uncle bernard

Again, I think you need to log off. Just ignore them.

They aren't, but that class probably isn't either. It's probably an option, among a bunch of classes, that could count for a specific required gen ed.

You're example #1. Almost all of your posts, including this one, are poorly written, with ideas that don't cohere logically.

I think you need to log off then because I highly doubt this ever has or ever will affect your life. Billions of people around the world ignore it every day.

You can't even put coherent thoughts together. This doesn't address anything I said. Your operate on random word association based on your emotions. That's all you do.

Should colleges be allowed to teach a class on Christianity? What about free-market economics? Conservatism? Marxism? Mormonism? Anarchism? Authoritarianism? All those subjects have internal belief systems that advocate specific social views, just like feminism. The point of making students take those classes is that they teach them about the world they live in. Your daughter isn't going to be taught feminism as doctrine. She's going to be taught *about* feminism and what feminists believe. She'll be graded on her ability to describe those things (exam) and/or analyze/critique (essay). Actually believing those things is not a requirement.

Well, first off, writing skills aren't mastered before college. Half the kids who get into college these days are functionally illiterate. Setting that aside, you can't disambiguate skill and content. If you turn in a paper in a college class with a great argument, but it's written with awful grammar and no structure, you don't deserve a good grade. I've turned papers in that directly contradicted the beliefs of the professor. I got good grades because I conveyed my argument clearly and supported it with evidence from the required texts.

Okay, so once Max presents his papers for public analysis along with the grading rubrics of the class, we can file his case in our study. Once we do that for another 100,000 students, we might actually have a valuable data set!

Well, yeah, that's what rhetorical speech does. We'd be wasting our time if we had to put qualifications after every word we write.

I think you're spending too much time on the internet if you think this is true. My college friend group included a communist and an investment banker. The three of us are going on a trip at the end of the month! And I'll point the finger at myself here too. Most conservatives probably aren't hyper-agitated culture warriors like the crew on here. Most of them just live normal lives. It's good practice to remember that. The same goes for liberals. If you act normal towards other people, they'll act normal towards you, most of the time. If you constantly find yourself in conflict with people you disagree with, you probably only need to look in the mirror to find out why.

1. This is true. Trump only does the LGBT stuff for his base. He doesn't actually care about that or the religious stuff. It's a tool. 2. You could just be normal and ignore it then. Instead, conservatives constantly try to get people fired from their teaching jobs just for being openly gay or trans. 3. Every riot is a protest, though not all protests are riots.

Yes. That's quite reasonable because the point of college is to educate. It's not a jobs training program. That doesn't mean she has to agree with the topics. Take your alternate class example. I think you'd be shocked to learn how much those different schools of feminism disagree with each other. For example, liberal feminism corporate aspirations (think "Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg). Marxist feminism would be more focused on women as workers and how they may be exploited in modern society - for example, thousands of hours of unpaid domestic labor. There are many strains of "radical" feminism. That could encompass anybody from Valerie Solanas (SCUM Manifesto and shot Andy Warhol) to modern day TERFs who are vehemently anti-transgenderism. The college's job is to educate you, not cater to your every belief. You aren't a customer.

Anecdotal. And anecdotally, I can tell you every Conservative I've met who had this complaint viewed any sort of disagreement as an attack. And their work is usually bad too. They think they got a bad grade on their essay because of their opinions, but it's actually because they write like Caveira and didn't support any part of their argument with evidence.

You're close here. He's not Hitler, but he is an authoritarian who does not believe in civil liberties or legal process. And the right likes it. Conservatives want order. They want hierarchies to be enforced because they believe they are correct. They don't want society to change or evolve. It's literally in the name: Conservatives. That instinct always puts Conservatives in tension with civil democratic institutions and rights. The reason Conservatives love Trump so much is he's willing to actually say he doesn't believe in that stuff. That's what they love. No, you can't marry who you want. No, you can't identify as whatever gender you want. No, you can't protest who you want. No, you can't teach the subjects you want. It's all about telling people they disagree with "No." We're in charge, and we decide what you're allowed to believe and do.

If you paid more attention in school, you might have learned how to write an actual sentence. Gibberish!

Hilariously wrong lol

Lack of reading comprehension here. I didn't say it was that alone. I specifically included social media - which has 100x the effect of any of the other stuff. I'm surprised to see you advocate for safe spaces for students. Should your daughter only have to listen to ideas she already agrees with? Why is it a big deal that she 'forced' to study (I'm assuming it's a required class for her major) that topic? If it's a required class for the major that means it's important for her to know that information, regardless of whether she agrees with it or not. To me, this once again displays how far removed people are from what actually happens in the classroom. Professors don't agree with everything they assign. Often they assign things they vehemently disagree with. When I was in school, an English professor assigned Antonin Scalia's book as a primary text for the Literary Theory class (one of the foundation classes for English Literature). Did he agree with Scalia? No, but the text is a useful tool to think with and against because it outlines a rigorous approach to interpretation, which was the central topic of the class. I think you'd be pretty surprised at how much diversity of thought there is in these disciplines. Conservatives often assume all professors are "liberals" and think the same and teach their students dogma. In reality, there is a tremendous amount of internal debate. Within English for example, you have historicism, structuralism, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, marxism, formalism, philology, linguistic, etc... and scholars who use those methodologies are constantly engaging with the others, arguing why they're wrong or using insights from other methods to enhance their own. That is the tradition of the Enlightenment. When your daughter goes to her "Cultural Analysis in Women's and Gender Studies" class, she won't be handed a list of beliefs on day 1 that she is expected to endorse. Instead, she'll be assigned 100s of pages of reading from the leading, most influential scholars in the field and be asked to formulate her own thoughts while engaging those texts. And she'll be graded on her ability to clearly convey those thoughts in an organized, supported written argument. People have completely forgotten what the point of education is, especially a humanities education. You're supposed to critically engage with the information you're presented, not swallow it outright. Your future employer teaches you how to do your job. Your education gives you the foundational thinking skills that allow you to process that information and put it to use.

Yes, it's on video. They even circled it in red for you, but apparently that wasn't enough.

There's a really strange myth out there that professors are preaching radical left politics. That's really not what happens. In fact, most student activists are frustrated with their professors' lack of radicality. I know I was. The radical left politics of college students are built online and within activist communities outside of the classroom. It's those dual pressures - connecting people digitally and bringing them in close physical proximity - that cause this effect. I went into college (at a large state school) far more conservative than I am today. I never once had a professor preach any sort of political message. What shifted was I became friends with a bunch of new people from all over the world with diverse ideas instead of the guys I grew up playing sports with who all looked like me, had parents like me, and believed the same things I already believed. Once those alternative ideas were shown to me, I slowly began to *actually think* about what I believed. And thus, became more left-leaning. Let's look at a counter-example that might help you see this more clearly: Who are typically the most conservative students on campus? Frat boys. Why? Because they self-select a fairly homogenous social group that tends to come from more conservative family backgrounds. Frat culture embraces a conservative, masculine aesthetic. They often self-select for majors that lead to lucrative career paths and are more practically oriented, less focused on critical thinking skills. So, there's very little socio-cultural pressure to abandon their historical political views.

It's actually not. The UChicago Economics department is the historical locus of the modern conservative political model. They are hardcore, true believers in unfettered capitalism. It was the training ground for conservative economists who were then dropped into the right-wing coup dictatorships we installed in Latin America to redesign their economies away from any sort of social-democratic model. They called it Shock Therapy.

The comparison is to the structure of the state. As the article says, it doesn't mean it ends in the same place. Even so, you would say the exact same thing if someone was comparing 1933 Nazi Germany with what they ended up doing. But it's pretty indisputable that Trump is doing something radically new right now. As Vak pointed out a while ago, in the past, when administrations got an unfavorable ruling, they filed appeals and tried to be heard by different courts - a process laid out in our legal structure. Trump has simply ignored rulings he doesn't like and his team have constantly attacked the entire Judicial Branch as unelected tyrants. That is a radical challenge to the constitution and the American government that shouldn't be handwaved away because we've become used to Trump's unorthodox style.

Yes, we're famous for our quick and easy wars here in the US.

These guys are doing a great job at deescalating! This officer should be arrested and charged with battery. Clear cut case caught on video of him deliberately targeting someone not doing anything wrong.

Personally, I'd like to go back to our old tax system when the middle class thrived and something like every dollar over $3 million was taxed at 90%. And if they did, it would have a far lesser effect on them than the current taxes have on middle class people. The 1% in this country have more money than they could possibly spend in 100 lifetimes. It's grotesque. The whole point of social prosperity is to take care of people, not to see who can hoard the biggest pile for themselves. We are herd animals. We are supposed to take care of the weak.

How long before Trump tweets "kill the boer"