Jump to content
VitalGiraffe

Thoughts on whether schools like hearing about your political experiences?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

There you go @CleanHands, you were right.

How does this make me right wing? Is assessing evidence right wing? The Scientific method? There are good empirical ways to show that racism plays a role in life outcomes, that sexism plays a role in life choices of women, particularly with leaving the workforce and raising children, which is what accounts for 90% of the gender pay gap. These and many more things can be tested in sociology, sure not perfectly, but they at least can be falsified. How can you falsify a post modernist critique? If wanting evidence and analysis is right wing, what does that say about you Rashabon?

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 76th said:

I was mainly referring to the race baiting comment, which you casually removed from your comment.

Too often I see both the left and right make arguments using premises that involve extremes and it's just so cringe.

Your comment replied specifically to the portion of his comment about why people are poor, which I quoted. It wasn't me trying to pull a gotcha, they were just direct equivalents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

Is that the same as the comment about violence that you didn't directly respond to?

no...? If you want me to make it clear and simple for you @HammurabiTime, the person I replied to was drawing up an argument that shit human alt-righters subscribe to, which is that these negative characteristics xyz are drawn from a persons race. They were applying this extremist view to an entire group (conservatives), which is whats laughably stupid and uneducated.

 

Does this clarify things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 76th said:

no...? If you want me to make it clear and simple for you @HammurabiTime, the person I replied to was drawing up an argument that shit human alt-righters subscribe to, which is that these negative characteristics xyz are drawn from a persons race. They were applying this extremist view to an entire group (conservatives), which is whats laughably stupid and uneducated.

 

Does this clarify things?

Not particularly. For ease of reference I've quoted both the post you were responding to and your response with the relevant parts bolded. Notably your original response doesn't mention violence at all or even mention race. Probably because you were pretty clearly not responding directly to the part about race, that only came up when you wanted to avoid responding to Masterofnut directly. These are conspicuously the same parts that Masterofnut block quoted when asking you what the difference was, which you opted not to address.

The idea of comparing generalizations with respect to an immutable characteristic like race to political groups is laughable. Lots of generalizations can and should be made to "an entire group".

 1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

If you can’t identify the right wing elements of universities (there’s an entire disastrous school of economic thought known as the Chicago School) that’s on you bud.

Of course sociology has a left wing bent. It’s about understanding people and their behaviour. What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent because of the colour of their skin?

 

24 minutes ago, 76th said:

Are you implying conservatives do not have the capacity to understand people and their behaviour, from a sociological perspective? Also your take on how a con would view why people is poor is laughably stupid and quite uneducated. A modern day con would typically make the argument that a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions whereas a lib would say that societal/external forces create the conditions that create these terrible outcomes. 

When I hear libs make that characterisation its almost as bad as when I hear cons yell communist at any hint of a social safety net program.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HammurabiTime you're focusing on trees within a forest. Refer to the comment I made to you previously please.

"Lots of generalizations can and should be made to "an entire group"." - I hope you know how damaging this rhetoric can be lol..(trump is a great case) Do you think that the average conservative believes that a person is poor because they are lazy and and violent due to the colour of their skin? In this specific case, a radical view is taken to be applied to a group - how is this a rational/reasonable take - can you answer this?

Ideology is a scary thing, I would encourage a bit more nuance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 76th said:

@HammurabiTime you're focusing on trees within a forest. Refer to the comment I made to you previously please.

"Lots of generalizations can and should be made to "an entire group"." - I hope you know how damaging this rhetoric can be lol..(trump is a great case) Do you think that the average conservative believes that a person is poor because they are lazy and and violent due to the colour of their skin? In this specific case, a radical view is taken to be applied to a group - how is this a rational/reasonable take - can you answer this?

Ideology is a scary thing, I would encourage a bit more nuance.

No, actually, I'm tracing the windy road of bullshit you've taken.

Ok so if I ever meet a Klansman I should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he happens to like cross shaped fires and wearing all white? Or, should I make the sane, entirely rational generalization that almost everyone would make that he's a racist POS. Many hundreds of groups - which people voluntarily join like political organizations or hate groups - have negative characteristics as the common element of membership. Some do it explicitly, some do it implicitly. There is grey area. None of that matters because it still stands that your comparison of political affiliation and race is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 1:09 AM, humbledman said:

I get where you are coming from and a decent amount of people are like you and don’t care. I would say if you worked for the Conservative party don’t mention it. It’s not likely to eliminate you from consideration but it is definitely possible. There are enough people who vote liberal or NDP who will negatively associate you with stupidity, white supremacy, supporting patriarchy, you get the drift. Again I’m not at all saying most, I’m just alluding to it’s not worth the risk. I took math in university, economics, philosophy and these courses always seemed to have people on both sides, that were reasonable if there was disagreement. However, there has been one subject where I can honestly say this is not the case and it’s Sociology. Far far left, I’ve taken about 12 sociology courses with different professors and 11 of them were Marxist (they actually said they were) and postmodernist. They said people who believe in human nature are idiots, that things like the legal system that say they are objective do so just to oppress since truth is relative and nothing is objective so the only reason to claim that is to dominate minorities. That if you believe in the free market you are complicit in oppression of people of colour and women, therefore your are racist and misogynistic. I once got in a group for an in class discussion (2 people in a group) and I asked her where are you from, like what’s your background, I didn’t mean it in a bad way, I just wanted to break the ice, build rapport. She said why are you asking? And I told her I was starting conversation and just getting to know her and she said “the only reason you would ask me that is to put me down. There is no reason to bring that up.” I said “what do you mean? I didn’t mean to offend you...” and I went on to say I was getting to know her, we live in Toronto it’s cool to know where people are from, there cultures etc. But she went on to say it doesn’t mean how I meant it, it matters how I made her feel. I said that doesn’t make sense it should be my intent not your feelings. We actually started to get a bit heated, I was genuinely frustrated. She brought it up to the teacher and the prof agreed with her.... her main reason... I was white and she was a person of colour, because of this I was “guilty.” I dropped the class the next day (it was race and ethnicity at u of t). The one brilliant non Marxist prof was jack vuguellers, just amazing. But honestly a lot of the other ones... my god. If it was for the Conservative party it will only hurt you not help you. I’m not sure if law school attracts the post modern type, it seems antithetical to legal reasoning. 

Just a small nit-pick: Marxism and post-modernism are incompatible . Marxism is a materialist philosophy, whereas post-modernism (post-structuralism) is attempting to destabilize the ontological assumptions behind human nature. Marxism believes in a human nature rooted in (historical) material conditions.

Edited by capitalttruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

No, actually, I'm tracing the windy road of bullshit you've taken.

Ok so if I ever meet a Klansman I should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he happens to like cross shaped fires and wearing all white? Or, should I make the sane, entirely rational generalization that almost everyone would make that he's a racist POS. Many hundreds of groups - which people voluntarily join like political organizations or hate groups - have negative characteristics as the common element of membership. Some do it explicitly, some do it implicitly. There is grey area. None of that matters because it still stands that your comparison of political affiliation and race is absurd.

There is a spectrum within a political affiliation. 

What is the road of bullshit exactly? My argument is simply this- using a viewpoint that a radical portion of a political group subscribes to, to bolster your argument and make a sweeping generalisation about a large group, is cringy, uneducated, and stupid. Take a look at my past comments and apply my arguments line of reasoning to them.

Your hypothetical is actually ridiculous. You're not reading my comments clearly - I'm curious what do you think my argument is based on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, capitalttruth said:

Just a small nit-pick: Marxism and post-modernism are incompatible . Marxism is a materialist philosophy, whereas post-modernism (post-structuralism) is attempting to destabilize the ontological assumptions behind human nature. Marxism believes in a human nature rooted in material conditions.

Yes, I was writing on my phone at night, I wrote and when I should of put or. The remark that they are incompatible is valid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 76th said:

What is the road of bullshit exactly? My argument is simply this- using a viewpoint that a radical portion of a political group subscribes to, to bolster your argument and make a sweeping generalisation about a large group, is cringy, uneducated, and stupid. Take a look at my past comments and apply my arguments line of reasoning to them.

A more charitable way to phrase it may be continuously shifting the goal posts.

If that's the case you'll have no trouble identifying for me where you mention "a radical portion of a political group" in the below post. I'll wait. This is actually your first post where the word 'radical' appears if that helps any.

So, for the third time, Rashabon said:

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent because of the colour of their skin?

And you responded with this:

1 hour ago, 76th said:

Also your take on how a con would view why people is poor is laughably stupid and quite uneducated. A modern day con would typically make the argument that a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions whereas a lib would say that societal/external forces create the conditions that create these terrible outcomes.

When it was pointed out to you that "People are poor because they're lazy" is suspiciously close to "a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions" you then decided to backtrack and say that:

1 hour ago, 76th said:

I was mainly referring to the race baiting comment, which you casually removed from your comment.

Despite not mentioning race or violence at all in any of your prior posts.

13 minutes ago, 76th said:

There is a spectrum within a political affiliation. 

...

Your hypothetical is actually ridiculous. You're not reading my comments clearly - I'm curious what do you think my argument is based on? 

Oh so radical portions of groups are off limits? So the moderate Klansman is the one I give the benefit of the doubt to? How do I identify him exactly? Racism is political in many, if not all, of its forms. If my hypothetical is ridiculous respond to the broader point. What are we to do with ideological groups that exist exclusively to oppress groups sharing immutable characteristics? Or is imputing racism to a group of people who are united by their negative treatment or views of another race off limits? Hate groups are the easy example because they're overt.

Edited by HammurabiTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

A more charitable way to phrase it may be continuously shifting the goal posts.

If that's the case you'll have no trouble identifying for me where you mention "a radical portion of a political group" in the below post. I'll wait. This is actually your first post where the word 'radical' appears if that helps any.

So, for the third time, Rashabon said:

And you responded with this:

When it was pointed out to you that "People are poor because they're lazy" is suspiciously close to "a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions" you then decided to backtrack and say that:

Despite not mentioning race or violence at all in any of your prior posts.

Oh so radical portions of groups are off limits? So the moderate Klansman is the one I give the benefit of the doubt to? How do I identify him exactly? Racism is political in many, if not all, of its forms. If my hypothetical is ridiculous respond to the broader point. What are we to do with ideological groups that exist exclusively to oppress groups sharing immutable characteristics? Or is imputing racism to a group of people who are united by their negative treatment or views of another race off limits? Hate groups are the easy example because they're overt.

I'm sorry for starting all this guys, I really didn't mean to. I was trying to suggest the guy/gal shouldn't talk about politics because of all the things I'd heard in my classrooms and study groups (I was also assuming it was the conservative party or else he wouldn't ask). I just had it in my mind that imagine if you were going to get in, and by some off chance you get the person who thinks that way and you didn't even know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rashabon said:

If you can’t identify the right wing elements of universities (there’s an entire disastrous school of economic thought known as the Chicago School) that’s on you bud.

Of course sociology has a left wing bent. It’s about understanding people and their behaviour. What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent because of the colour of their skin?

Let's say we are talking about something like wage differences. It would probably look at things such as when people immigrated to the country, their ages, cohort effects, discrimination, differences in  values. So for example, sociologists would say something like, blacks make 70 cents on the dollar to whites and that this points to something fundamentally unjust in society. Whereas the conservative view would take into account all of the evidence and implement controls to analyze the claim using rigorous statistics. They would explain how much of the gap is explained by differences in ages, so if the median age of whites is 56 while the median age of blacks is 35, they would describe how people tend to make varying amounts of money at different ages. They might bring up 5-10 studies on wage progression throughout one's lifetime, that people's highest earning years tend to be in their 50's and how much this phenomena would effect our aggregated earnings when we use naïve empiricism. They could explore network effects,  I could go on and on.

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

A more charitable way to phrase it may be continuously shifting the goal posts.

If that's the case you'll have no trouble identifying for me where you mention "a radical portion of a political group" in the below post. I'll wait. This is actually your first post where the word 'radical' appears if that helps any.

So, for the third time, Rashabon said:

And you responded with this:

When it was pointed out to you that "People are poor because they're lazy" is suspiciously close to "a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions" you then decided to backtrack and say that:

Despite not mentioning race or violence at all in any of your prior posts.

Oh so radical portions of groups are off limits? So the moderate Klansman is the one I give the benefit of the doubt to? How do I identify him exactly? Racism is political in many, if not all, of its forms. If my hypothetical is ridiculous respond to the broader point. What are we to do with ideological groups that exist exclusively to oppress groups sharing immutable characteristics? Or is imputing racism to a group of people who are united by their negative treatment or views of another race off limits? Hate groups are the easy example because they're overt.

10 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

A more charitable way to phrase it may be continuously shifting the goal posts.

If that's the case you'll have no trouble identifying for me where you mention "a radical portion of a political group" in the below post. I'll wait. This is actually your first post where the word 'radical' appears if that helps any.

So, for the third time, Rashabon said:

And you responded with this:

When it was pointed out to you that "People are poor because they're lazy" is suspiciously close to "a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions" you then decided to backtrack and say that:

Despite not mentioning race or violence at all in any of your prior posts.

Oh so radical portions of groups are off limits? So the moderate Klansman is the one I give the benefit of the doubt to? How do I identify him exactly? Racism is political in many, if not all, of its forms. If my hypothetical is ridiculous respond to the broader point. What are we to do with ideological groups that exist exclusively to oppress groups sharing immutable characteristics? Or is imputing racism to a group of people who are united by their negative treatment or views of another race off limits? Hate groups are the easy example because they're overt.

I think you're speaking past my argument. I wish you well and if you want to continue this, you can go ahead but I don't want to continue because it's a waste of time. Waste of time because you're not reading the arguments I'm putting forward and you're simply looking at tree's within the forest and then claiming I'm moving the goal post. I lay out my fundamental line of reasoning in my previous comment and you decide to ignore it.

Here's an example  with the most recent reply you had - Oh so radical portions of groups are off limits?

I said, pretty clearly, that generalising a radical viewpoint held within a niche portion of a group, to the entire movement/group of a political party is stupid, uneducated, and naive. Yes, using a radical viewpoint and applying it to entire group is not reasonable

You are doing exactly what the person I initially replied to is doing.

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, humbledman said:

Let's say we are talking about something like wage differences. It would probably look at things such as when people immigrated to the country, their ages, cohort effects, discrimination, differences in  values. So for example, sociologists would say something like, blacks make 70 cents on the dollar to whites and that this points to something fundamentally unjust in society. Whereas the conservative view would take into account all of the evidence and implement controls to analyze the claim using rigorous statistics. They would explain how much of the gap is explained by differences in ages, so if the median age of whites is 56 while the median age of blacks is 35, they would describe how people tend to make varying amounts of money at different ages. They might bring up 5-10 studies on wage progression throughout one's lifetime, that people's highest earning years tend to be in their 50's and how much this phenomena would effect our aggregated earnings when we use naïve empiricism. They could explore network effects,  I could go on and on.

Lol this is the stupidest shit I’ve seen in awhile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 76th said:

I wish you well and if you want to continue this, you can go ahead but I don't want to continue because it's a waste of time.

76th apparently wants to continue this as they've PM'd me multiple times, unsolicited, specifically for this purpose. They are welcome to post our messages here if they wish to continue the discussion, otherwise I wish everyone the best and I apologize for my role in derailing this thread.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Lol this is the stupidest shit I’ve seen in awhile.

You see, conservatives would probably have such a view, a view by the way that does not need to pretend racism doesn't exist. But it is the stupidest shit you've seen in a long time. You wonder why I was saying if you have conservative views (which in this case is just using data) you shouldn't mention it. Because there are people that look at focusing on all the factors as a stupid thing to do. I'm not saying that the whole gap is due to this, I was getting at the fact that racism was only a partial explanation for such a gap and that the other factors are relatively significant. I don't want people to take that the wrong way and think I'm trying to say racism doesn't matter or it's not important, it is. You know this is how many conservatives think, and when you call analysis stupid and people are laughing at how me saying watch out don't tell people a political affiliation as if it's some highly unlikely event that people will look down on you or associate you with "stupid shit" I find them a bit naïve. Again I will acknowledge it's unlikely to be rejected for affiliation, people do have biases and I wouldn't want to be going through the holistic process with only a couple of seats left and a bunch of candidates with the biases that a decent (small but significant) amount of the population have. Now you could say that the Adcom are not the general population, sure that's true but I just don't like the uncertainty. 

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bud, CPAC is going on right now. Stop pretending conservatism is anything but unchecked Id and the basest of impulses and views. It’s been 4 years of dominant conservative thought and the mask is long since off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, humbledman said:

You see, conservatives would probably have such a view, a view by the way that does not need to pretend racism doesn't exist. But it is the stupidest shit you've seen in a long time.

The problem I had with your post is that your hypothetical "leftist" sociologists will just point to a statistic and draw inferences with apparently no critical analysis whatsoever, "[w]hereas the conservative view would take into account all of the evidence and implement controls to analyze the claim using rigorous statistics."

This is why I'm not buying your enlightened centrist act.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

The problem I had with your post is that your hypothetical "leftist" sociologists will just point to a statistic and draw inferences with apparently no critical analysis whatsoever, "[w]hereas the conservative view would take into account all of the evidence and implement controls to analyze the claim using rigorous statistics."

This is why I'm not buying your enlightened centrist act.

I never said that they don't do any critical analysis whatsoever, the problem with the sociological thought is it often creates a rationalization in the face of certain evidence. For example differences in fighter pay between male and female. A sociologist would say something like female fighters make 80 cents on the dollar to male fighters, they would point to this just being more evidence of the patriarchy. The sociologist would say that the pay gap between fighters is due to patriarchal norms. A more thorough analysis would have controls, look at men's weight divisions differences in compensation based on weight class,  they would look at surveys of what people find exciting about fighting. In terms of a linear regression, outliers like Connor Mcgregor would throw off the analysis somewhat, but when these type of outliers are accounted  for you would see that pay is positively associated with things like size and weight. You might examine finishing percentages, probability of knockouts in a fight and find that they are also positively associated with weight and size. You might survey fans and find things like they the say they don't want to watch fights where they think they as a layperson might be able to beat them (for example the 135lb category for men). Now people may say that they are more willing to buy cards that seem exciting, what does exciting mean? Well, one that the person they are watching can beat them up, and probably many other people in the world, think of heavyweight being called the baddest man on the planet. They may find that people are more willing to buy cards in they expect knockout or submissions instead of drawn out fights. Now we would think that there is a relationship between the expected number of cards bought and the compensation fighters will receive, especially if they are a main draw. In classes, they will say things like it's unfair they should be paid the same thing, they are doing the same thing after all. It's not that people are not willing to buy as much due to weight and size of fighters but rather that smaller sizes is seen as feminine and the marketplace favors masculine characteristics. I could flesh this out even more in terms of patriarchal norms but I won't to keep this short. Now how can such a statement by the sociologist be disproven? It is seen as true because they say it is, because their theories tell them that any discrepancy must be accounted for in such a manner. That the gap is fundamentally unfair, it is a material discrepancy and must be rectified. Do you see my problem with this type of reasoning? Do you see why it's an issue? Now with all that i've said does that mean that I think that sexist elements couldn't play a role in such differences? Absolutely not! Does this mean that the sociologist does not draw conclusions with no critical analysis like you claim? No of course not. But let's not do what the sociologist do, because I hear them in the classroom, this type of thinking is rampant, not just in this specific example but many places. Me saying a conservative view to Rashabon was more of me being snarky  than anything.  As for you, I think you just have a bias, you had a preconception of somebody that would make that statement and when it doesn't match you're unwilling to drop it and just admit you're wrong. 

Edited by humbledman
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I take back what I said earlier. ^ this is the stupidest shit I’ve seen in awhile.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...