Actually, Mr. Moto, with this bit of incredulity you answer the question of the OP:
“BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY’RE SMARTER THAN US”
Similarly anecdotal, in the university I graduated from in California, it was okay for conservative professors and students to fly their colors, but not liberals. Walking through the campus, you’d routinely see posters and booths for conservative causes, while flyers for liberal causes were often defaced or vandalized by conservatives (the Young Americans For Freedom were particulary enthusiastic about their purification campaign 
). Oddly enough, such vandalism never resulted in any sort of disciplinary action AFAIK, even though it was obviously an action that warranted disciplinary action.
That’s interesting, though I wonder if there’s every been a survey of how students feel their universities leaned politically.
Such “civil disobedience” stated above doesn’t really bother me, the far-leaning people are what will get me riled up… preaching hate against Jews, rich people, white people, not white people, intellectuals, etc.
-k
I apologize to any lamebrain I may have offended.
I would generally have thought that if a university is politicised, it’s cack. Sure, people have their beliefs, but at a uniersity aren’t we supposed to be challenging them constantly?
That is, rather than choosing what to think, and only then looking for evidence to back it up. Oh yeah - and to the topic I say this: To noobdy in particular: please try not to simply select the more left-leaning party in their two-party political system then say ‘they’re so totally left and liberal, just goes to show being liberal is garbage’. The Democrats, like the ALP and whoever else you mention… they’re not exactly left-wing any more, despite their beginnings.
I mean, it’s not as if the political spectrum simply migrates towards the right wing, leaving truly socialist political parties in the realm of impossibility. Socialism et al are still viable as political philosophies, even IF the most progressive party available to you is legislating to make homosexuality illegal.
I say that if you’re a lefty, try to go to a conservative University (see me at Melbourne Uni)… then try to convince people in your classes to take your views. I once had a tutor who advised us to not take a particular subject if we ‘didn’t like Marx’. What the hell is that supposed to do to us? You decided before you’ve read any of the guy’s work whether or not you agree with him, then on this basis avoid a subject that covers it. Not exactly the sort of behaviour people expect at a university.
Though your lametnable lack of knowledge leaves me little choice but to consider you a historical ignoramous. Perhaps you should look up a book on german history. Hitler never used the Reichstag (and don’t try to claim that wasn’t your comparison!) and hated it as a symbol of decadent bourgouis democracy. It burned out, albeit not down, and though the cause has never been positively ID’d, more than a few people believe Hitler did it. I don’t share the opinion, but its something he would have done.
Do you have any idea what the Reichstag is?
PS: Did he just pull a Godwin?
:rolleyes
Wait. Are you talking about Conservatives, or Liberals here?
Strawman.
Conservatives, of course. Liberals don’t have money, remember?
CF:
Wait a sec. Am I guilty of strawmanning conservatives for thinking that they think that academics think that they’re smarter than they are?
CONSERVATIVES, n. : generally a little slow on the upbeat, these people have a cantankerous propensity for believing in anything that opposes innovation unless it involves the exploitation of the poor, the pillaging of natural resources, or the widening of tax law loopholes; favorite topic of discussion among LIBERALS
LIBERALS, n. : in spite of all your evidence and experience, these are the people who know what’s best for you; the other favorite topic of discussion among LIBERALS
STRAWMAN, n. : A dummy stuffed Liberal; No, wait. A stuffed shirt Conservative; No, wait. A cop-out. Yeah, that’s it.
** Rene**:
[Moderator Hat ON]
While you are posting on this messageboard you will obey the rules set by the admins and mods. If you do not you will shortly find yourself unable to post. Understood?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Dear Sir, or Mister or Ms. Gaudere,
So, lemme get this straight. It is not permissible to infer that someone is a lamebrain. It IS, however, permissible to “consider” one an “historical ignoramus.” Do you understand? Please enlighten me.
I of course sense a certain element of smugness about this place, but I’ve always known that peculiar habit to be sacrosanct with uppity white people. The realization then is, shall we say, less than revelatory.
I’d just simply be oh so distressed to think I was being singled out. Such is so, um, incongruous to erudite thinkers. (I only mention it because I see you have not succeeded in your role as esteemed Administrator to reprimand the “historical ignoramus” fellow poster.)
As I offer my sublime thankfulness for any help you think you might offer in resolving my apparent quandary, I am,
Rene
Rene,
Just read the G**dmn rules. They’re posted in a sticky on the top of the forum. If anyone personally insulted you, you have a right to complain, but that doesn’t mean you can insult others.
Not trying to be a “junior mod,” just trying to relieve Gaudere from the duty of stating the obvious.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Rene:
smiling bandit should not have called you an ignoramus; I didn’t see that that and that’s why I didn’t warn him before. He can consider himself officially warned as of now.
However, you have managed to aquire two warnings in five posts and now violate the rules yet again by questioning moderator/admin actions outside the Pit and/or email, giving you a remarkable 3 to 2 ratio of offending posts to acceptable ones. Go read the ALL the FAQs and stickies and , 'cause I gotta tell you one more violation in the near future and you’re out of here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I saw one today. I’ll probably go out and drink some beers with some later on tonight. Of course, I work in an Ivy League town, so I’d expect to see that. I don’t know what “types” you are talking about.
The only “academicians” that describe themselves as “academicans” are in my experience, ugh, “liberals”.
Also…
It has been my experience that “liberals” are not liberal in their examinations of reality.
But evenso liberals pursue their trade with great dogmas and dark deceptions that would shame even a latter-day foot-washing Babtist, charlatan Pope.
Why is this?
The need to prove ideas by the use of lofty titles and adherence to the shallow view of the moment can only be found among those who are without merit and original thought.
What? Aren’t any of you imbued with any original thought?
