Liberal bias.

[danieldemol]

The language is confusing. The Liberal Party in Australia is in power and it is right wing.
But the extreme of right or left would not be good in power imo.

In context though the OP appears to be talking about anything more liberal and or left of ultra-rightwing christian nationalism as being the cause of gulags.

Which is a lie he has most probably been indoctrinated with.
In my opinion.

 

[Lyndon]

Well I haven't really read enough about what gulags are to know how they compare to detention centres i suppose.

Do they force migrants into labour in detention centres?

they don't always force prisoners into labour in gulags

 

[Stevicus]

How and when did the news media, the entertainment industry, academia, and science gain a liberal bias? It doesn't make sense that corporate types and celebrities would support a political agenda that considers their wealth, products, content, materialism, power and influence to be "decadent". They've sold out to an ideology that if fully in control would send them to the gulag.

America's Founders had a liberal bias. But they also believed in capitalism, which is why they supported slavery and militaristic expansion. As a result, the spectrum shifted, and liberal capitalists supported liberty, equality, organized labor, fairness, and social justice, while conservative capitalists supported slavery, imperialism, child labor, militarism, and organized crime.

As a result of the Depression, conservative capitalism became extremely unpopular, so most people supported FDR's liberal New Deal. This is what got us out of the Depression, and FDR's wise leadership got us through WW2, with America emerging as a great superpower in the aftermath. Liberalism was successful as a political ideal, but it got bogged down in the geopolitics of the Cold War. Liberals were divided on the Vietnam War, many of whom saw it as an example of U.S. imperialism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How and when did the news media, the entertainment industry, academia, and science gain a liberal bias?

It didn't.

Let's explore why you think it did.

 

[Polymath257]

it seems to me that there has been a HUGE *conservative* bias since at least the mid 80's. Today, even someone like Reagan would be considered to be liberal and *nobody* is liberal in a way that would have been considered to be liberal in 1950.

What we have in the US is a battle between the far right and *moderates*. The far right likes to call the moderates socialist or liberal, but seems to not understand either of those concepts.

 

[epronovost]

Give examples of social conservatism that is being pushed into the margins. And explain why it deserves power and respect.

Example of social conservatism: the place of women in society is as mother first and above all.

Why does it deserve respect: it doesn't.

Social conservatism is poison to any society that pretends to meritocracy, equality, universalism and personal freedom

 

[Twilight Hue]

How and when did the news media, the entertainment industry, academia, and science gain a liberal bias? It doesn't make sense that corporate types and celebrities would support a political agenda that considers their wealth, products, content, materialism, power and influence to be "decadent". They've sold out to an ideology that if fully in control would send them to the gulag.

When people see things they like to hear, they gravitate towards it.

The bias mainly comes through those who are pulling the strings in large media and like a dog with a bone to chew, won't let go of it.

The rest is just the cheering section.

 

[Twilight Hue]

it seems to me that there has been a HUGE *conservative* bias since at least the mid 80's. Today, even someone like Reagan would be considered to be liberal and *nobody* is liberal in a way that would have been considered to be liberal in 1950.

What we have in the US is a battle between the far right and *moderates*. The far right likes to call the moderates socialist or liberal, but seems to not understand either of those concepts.

The denial of far left is astounding to say the least by acting as if far leftists don't exist anywhere with such assessments.

I prefer centerests, but the definitions of left and right today are as slippery as a greased pig.

 

[Stevicus]

it seems to me that there has been a HUGE *conservative* bias since at least the mid 80's. Today, even someone like Reagan would be considered to be liberal and *nobody* is liberal in a way that would have been considered to be liberal in 1950.

What we have in the US is a battle between the far right and *moderates*. The far right likes to call the moderates socialist or liberal, but seems to not understand either of those concepts.

At least from what I've noticed over the course of my life, both liberals and conservatives have changed (and not for the better). Both have moved to the right. Heck, even Nixon would be considered left-wing by today's standards. He supported price controls, started the EPA, visited both Red China and the USSR. His only real saving grace in the eyes of conservatives is that he was paranoid, malicious, and vindictive - a true American patriot.

 

[F1fan]

In order to counter the success Democrats had been enjoying in formerly Republican middle class populations, Ronald Reagan and other Republicans after him started courting Christian fundamentalists - who hitherto had been largely unpolitical or outright anti-political - by leaning into their anti-scientific, religiously framed rhetoric. The already anti-scientific, anti-academic rhetoric of extremist Christians was eventually adopted fully into the political toolbox of the Republican Party, aligning the fundamentalist mindset with the other factions of the Republican party and against the Democrats.

And now that anti-academic positions had become part of the Conservative mainstream, people would start framing academia as liberal.

When I was in college for psychology I was surprised to realize that about 85% of people in the social sciences lean liberal as far as their social, religious, and political attitudes. But given the content of the social sciences I can see why its not attractive or compatible with more conservative views.

 

[Revoltingest]

How and when did the news media, the entertainment industry, academia, and science gain a liberal bias? It doesn't make sense that corporate types and celebrities would support a political agenda that considers their wealth, products, content, materialism, power and influence to be "decadent". They've sold out to an ideology that if fully in control would send them to the gulag.

I speculate that when people have had wealth for sometime,
& have become accustomed to it, particularly if it came easily
(inheritance, acting, marriage), take their wealth for granted.
So it's not something they risk losing....they might support
things that appear to go against their own interest.

 

[Augustus]

Academia and science tend to be biased by factual analysis. If the facts, historically, point to liberal policies being the most beneficial or successful, that's what scientists and academics will report. It's not a bias.

I think this is more of a platitude than a reflection of fact (at least if we remove the hard sciences, which I shall).

Academia has always had an 'ivory tower' ideological/theoretical component that is often the last part of society to recognise the facts. For example, there were proportionately far more Soviet apologist in academia than among the general population right up to the collapse of Communism.

It is also certainly true that a significant majority of academics 'lean left', and they teach the next generation of intellectual elites, and gatekeep their progress within the academy. They also create the educational methodologies which define good practice and are implemented in educating others

Social sciences also have a very poor track record, and given they tend to be dominated by those of a more liberal persuasion, it is likely that personal biases do indeed influence their findings.

It would be very surprising if there was not some degree of liberal/left bias within much of academia.

 

[F1fan]

Academia and science tend to be biased by factual analysis. If the facts, historically, point to liberal policies being the most beneficial or successful, that's what scientists and academics will report. It's not a bias.

You make a good observation here that 'being factual' is historically the ethical norm for media and the sciences, and even social norms, but as the right has become more extreme they often see 'being factual' as a bias itself. It's arguable they even view ethics and honor as a sort of bias. We are seeing this unfold in the dispute between GOP leadership and Liz Cheney, among other more rational Republicans like Romney. I'm stunned how a whole political party can be divorced from facts and ethics to the degree it's moved in the last 5 years. How does a nation and its citizens reconcile this huge rift?

 

[F1fan]

It is also certainly true that a significant majority of academics 'lean left', and they teach the next generation of intellectual elites, and gatekeep their progress within the academy. They also create the educational methodologies which define good practice and are implemented in educating others

One notable thing is that the sciences require a certain level of flexibility and open to change, and that is a big part of the ethics of experimentation and evolving theories. The evolution of theories means they become more accurate and more precise. Why conservatives are less attracted to the sciences probably has more to do with them than the sciences. If you disagree what do you propose the sciences do to be more attractive to a conservative mind set?

Social sciences also have a very poor track record, and given they tend to be dominated by those of a more liberal persuasion, it is likely that personal biases do indeed influence their findings.

What poor track record are you referring to? Give examples.

 

[F1fan]

At least from what I've noticed over the course of my life, both liberals and conservatives have changed (and not for the better). Both have moved to the right. Heck, even Nixon would be considered left-wing by today's standards. He supported price controls, started the EPA, visited both Red China and the USSR. His only real saving grace in the eyes of conservatives is that he was paranoid, malicious, and vindictive - a true American patriot.

Your assessment is true. I was surprised that Nixon was very supportive of Medicaid and other social health programs. Looking farther back at Eisenhower and he would be viewed as a liberal as well. Reagan would probably be a republican today, but more like a Romney or Flake category.

 

[Kooky]

When I was in college for psychology I was surprised to realize that about 85% of people in the social sciences lean liberal as far as their social, religious, and political attitudes. But given the content of the social sciences I can see why its not attractive or compatible with more conservative views.

Ironically, the nascent social sciences were anything but progressive in the modern sense when they started out, but were rather instruments to carry out the sexist (hysteria) and homophobic agenda of the establishment of their day.

 

[Kooky]

I think this is more of a platitude than a reflection of fact (at least if we remove the hard sciences, which I shall).

Academia has always had an 'ivory tower' ideological/theoretical component that is often the last part of society to recognise the facts. For example, there were proportionately far more Soviet apologist in academia than among the general population right up to the collapse of Communism.

It is also certainly true that a significant majority of academics 'lean left', and they teach the next generation of intellectual elites, and gatekeep their progress within the academy. They also create the educational methodologies which define good practice and are implemented in educating others

Social sciences also have a very poor track record, and given they tend to be dominated by those of a more liberal persuasion, it is likely that personal biases do indeed influence their findings.

It would be very surprising if there was not some degree of liberal/left bias within much of academia.

Speaking of "platitudes, rather than a reflection of fact"...

 

[Lyndon]

One notable thing is that the sciences require a certain level of flexibility and open to change, and that is a big part of the ethics of experimentation and evolving theories. The evolution of theories means they become more accurate and more precise. Why conservatives are less attracted to the sciences probably has more to do with them than the sciences. If you disagree what do you propose the sciences do to be more attractive to a conservative mind set?


What poor track record are you referring to? Give examples.

If you can't blind them with science, baffle them with fake news

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually Australia does have immigration detention gulags, run by conservatives, which are called the Liberal party in Aust.

No, actually ,we don't.
And BOTH sides of politics have been responsible for some pretty bad decisions around how to handle refugees, which includes detention centres.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The language is confusing. The Liberal Party in Australia is in power and it is right wing.
But the extreme of right or left would not be good in power imo.
We are probably more to the right generally than the US.

We are not more to the right than the US. Nope, nope.