Two incompatible sacred values in American universities

[TrumpIsPresident]

Can you stop with this conflation of 'left' and 'social justice warrior'? It's unnecessarily partisan; social justice warriors aren't even leftists in actual ideology; they're regressives

They are regressives, yes.

They share very little in terms of ideology with the true (nearly extinct) liberal philosophy, yes.

But here's the thing.

The Left, that is the organized Left - the DNC its media its most visible elements etc - did nothing to stop the radicalized infection that has consumed their party.

They took the power handed to them and either didn't consider the consequences, simply didn't care about them, or knew there was no way to stop them; Frankenstein's monster cannot be controlled in other words.

So its by that right I have legitimate cause to refer to SJWs as Leftists because SJWs are the new Left.

The old left is essentially the alt-Left haha, in the sense that its reasonable agenda and ability to compromise are now minority traits on that side of the isle.

I'd love to have the old Left back, I'd love to have liberalism back, I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime.

Radicalization and extremism are the new norm in American politics.

Everybody in the middle is just going to have to duck down and hope civil war doesn't break out.

[Fencers]

I agree with some of the gentleman's points in the macro; the vetting of poor ideas is something I take quite seriously. However, I think the problematic aspects of the lecture are in assuming a particular (and shared) moral & ethical stance that is not clearly defined. That allows the Professor to make conclusions based on unfounded &/or poor premises- which in philosophy is a 'no-go'.

[Deleted]

Watched whole thing.

Very good stuff. It should be mandatory viewing for all activists, journalists and politicians.

[Kraenen]

I agree with some of the gentleman's points in the macro; the vetting of poor ideas is something I take quite seriously. However, I think the problematic aspects of the lecture are in assuming a particular (and shared) moral & ethical stance that is not clearly defined. That allows the Professor to make conclusions based on unfounded &/or poor premises- which in philosophy is a 'no-go'.

Which would be what?

[THE Bigzoman]

This right here is the core of the problem. Idealists that don't actually know anything about facts and processes are trying (and in many cases actually affecting) change - this is a terrible idea! Affecting change that actually improves the world requires deep, fact-based understanding of how things work and what the potential consequences of actions are. Without this, someone blindly doing what feels right has potential to damage institutions and cultures with little upside.

I feel that it's important to note that not all millennials are actually this shallow - a decent number of them are still engaged in getting the actual underpinnings of the world down by learning about science, philosophy, and history. The proliferation of the vocally ignorant social justice groups makes it easy to miss the kids with their heads down learning about classics, physics, biology, history, and so on.

It's not even a question of potential or if, only when. People who lack understanding but enact change are essentially throwing darts blindfolded:Very few, if any, will hit the bulls eye.


Which brings us back to the core of the problem. We have a bunch of zealots and ideologues changing things they know fuck all about