34's.

We were talking about the origin the term. There being several distinct usages of the term only ads to the notion of it being a massive conspirational phantom.


That's begging the question. The base/superstructure stuff doesn't have to be accepted to use a term that relates marxism to culture, as if marxism is the only thing that can only be described by it's own standards.

That's the real issue at play here. Marxists don't like it when terminology isn't theirs.

What? It's just incorrect to use "Marxism" to apply it to culture? The idea of egalitarianism existed priot to Marx and what conspiritards use it to mean is cultural egalitarianism. Cultural Marxism would imply it's a theory of how the working class culture would form( and if actually based on Marxism, would be related to that following the dictatorship of proletariat). The way Holla Forumslacks use is just blatantly incorrect. If I call a Cat "Dog", and keep doing that over and over again it doesn't change the fact that the term "Dog" does not mean cat.

Ever heard of "appropriating"?

*prior *it is

Because marxists are some sort of robot-multi-dimensional platonic forms that have no culture, nor do they influence it?

I could just drop Mao as a cultural marxist to make the point in a way you are capable of understanding, but that doesn't touch the central issue here : you can not think outside of marxism.

No there aren't several usages it generally is identified with Chicago and Austrian school policies. And teh main difference between Cultural Marxism and it, is that actual respectable economists use that term to define things that follow aforementioned schools like Reaganomics, Thacherism, Austerity politics etc. It is an actual adopted policy and ideology by mainstream political parties across the world while Cultural Marxism is a meme right wing antisemitic kooks like Buchanan and McDonald made up.

folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf

public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/190/Mirowski Defining Neoliberalism.pdf

You are a fucking retard. Can you describe a dog as being an underwater sea animal? Definitions matter, otheriwse anyone can make up whatever claim they want about anything. The reason why you cannot overgeneralise Marxism to include into your info-wars tier conspiracy meme, is because Marxism is literally what is termed as "historical materialism"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Key_ideas

What makes Marxism into Marxism is a materialist and class based analysis of everything. Without it it's no longer just that since that's the linchpin of the whole theory.

I explained to you the origin of the term and how it was used, but you are still to dumb to get it. Even in teh original definition done by Gramsci there is no such thing as "Marxist culture". In his view cultural Marxism will be the culture the working class invents to replace the ideological hegemony of bourgeois culture.

You guys are a cult.

that was Holla Forumsack that made that post you sub 80 IQ retard. Delete your post before you die of embarrassment you waste of human flesh :^)

This thread made me suddenly remember the Holla Forums reading group we used to do here.
We should read David Harvey together.

Are you fucking retarded? Mao is a Marxist no one disagrees.


The defining feature of Marxism is historical materialism. If it doesn't contain an encomium analysis it's not Marxism. There is a word for how you retards explain it and its called egalitarianism. Just because you appropriate the word "Marxism" to it to make it sound scary doesn't change the fact it has nothing to do with the actual theory of Marxism which is firmly rooted in historical materialism.


Why are all Holla Forumslacks subhumans?

*economic

It started as a group of German economists who were opposed to the Chicago and Austrian schools. The term was later adopted as a negative sounding term for pretty much everything, the same process which happened to the term fascism. The left needs such terms, it is a requirement for their logic. It must be everywhere, yet nothing in specific.


I'm an alwaysrightist. The definition of being an alwaysrightist is that I'm always right. You can not prove me wrong because i'm therefor always right.

It's like I'm arguing with an ancap here, the exact same logic.

pottery

Alright lads, it is time to go home, you all have bitten shit tier bait for the umpteenth time.

Materialism is a spook, it doesn't work and isn't scientific.

Irrelevant to wether a concept is related to Marxism or not


proofs of original usage?

I'm an engineer and a leftist. Most engineers I know are normie liberals, they don't seem to differ much from the population at large.

I literally posted both the Wikipedia article which as several economists like Lester Spence, Braedley and Luxton in positive terms. And as I said before it is very speciffic as it essentially groups the Chicago school and it's predecessor the Austrian school as successors to the classical liberal economic theories of Adam Smith. Since the neo-classical school includes the marginalists, one cannot group them among that school. So neo-liberalism is used for better lack of any other definition to group both those two schools and the policies inspired by them.


I know you are baiting at this point but it feels good to see you run out of arguments when you are completely btfo by pure facts. Now run back to mommy. Your overall bait was 5.5/10 at best.

Where did you get that statistic from?

Shouldn't science be a spook as well to you autistic faggots?

Science isn't a spook because it's empirical.

You literally posted the wikipedia article that literally said that the term entered use with liberal german economists, as opposed to the free market economists like Friedman.

Typical word thinker.

Sure. It's not a spook because the concept is retarded as hell. But still, you are an scientistic moron. History is not something that can be simply studied using the sacred, holy magnificent scientific method.

Where does it say this? The only thing it says is that it's an umbrella term for both Austrian school and some neo-classicals, it is generally delineated from other heterodox schools and isn't opposed at all to economists like Freidman since Chicago school is the successor to the Austrian school in terms of theory .


Are you brain damaged?

empirical (collecting information on events through observation) data is not a spook

don't be purposefully obtuse

blind worship of science could be a spook, but not the process itself, and discounting science because m-muh spooks is intentional ignorance

Man, you sure jump to conclusions quickly.

I think you know the answer.

high IQ = ideology that rewards high IQ (capitalism)

Top Kek

Pretty much this. They've got a detached, black and white way of looking at things that doesn't involve the empathy aspect.

likewise they don't deserve empathy or respect because they themselves aren't human. They should all be submitted to public castration.

Here


No, I'm refering to your "That's an X", "You're a X" manner of thinking, which structures the world around a number of circular definition that keep you incapable of seeing the implicit reality beneath.

Take the Adams pill.

FEMINIGGER LEAVE

Wishing that upon someone makes you no better than they are, sooo…

I'm sure is med students were a separate groups they'd be on par, if not a little higher than physics. Also where the fuck's chemistry?

Man are you fucking stupid? The quote doesn't mention any such disagreement On the contrary it states the resemblance between the Freidman and the Mises camp.

There are no fundamental differences, barring that Freidman was against state intervention at all times. The ideology was the same, and if it wasn't the original definition still doesn't go against any of what I said in my previous posts defining it as an umbrella term.


There is no circular reasoning. You are either baiting or just to stupid/lazy to argue with facts , so you beat around the bush like the sophist you are.

your words, not mine

You have never TAed premeds.

Whether you see the difference as fundamental or not, doesn't matter. The term simply did not originate with the Austrian school, which is what you claimed.

We were arguing about the origin of terms, and how it relates to them being valid, about them being "real". I used the example of neo-liberalism having aquired a different meaning than it's rather obscure origins to illustrate the use of language among your ideology, and that the reasons you give for dismissing cultural marxism aren't the actual reasons at all.


I'm arguing with logic, but you seem to be incapable to put your own logic in the meta perspective which is necessary to even understand what I'm hinting at. Like I said, word thinker.

I think his issue comes from the fact when we use neoliberalism we are referring to the Reagan and Thatcher approach whereas the way Holla Forums uses it they're referring to the writings of the Frankfurt school though it has nothing to do with what was written.

You didn't even use the Wikipedia quote correctly so it doesn't matter, the original usage as I said before is NOT different, and includes schools like that of Mises since he was included retroactively after the Chicago school came along as the intellectual successor of Mises. The rest is intellectual sophistry on your part.

First time i met a full on Marxist at university a trot they were studying engineering.
I think you are mistaken.

The issue is that you dismiss cultural marxism as not being the specific ideology/doctrine of those from which the term originates. Trigglypuff aint no gramsci, I know, but Alexander Rüstow isn't all that has been described as neo-liberalism either. The issue I have with the term neo-liberalism is that it does not refer to economics at all, it instead refers to a feeling, in this it is similar to the term fascist. It is everywhere, yet nothing in particular, that sentiment, it's rather Abrahamic.


How many times do I have to post it?


user And How A Greek Philosophical School Became Everything I Don't Understand

premeds are morons most don't go on to med school anyway. grad/med students are a different group and yes on par

No we dismiss it because Holla Forumslacks use it to refer to the Frankfurt writings. I can pull up a Wikipedia article on the "cultural Marxism conspiracy" which is what it is.

We use neoliberalism to refer to Reagan and Thatcher economics. "Supply side economics". We have a concrete definition.

Holy fuck it's like you can't even read the opening paragraph on a wiki page to find out its current meaning

I've never spoken with the other folks in my masters program or the professors about politics, but I don't know if there are many other leftists. There is one lady with an ancom tattoo on her chest, so I suppose that's a dead giveaway. My guess is that most of them are about left enough to have supported S█████ but thats about as far as they go.
To me the engineers and computer scientists are the groups most likely to be right wing. Basically whichever majors students are told will make them the most money in the long run, is where I guess you'd find the most right wingers.


It sure is nice to see this graph every once in a while and get experience a brief feeling of superiority, however meaningless it is in everyday life.


I don't doubt that med school students are quite high on the IQ chart, but I choose to maintain my belief in the Physics master race because it makes me feel good.

They don't.

In my experience it is the other way round. They are overwhelmingly Left. I'm not talking about "left" like idpol, of course. It is everyone else who is leaning neocon and racist (and idpol, which is the same thing, imo).

Specifically ancap/libertarianism are almost endemic to the "I can't do math" group.

No.

Scientists in the U.S. may not have that high a fraction of socialists, but they are mostly some variety of liberal, not libertarian or ancap. Pew did a poll in 2009 comparing political views of scientists to non-scientists:

people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

The general public was 23% Republican and 35% Democrat (38% Independent or Other), while the scientists they polled were 6% Republican and 55% Democrat (36% Independent or Other). They also found that 52% of scientists described their views as "liberal", compared to 14% of the public calling themselves liberal.

It does if you're also a sociopath.
If you're highly intelligent but otherwise mentally normal, prepare to be exploited beyond belief.

I never discounted science, but scientism. It is not the same thing, and you're retarded.

You don't have to be that clever, if you are a sociopath.

And capitalism doesn't actually reward either.

> Ideology: Conservative - Moderate - Liberal (Very Liberal)

This is like a broadcast from 1984.

You said science. but subbing scientism still doesn't make it any less of spook, since its not spooked to believe in the process if it is actually correct.

Because you're an americlap.

<


Auguste Comte pls go

You can not apply the scientific method in a field like story, and again, you're a fucking moron and should take a reading comprehension course.

yeah it's mostly applied sciences that are breeding grounds for ayncraps
engineering, programming and so on

STEM majors have a disproportionally large share of students with a working class background, so it's not uncommon to find real leftists instead of the full-blown SJWs that tend to dominate the humanities.

It's because STEM ceased to be education, these days it's mostly just training for your future job. Pretty sad but that's what the "industry" wants and somehow that justifies wasting four years to turn clueless retards into "experts" who are still clueless retards outside their narrow field. As public funding dries up and universities are forced to rely on industry donations more and more, it's going to get even worse.

As someone who went to a stem school, those people aren't especially smart. They're just good at certain cognitive skills, like being good at math. That's not to say there are no smart people, but they are a minority like in the general population.

Because you made that number up. It's really only computer scientists that have a somewhat high amount of propertarianism because of the dream of success inspired by Silicon Valley.

This.

I'm going to get a STEM degree.
Will I be surrounded by class cucks? feels bad mang

these posts give considerable evidence that the OP's premise is bullshit


first of all let's dispel the fiction that STEM majors are rightist.

That is a shit meme pushed by some underaged ancaps and lolbertarians who plan to go into STEM and drop out after a semester because you can't be
about it.

You live in the 21st century you are always surrounded by classcucks. STEM majors are not anymore rightwing than anybody else.

CompSci is certainly full of them.

Is this real life

Sounds like bait, but you never know.

Be gratefull that we are benevolent people and we let you live

undergrad physics and math don't say much though
You're not a physicist unless you have at least an MA in physics tbh

They aren't, most are normie centrists or liberals. They only have a higher ratio of lolberts because they reject conservatism. If I had to pick a group that cares the least about muh tradition, muh culture, muh nation it would be people in STEM. Most of those who have conservative leanings just drop the spooks (well at least some of them) and embrace right wing economics instead of the whole spooky right wing.

They were almost all centrist and left here.

Actually, you might see how many do the communism thing with all that open source software? The field is probably actually leaning left overall.

STEM like libertarianism because it allows them freedom while also allowing them to keep control over the skills they suffered to create.

The only people who would freely give up all of their skills to the "commune" are people who don't have skills that took effort… ie the "arts".

Also
And this is why the right wing has virtually none of it

I don't know, maybe history has something to do with it.

...

mfw Comte rose from the dead just to post

And yet your dream socialist utopia is going to ban art.


Struck close to home huh?

lrn2shitpost, lad.

Funny you should bring up wikipedia.

Cultural Bolshevism
(German: Kulturbolschewismus), sometimes referred to specifically as "art Bolshevism" or "music Bolshevism",[1] was a term widely used by critics in Nazi Germany to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic forms of expression. This first became an issue during the 1920s in Weimar Germany. German artists such as Max Ernst and Max Beckmann were denounced by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party and other right-wing nationalists as "cultural Bolsheviks".

tl;dr 8/pol/ played you like a fiddle. They got you and half this site to chant a recycled conspiracy theory that was invented by literal nazis.

Shitposting = post without content, only designed to annoy someone.

What content does your post have that counters

Because STEM is hard work and leftism only appeals to disgruntled gender studies barristas.

...

Did you try to read the book?

...

...

I'm actually a mellow fascist.

Of course he didn't. By their logic reading is for cucks.

Did you try and read it or?


Fascist theory is shit.

You must have been the part in this thread where polls revealed most STEM students were some sort of liberal.

So i guess that means no.

You definitely didn't read this book fam

I never said they weren't. But they aren't leftists. Why would they be? People with real skills rarely want to work for free.

Work will set you free :^)

amazon.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1469669361&sr=8-13&keywords="cultural marxism"

Seems legit

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Let's see…

Che was a doctor..
Lenin studied law…
Einstein was socialist…


Yep!
Must be Ideology!

I'll right you a despooking pill. Take it 3 times a day before food.

It's called "ZIZEK".

Most people in my science classes are liberals tho. Physics dudes were a bit further left