Economist said:
Maybe you didn't know this, but public opinion polls are not anecdotal evidence (actually they are data).
I don't see a single link or evidence you refer to in your post. I can just make up numbers and stories when making my posts too, you know.
You already do make personal attacks, in fact, it seems to be the only way you know how to argue. I guess I wouldn't expect anything different from someone as emotionally driven as yourself.
Says that guy who anguishes over liberals being "supposedly" unable to differentiate with libertarians and conservatives, and the guy who discredits an entire field of social science because they "look too hard for evidence" in the private sector.
Well, I do think that colleges would be a lot better if it was completely (or at least mostly) privatized, but that is beside the point. I'm actually going to get a PhD, so I do care about academia. Luckily for me, most economic professors care mostly about teaching students how to do high caliber research as opposed to teaching them what to think. My personal views have come mostly through reading for pleasure.
Oh, so now non-economics professors as indoctrinating their students? These economics professors must be angels, then, compared to the rest of academia. Thanks for another implicit ungrounded accusation.
Not a protest zone? Weren't you the one earlier talking about protests during the Vietnam War? Also, would you support academic policy that students wouldn't be allowed to protest? Policies that would not allow students to protest things like globalization, supreme court decisions on gay marriage, Iraq War, etc? It seems you'd only like to protect the kinds of protests, you're personally against. Haven't you ever heard that free speech is supposed to protect the speech you disagree with, not the things you agree with?
Free speech is protecting hate speech? I criticize hate speech, and you somehow put up a strawman saying that I am anti-free speech against
whatever I disagree with.
And university is
not a protest zone, and I never said
anything about supporting Vietnam War protests in academia. I said how academia has changed in comparison to those days.
But again, putting more words in my mouth, not that I expected more.
Denied tenure is a pretty big deal, especially if it was based on political ideology as opposed to research productivity. I doubt you would say "Boo hoo, that person was denied tenure because they were a minority, a women, etc." You would take those things very seriously. You're inconsistency on issues makes you look even more biased. I may have a radical ideology, but at least I generally keep it logically consistent.
Well guess what, tenure is an
arbitrary process if you haven't noticed. People can be denied tenure for
any reason. And you somehow
make another assumption that I support the tenure process as it stands, which I
do not. I said that people have been denied tenure for speculated reasons such as spending too much time blogging. And for some reason, you think that I'm
accepting of this, in so far to accuse me of saying that I would support someone being denied tenure because of their race or gender. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about to accuse me of doing that.
Yeah, as if there is no ground in between. In case you haven't noticed, being more tolerant of conservative views would not have to mean they tolerate anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-female things. There you go again exaggerating the original claim I was making.
I never said anything bad about conservative views, or being intolerant of different views of the political spectrum. I said I was against
hate speech, and here you are twisting my words once more.
What I am saying is that it's interesting that academia tends to discriminate based on ideas they disagree with.
"interesting"? It's
terrible to discriminate against dissenting ideas. Luckily, however, it is not prevalent and there is no liberal conspiracy theory that runs universities. Otherwise, every economics department would have been abolished ages ago.
And how can you say that excepting more view points will erode equality? If someone has a different view point, it doesn't really effect you. It's not like we're saying that people's behaviors can be whatever they want. But rather that people are allowed the freedom and liberty to have ideas that they want. There are many more reasons to regulate and restrict behavior, than there are reasons to regulate and restrict speech and ideas.
So you're saying then, that the Germans were okay when they accepted Nazi views about antisemitism? After all, it doesn't "affect them", and their "behavior can be whatever they want." It's for freedom and liberty that Nazis can have whatever ideas that they want, and they should not restrict nor regulate such speech and ideas.