President Holloway to Yale?

[mildone]

Are they misinformed because of disinformation campaigns online, biases in mainstream and alternative media, or prejudices that influence what they are taught at these schools? The answer is probably all of the above.

How do we fix this? I don’t agree with those who advocate for censorship, a thought police or the equivalent of reeducation camps(Those people are beyond help). Nevertheless, I have not heard a sensible solution from any politician, government agency or private organization to this very serious issue.

There are lots of participants in the spread of mis/disinformation (collectively referred to as BS from now on). Of those within the United States, many are protected by free speech. Many profit from doing it (financially and/or electorally) and are thus strongly disincentivized to ever stop.

And a great deal of BS comes from sources external to the United States. In many cases from sources who wish to do harm to the US and to US interests around the world.

We (the United States) have little or no control and little or no authority to force relevant changes on most of the above participants. But on the far end of the participant list are the tens of millions of individuals who knowingly or unknowingly absorb tons of BS and proceed to spread it virally through social media.

In most instances, all those individuals are not acting in their own best interest by engaging in this behavior. They neither profit nor benefit from it. It's just a really bad habit that has been strongly encouraged by incredibly effective modern marketing techniques employed by those entities that do profit or benefit.

Turns out, one of the most resonant, most dangerous disinformational BS messages combines the power of tribalism with the power of false belief in one's superiority using . That message is: "only the other guys are being misled, you're smarter than that". People *really* want to believe that. But it's arguably the worst of all the BS out there, the great lie, because it discourages people from questioning their chosen information sources in any meaningful way.

Given all that, I think any solution must focus on individuals. Because it's individuals turning the BS viral. And it's individuals who benefit from NOT participating in the spread of BS. Individuals are actually strongly incentivized to change their behavior (even though they don't realize it and will typically disagree vehemently).

TBH, I'm not sure we can convince people who've been caught up in this for so long. Current generations may be a lost cause.

But we can encourage skepticism and information-verification starting at very young ages in our schools, weaving it deeply into the curriculum. We can produce new generations of skeptics who are much more narrative-resistant, much better armed against all the entities trying to force BS on them, much more capable of objective thought.

The problem is that a lot of entities would fight any such curriculum. Religions, for example, would not be overly fond of training young minds to insist upon proof in all things, proof being the enemy of faith. Parents do not really want their kids questioning what the parents say. And producing skeptics acts as an antipattern with respect to producing compliant patriotic citizens.

Those things need to balanced somehow, and I'm not really sure how to do it.

 

[mildone]

Well in that particular case there was an actual chance of one of them or their friends/family ending up there.

That was more real and genuine IMO.

Now? Not so much.

I’m not sure that any of us is qualified to judge the realness and genuiness of two different generations of young people. Seems a lot like trying to define love. Pure unprovable opinion.

 

[bac2therac]

If that fat racist black woman was White and said black people should be eliminated do you really believe Rutgers would have supported her under the guise of “free speech”? You are crazy if you believe that.

They like to play the pretend

 

[bac2therac]

I remember when Riley Gaines was chased into a closet for her free speech of a medical definition of a woman

This has been groomed in colleges for years and the inmates now run the asylum and a generation is lost

 

[retired711]

There are lots of participants in the spread of mis/disinformation (collectively referred to as BS from now on). Of those within the United States, many are protected by free speech. Many profit from doing it (financially and/or electorally) and are thus strongly disincentivized to ever stop.

And a great deal of BS comes from sources external to the United States. In many cases from sources who wish to do harm to the US and to US interests around the world.

We (the United States) have little or no control and little or no authority to force relevant changes on most of the above participants. But on the far end of the participant list are the tens of millions of individuals who knowingly or unknowingly absorb tons of BS and proceed to spread it virally through social media.

In most instances, all those individuals are not acting in their own best interest by engaging in this behavior. They neither profit nor benefit from it. It's just a really bad habit that has been strongly encouraged by incredibly effective modern marketing techniques employed by those entities that do profit or benefit.

Turns out, one of the most resonant, most dangerous disinformational BS messages combines the power of tribalism with the power of false belief in one's superiority using . That message is: "only the other guys are being misled, you're smarter than that". People *really* want to believe that. But it's arguably the worst of all the BS out there, the great lie, because it discourages people from questioning their chosen information sources in any meaningful way.

Given all that, I think any solution must focus on individuals. Because it's individuals turning the BS viral. And it's individuals who benefit from NOT participating in the spread of BS. Individuals are actually strongly incentivized to change their behavior (even though they don't realize it and will typically disagree vehemently).

TBH, I'm not sure we can convince people who've been caught up in this for so long. Current generations may be a lost cause.

But we can encourage skepticism and information-verification starting at very young ages in our schools, weaving it deeply into the curriculum. We can produce new generations of skeptics who are much more narrative-resistant, much better armed against all the entities trying to force BS on them, much more capable of objective thought.

The problem is that a lot of entities would fight any such curriculum. Religions, for example, would not be overly fond of training young minds to insist upon proof in all things, proof being the enemy of faith. Parents do not really want their kids questioning what the parents say. And producing skeptics acts as an antipattern with respect to producing compliant patriotic citizens.

Those things need to balanced somehow, and I'm not really sure how to do it.

I know I'm taking us *way* astray here, but reason and religion are not necessarily in conflict. Many prominent theologians over the ages have tried to reconcile reason and revelation. They felt this necessary because, after all, theology consists of reasoning and its goal is to justify belief in revelation. Those with a Catholic education may remember studying Thomas Aquinas, who said that revelation was necessary not because its content is unreasonable but only because it is so difficult to use reason alone to reach the knowledge that revelation gives. Attempts to reconcile the reason and revelation can also be found in Judaism and Islam.

That said, we live in a world already where kids question virtually everything parents say and where everybody recognizes the need for reasoning in at least some areas. So the resistance to the use of reason is not as great as you say. What we need, IMHO, is to emphasize the need for verification of statements of alleged fact and the better use of informal logic -- that is, how to reason from facts to conclusions. If science were taught better in the schools, that would be a huge help. Science teachers need to emphasize not only teaching information (e.g. Newtonian physics as a base for modern physics) but how science works at its best -- in particular, that every bit of knowledge is subject to possible revision in the future, just as Newtonian physics had to be revised in the face of Einstein and modern quantum physics. We need perhaps to remember the words of Oliver Cromwell, as quoted by Judge Learned Hand: " I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that ye may be mistaken."

Sorry for the digression; end of lecture!

 

[UMRU]

Thanks. Do you have any data/citations for the claim that what RU pays adjuncts and grad students is now (was previously below) what other R1 institutions pay? That's a key point. A lot of the headlines locally and nationally about the strike was that RU was the first to offer such lucrative support to adjunct faculty and people would be watching to see what our peer competitors do.

In other words, my impression was that the new deal was making RU an uncompetitive high expense outlier.

We were paying grad stipends of about $29K - Ivy leagues are paying $43K. We compete for many of the same students.

Our MD/PhD students (best of the best) can do their PhD research here or at Princeton. Princeton pays $70K - guess where the students go.

Not universal, but many universities are paying up to $70K for postdocs. RU recommended NIH scale, which was ~$50K.

The adjuncts were mostly fighting for some job security. They were only being appointed semester by semester. These folks (nearly all who are PhDs with substatial experience) now teach ~30% of classes, so they are essential. But they had zero job security.

The fringe rates, however, is a killer.

 

[RU848789]

As usual, you seize on a single word to counter a larger point of view to fit your worldview. I went back and edited my post. I should have never said parochial, as it was absolutely the wrong word. It has been demonstrated by legions of well-educated scientists and physicians that the approach of the government was wrong and dangerous. The government officials were (and continue to be purveyors of information.

The government has proven that it is incapable of functioning in the manner you propose, especially when megalomaniacs like Fauci and Collins are making the decisions. You must be a big fan of Orwell. Well educated and well-informed scientists and physicians should have been (and should always be) allowed to speak on important topics of science and medicine instead allowing of a couple of compromised and bought bureaucrats who were more interested in protecting their own legacies and interests instead of the general public to decide what information the public should receive.

Look, we really can't have this discussion here, as it's a taboo topic, but we disagree strongly on the roles that Fauci/Collins played during the pandemic. If you want to discuss this topic, post it in one of the few places such discussion is allowed (you know where that is). But I do have to respond that your insinuation about what I think about Orwell is ridiculous and not worthy of you. You also need to show your work about those guys being "compromised and bought" which I also disagree with. Their actions were far from flawless, but both were lifelong strong advocates for public health and that didn't change during the pandemic.

 

[retired711]

Look, we really can't have this discussion here, as it's a taboo topic, but we disagree strongly on the roles that Fauci/Collins played during the pandemic. If you want to discuss this topic, post it in one of the few places such discussion is allowed (you know where that is). But I do have to respond that your insinuation about what I think about Orwell is ridiculous and not worthy of you. You also need to show your work about those guys being "compromised and bought" which I also disagree with. Their actions were far from flawless, but both were lifelong strong advocates for public health and that didn't change during the pandemic.

There was no greater opponent of double-think and tyranny than Orwell. I would feel complimented if someone said I was a big fan of his.

 

[RU848789]

There was no greater opponent of double-think and tyranny than Orwell. I would feel complimented if someone said I was a big fan of his.

Agreed, but he didn't mean that, or at least I don't think he did. I think he meant it in the derogatory sense of "Orwellian," in reference to the dystopian society in 1984.

 

[retired711]

Agreed, but he didn't mean that, or at least I don't think he did. I think he meant it in the derogatory sense of "Orwellian," in reference to the dystopian society in 1984.

I'm sure you're right -- but I thought perhaps my reply would cool the dialogue a little. But maybe not.

 

[e5fdny]

I’m not sure that any of us is qualified to judge the realness and genuiness of two different generations of young people. Seems a lot like trying to define love. Pure unprovable opinion.

Well one group (or their friends/family) actually had the strong possibility of going to war while the other does not.

Protesting to possibly protect your own life is one thing and pretty real.

Protesting an issue is another.

When are the latter going to Canada?

 

[retired711]

Well one group (or their friends/family) actually had the strong possibility of going to war while the other does not.

Protesting to possibly protect your own life is one thing and pretty real.

Protesting an issue is another.

When are the latter going to Canada?

Perhaps it's the other way around. Protesting because you're afraid of being drafted is protesting out of concern for your own safety. Protesting an issue is, if you will, altruistic -- it's being done to help only someone else, not yourself.

 

[e5fdny]

Perhaps it's the other way around. Protesting because you're afraid of being drafted is protesting out of concern for your own safety. Protesting an issue is, if you will, altruistic -- it's being done to help only someone else, not yourself.

Or maybe they just look at it as the cool thing to do this day/week/semester.

 

[mildone]

I know I'm taking us *way* astray here, but reason and religion are not necessarily in conflict. Many prominent theologians over the ages have tried to reconcile reason and revelation. They felt this necessary because, after all, theology consists of reasoning and its goal is to justify belief in revelation. Those with a Catholic education may remember studying Thomas Aquinas, who said that revelation was necessary not because its content is unreasonable but only because it is so difficult to use reason alone to reach the knowledge that revelation gives. Attempts to reconcile the reason and revelation can also be found in Judaism and Islam.

That said, we live in a world already where kids question virtually everything parents say and where everybody recognizes the need for reasoning in at least some areas. So the resistance to the use of reason is not as great as you say. What we need, IMHO, is to emphasize the need for verification of statements of alleged fact and the better use of informal logic -- that is, how to reason from facts to conclusions. If science were taught better in the schools, that would be a huge help. Science teachers need to emphasize not only teaching information (e.g. Newtonian physics as a base for modern physics) but how science works at its best -- in particular, that every bit of knowledge is subject to possible revision in the future, just as Newtonian physics had to be revised in the face of Einstein and modern quantum physics. We need perhaps to remember the words of Oliver Cromwell, as quoted by Judge Learned Hand: " I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that ye may be mistaken."

Sorry for the digression; end of lecture!

It's not a lecture, it's your thoughts on the subject and that's what internet forums are good for.

I would never try to argue that religion and reason are in conflict. That's too broad a condemnation of religion for me to accept (even though I am not personally religious).

I only argue that the dual concepts of skepticism and faith are seemingly mutually exclusive. Emphasis on seemingly, because I personally tend to think skepticism and faith can be complementary given moderation and balance. But that's an extremely nuanced thing and nuance is a big problem for a lot of people.

 

[RU848789]

I'm sure you're right -- but I thought perhaps my reply would cool the dialogue a little. But maybe not.

Thanks but no need...KS and I can argue pretty strenuously but not take it too seriously (I think). Don't get me wrong - it's not fake disagreeing but I have friends I argue even more energetically with.

 

[mildone]

but I have friends I argue even more energetically with.

More energetically my ass.

 

[ashokan]

I remember when Riley Gaines was chased into a closet for her free speech of a medical definition of a woman

This has been groomed in colleges for years and the inmates now run the asylum and a generation is lost

I was accepted into a couple of PhD programs but after doing MA with neo-Marxists all over the place I veered off. The subversive movements have two main types - sociopaths and psychotics.

The sociopaths driving the agendas see disordered people as tools - change agents who can instill chaos and disorder. They dont care about "civil rights" or "compassion" and all that jive. They just want to break a few eggs to make their omelet as Lenin urged. Hitler knew disordered people made the best Brownshirts.

A the lower levels you find the psychotics and true believers, who usually have low self esteem and want to feel important protesting (or setting themselves on fire). They are very suggestible and usually grew-up with a brain screwing parent or two. If they had a crazy/mean mother they will still resent the father more for not protecting them from the battleaxe . You can recognize them by the way they react and transfer to authority figures - especially male.

 

[bac2therac]

 

[mildone]

I was accepted into a couple of PhD programs but after doing MA with neo-Marxists all over the place I veered off. The subversive movements have two main types - sociopaths and psychotics.

The sociopaths driving the agendas see disordered people as tools - change agents who can instill chaos and disorder. They dont care about "civil rights" or "compassion" and all that jive. They just want to break a few eggs to make their omelet as Lenin urged. Hitler knew disordered people made the best Brownshirts.

A the lower levels you find the psychotics and true believers, who usually have low self esteem and want to feel important protesting (or setting themselves on fire). They are very suggestible and usually grew-up with a brain screwing parent or two. If they had a crazy/mean mother they will still resent the father more for not protecting them from the battleaxe . You can recognize them by the way they react and transfer to authority figures - especially male.

You know I love you man, so please remember that when I point out that that's one of the most deeply ironic posts I've ever seen on the internet. 😀

If it helps, I think I'm pretty psychotic and disordered too.

 

[BossNJ]

He

I didn't say pro Israel is same as pro-Hamas. I specifically mentioned the violent expansionist settlers in Israel. Happy to provide a link that talks about them. Got so see their ugly racism and violence up close and personal when I lived there. They happen to have a hold on the government at the moment and the policies of Israel, in aggregate, result in just as much Palestinian suffering than the terrorism of Hamas results in Israeli suffering. I'm not god so I can't decide who is slightly more right or less wrong. It's just a sad situation with a lot of bad actors on both sides.

He has no idea what he’s talking about, he blindly parrots far right talking points.

 

[ashokan]

You know I love you man, so please remember that when I point out that that's one of the most deeply ironic posts I've ever seen on the internet. 😀

If it helps, I think I'm pretty psychotic and disordered too.

Indeed - victim's mindset (implanted/acquired). You're a survivor (and thats admirable) but not recovered

 

[BossNJ]

wow..so you are saying there are good people in Hamas....there might be good people in Palestine but in Hamas?

Didn’t we all hear that there’s “good people on both sides?”

 

[retired711]

Or maybe they just look at it as the cool thing to do this day/week/semester.

Could be. I'm not suggesting that today's protesters are right (I think they're absolutely wrong), just that maybe we shouldn't be so complimentary toward Vietnam War protesters (even though, IMHO, they were right in opposing the war). Sometimes one comes to the right result with the wrong motive, or the wrong result with the right motive.

 

[BossNJ]

There were similar letters written by the other side. And the the fact of the congressional investigation is just indicative of Israel having a bigger lobby in congress. Means nothing.

In addition the fervor to indict academia is driven by conservatives’ incessant blather about alleged left wing bias.

 

[ashokan]

View embedded media

Half of America's daughters are a mess.
Realize this stuff is out of the color revolution playbook and timed for election.
When you have all the new tents and flags someone is paying .
The 'Climate Corps" fired-up hiring kids last week.
Crew de Magoo is thinking about declaring official "climate crisis" - many of same powers as CV lockdowns, Many of dad's little girls are already working the registration/harvesting crews.

Green calls for Biden ‘emergency’ wartime climate powers are truly scary

The President cannot control humanity’s emissions: all he can do is weaken America

www.telegraph.co.uk

The American Climate Corps is now hiring

The Biden administration aims to sign up 20,000 people in the program's first year, and 2,000 openings will be available soon.

grist.org

 

[csphi]

In addition the fervor to indict academia is driven by conservatives’ incessant blather about alleged left wing bias.

Are you saying that the majority of academia doesn’t lean left?

If I have interpreted your post correctly….i would strongly disagree with that sentiment

 

[RUaMoose]

Hamas is a murderous terror organization that needs to be eliminated for the benefits of Isreal and Palestine.

The government of Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza by targeting civilians, (on a grand scale) aid workers and journalists. They are also starving millions of people in Gaza intentionally by blocking aid from getting to civilians.

Both things can be, and are, true.

You can be pro-Palestine and not pro-Hamas.

You can also be against the leadership of Israel and not be an anti-Semite (just like you can be against the President of the US and not hate America).

If someone broke into your house and “resettled” u and your family into the backyard shed would be ok with it ? If you resisted would u be a terrorist?

 

[BossNJ]

Are you saying that the majority of academia doesn’t lean left?

If I have interpreted your post correctly….i would strongly disagree with that sentiment

I’m saying that there is and has been a concerted effort by the right to cast the “MSM” and academia as institutions that actively attempt to “suppress” conservative voices, thereby casting themselves as alleged “victims.” They’re trying the same nonsense with big tech.

What they fail to acknowledge is that there powerful forces that have been in place for decades that advocate for the RW POV that are clearly part of the “MSM.”

It’s classic victimhood BS to rile up the base and to excuse their excesses in pushing disinformation from the right.

Ex. Name the “news outlet” that settled an $800 million defamation suit. Name the other that recently publicly admitted that they knowingly pushed the rigged election lies.

Classic projection. Every accusation is a confession. We’re seeing it all laid bare in lower Manhattan.

 

[SleepingGiantIsAwake]

Late to the party, before gets locked up.

Holloway great for sports, I’ll give him that.

He should have been fired for disastrous handling of Covid. Masking and proof of vax to enter the RAC? Requiring students to jab up and boost???? Criminal. 3…2…1…before our other distinguished academics chime in with their brainwashed covid “vaccine” narratives.

Anyone notice increased deaths in jabbed up acquaintances within their circles? I have quite a few. Criminal.

 

[e5fdny]

Could be. I'm not suggesting that today's protesters are right (I think they're absolutely wrong), just that maybe we shouldn't be so complimentary toward Vietnam War protesters (even though, IMHO, they were right in opposing the war). Sometimes one comes to the right result with the wrong motive, or the wrong result with the right motive.

Neither am I.

My point was back then some of those out there had a lot more at stake than those of today.

That’s all.

 

[ashokan]

I’m saying that there is and has been a concerted effort by the right to cast the “MSM” and academia as institutions that actively attempt to “suppress” conservative voices, thereby casting themselves as alleged “victims.” They’re trying the same nonsense with big tech.

What they fail to acknowledge is that there powerful forces that have been in place for decades that advocate for the RW POV that are clearly part of the “MSM.”

It’s classic victimhood BS to rile up the base and to excuse their excesses in pushing disinformation from the right.

Ex. Name the “news outlet” that settled an $800 billion defamation suit. Name the other that recently publicly admitted that they knowingly pushed the rigged election lies.

Classic projection. Every accusation is a confession. We’re seeing it all laid bare in lower Manhattan.

More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal | News | The Harvard Crimson

More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April.

www.thecrimson.com

99.7% of political donations from Penn faculty went to Democrats from 2021 to 2022

According to an analysis by The Daily Pennsylvanian, faculty members at Penn contributed 3,976 individual contributions totaling over $300,000 in donations last year — a 13% increase from the previous midterm election year.

www.thedp.com

Study Finds Law Professor Contributions to Political Campaigns Skew Overwhelmingly Democratic

Notre Dame law Professor Derek Muller - a leading election law scholar - has posted a study he conducted of the partisan distribution of political

reason.com

Gov agencies have the same stats

 

[mildone]

More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal | News | The Harvard Crimson

More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April.

www.thecrimson.com

99.7% of political donations from Penn faculty went to Democrats from 2021 to 2022

According to an analysis by The Daily Pennsylvanian, faculty members at Penn contributed 3,976 individual contributions totaling over $300,000 in donations last year — a 13% increase from the previous midterm election year.

www.thedp.com

Study Finds Law Professor Contributions to Political Campaigns Skew Overwhelmingly Democratic

Notre Dame law Professor Derek Muller - a leading election law scholar - has posted a study he conducted of the partisan distribution of political

reason.com

Gov agencies have the same stats

So? This has been more or less the case since before we were born, no?

What is your proposal for how to change it? Are colleges being bombarded with applications from conservative professors but refusing to hire any? You want hiring quotas by political ideology?

 

[mdk01]

Or maybe they just look at it as the cool thing to do this day/week/semester.

60s protests featured some fine women.

 

[retired711]

There has been some discussion of the strike settlement. Here was Holloway's summary of it:

April 15, 2023 Dear Members of the Rutgers Community: Rutgers University has reached the framework on economic issues for new contracts with several of our faculty unions, ending the week-long strike. . . . The agreement on new contracts will increase salaries across-the-board for full-time faculty and EOF counselors by at least 14 percent by July 1, 2025. Further, it will provide a 43.8 percent increase in the per-credit salary rate for part-time lecturers over the four years of the contract and at the same time significantly strengthens their job security. Additionally, it will increase the minimum salary for postdoctoral fellows and associates by 27.9 percent over the same contract period. The agreement provides substantial enhancements in wages as well as a commitment to multi-year university support for our teaching assistants and graduate assistants. These graduate students, in addition to receiving health care coverage and free tuition and fees, will see their 10-month salaries increase to $40,000 over the course of the contract. The contracts are retroactive to July 1, 2022, and will provide substantial retroactive salary payments to covered employees. I’m grateful to our negotiating team and optimistic that the membership of these unions will vote to ratify the contracts when fully completed.

 

[bac2therac]

So? This has been more or less the case since before we were born, no?

What is your proposal for how to change it? Are colleges being bombarded with applications from conservative professors but refusing to hire any? You want hiring quotas by political ideology?

how about they stop indoctrinating their students with their political religion

 

[bac2therac]

I’m saying that there is and has been a concerted effort by the right to cast the “MSM” and academia as institutions that actively attempt to “suppress” conservative voices, thereby casting themselves as alleged “victims.” They’re trying the same nonsense with big tech.

What they fail to acknowledge is that there powerful forces that have been in place for decades that advocate for the RW POV that are clearly part of the “MSM.”

It’s classic victimhood BS to rile up the base and to excuse their excesses in pushing disinformation from the right.

Ex. Name the “news outlet” that settled an $800 billion defamation suit. Name the other that recently publicly admitted that they knowingly pushed the rigged election lies.

Classic projection. Every accusation is a confession. We’re seeing it all laid bare in lower Manhattan.

lol...and that same news organization is still the most trusted source in news

 

[mildone]

how about they stop indoctrinating their students with their political religion

I thought you were for freedom of speech. Nothing is stopping you from getting a teaching job and indoctrinating students however you wish.

Politicians indoctrinate voters. Are we gonna make them stop doing that too?

Corporations indoctrinate all of us with their advertising. We gonna put a stop to that?

 

[ashokan]

So? This has been more or less the case since before we were born, no?

What is your proposal for how to change it? Are colleges being bombarded with applications from conservative professors but refusing to hire any? You want hiring quotas by political ideology?

Here we go down the rabbit hole of excuses
There already are "quotas"
RU trashed Condi Rice and ended her planned visit - that happens all the time (not by conservatives).
Students who appear conservative get mocked by profs all the time and I've seen it in my own classes.

Ivy League universities were founded by WASPs and run by them for centuries.
As they lost control, the IL descended into secular decay.
William F Buckley (Yale) wrote a book about it (" God and Man at Yale").
Eisenhower was once president of Columbia.
Stanford and other engineering universities were mostly conservative and tied-in to defense.
Computers as we know them came from male engineers
The wankers that are called "Big tech" now are mostly just code monkeys.

Blue states like CA didn't start blue - they were red until the welfare system allowed for buying votes.
Everything blue now is wrecked - big cities, Hollywood, gov agencies, colleges - they leave nothing better than they found it. I used to be one of them until I left the uni hive.

 

[Morrischiano]

I think most people don’t understand how destructive the IDF could actually be, if they did target civilians on a grand scale. They could easily kill hundreds of thousands over a short period of time with a sustained air bombardment, given the density of the population. We killed more than 200,000 in one night, in both Tokyo and Dresden during World War II. The destructive nature of munitions today is, obviously, significantly greater.

In Syria, the first two years of the civil war, estimates were 250,000 dead and 1/5 were children. Most would say that was a gross undercount. Presently, it’s very likely that the death toll is in the millions. They are primarily using only conventional weapons in that theater.

I do agree that one can protest Israeli government policies, especially those concerning settlements, and not be antisemitic. However, the protestors seem fixated on destroying Israel and not a two state solution, which is why I view it as antisemitic.

The IDF could have gone into the urban areas with 100,000 troops and destroyed tunnels and sought out Hamas. Instead they just just indiscriminately bombed cities, to the point in which 75% of all civilian housing in Gaza is now destroyed. More journalists have been killed in the last 6 months in Gaza than all the journalists killed in WW2, Vietnam and both Gulf Wars combined. I'd say that the IDF has been VERY destructive, and intentionally so.

One thing is likely- they've created more terrorists than they eliminated in the last 6 months.

 

[Morrischiano]

it's selective application

that said, freedom of thought and opinion needs to be protected but that doesn't give carte blanche to do what we have been seeing. Adults need to take charge

You probably practiced selective application in discussing January 6th 2021.