Liberal bias.

[Shadow Wolf]

Any recommendations?

Read him. You don't have to agree with him, but he's too much of an intellectual titan to simply dismiss him as a walking contradiction. Such as a "debate" between him and Sam Harris. I use "debate" to describe this because there wasn't much debating but rather it was more of a discussion that anyone can take from and learn from. And if you don't approach him he's not all bad. He even managed to write a good "self help" book, which is a true rarity (and it's not so much of a "self help" book as it honestly making suggestions that can help (like walking with your shoulders back) but not guaranteed to work (he points out some may still seek to tear you down).
And when it comes to taking in multiple sources and opposing view points, when it comes to theism I'd much rather take in his stuff than some nutcase, intellectual disease like Ken Ham.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ugh. I stand corrected. We are basically Texas, but with functioning gun laws, universal healthcare, government subsidised tertiary education, a realistic minimum wage, and limited impact from the religious conservatives.

I'd say that's iffy, because Texas defines itself in opposition to those things. Texas has what is almost entirely it's own electric grid system just so they can dodge federal oversight. Carry a gun no permit, no training needed. And they'll shoot their foot off to reduce welfare and public assistance.

 

[Kooky]

Read him. You don't have to agree with him, but he's too much of an intellectual titan to simply dismiss him as a walking contradiction. Such as a "debate" between him and Sam Harris. I use "debate" to describe this because there wasn't much debating but rather it was more of a discussion that anyone can take from and learn from. And if you don't approach him he's not all bad. He even managed to write a good "self help" book, which is a true rarity (and it's not so much of a "self help" book as it honestly making suggestions that can help (like walking with your shoulders back) but not guaranteed to work (he points out some may still seek to tear you down).
And when it comes to taking in multiple sources and opposing view points, when it comes to theism I'd much rather take in his stuff than some nutcase, intellectual disease like Ken Ham.

I remember watching a discussion of him with Slavoj Zizek on Marxism, where Peterson confessed that despite having railed against "Cultural Marxists" and "Postmodern Neomarxists" for most of his stint as public intellectual, the first time he actually read the Communist Manifesto was in preparation for that debate.

I repeat for effect - when he was about to debate a fairly infamously Marxist intellectual was literally the first time he had read anything at all that had been written by Marx. He had been ranting and raving against a school of thought that he'd known literally nothing about for years before that.

What an "intellectual titan"!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I remember watching a discussion of him with Slavoj Zizek on Marxism, where Peterson confessed that despite having railed against "Cultural Marxists" and "Postmodern Neomarxists" for most of his stint as public intellectual, the first time he actually read the Communist Manifesto was in preparation for that debate.

That happens a lot.
It takes tremendous character to admit this.

What an "intellectual titan"!

Admitting mistakes is a part of that. Like it or not, we are all guilty of believing things without having critically examined them (and we are tragically all too rarely put into the position of being made aware of our own).
We can use RF as a great example, with so many posters who make is very obvious they are oblivious about the subject but insist they are knowledgeable and have read this book and that author and know all about it. But they don't, and they continue to wallow in their ignorance and they sling this disgusting mud everywhere.
Not many admit they don't actually know. And, yes, learning from someone who admits such errors is going to be a better source than someone who won't, because that is an embarrassing thing to admit. But it shows an effort to learn and improve, and thus a better position to consider when evaluating and strengthening your own views.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, the problem arises when those such as yourself see Democrats who lean a bit further left than Liberals, or who are dogmatic loons, and scream them are the far left. Pretty much ignoring those like me, the "legit" far left who would raze the current system to the ground, and burn and salt the lands it was built upon (just watch, you'll occasionally see me even advocating for the abolishment of credit scores and having them so strongly tied to our ability to live).
But, yeah, keep on insisting Cortez and Warren are far left and telling people like me we aren't really far left (it's happened several times here).
Very often perspective of what is "far" is personally defined as "what I most disagree with and those I am less able to conversate with."

AOC is an open far left socialist which tells me that view is skewed by personal bias.

Warren is a bit more complicated , but she's left leaning enough to say it's farther than normal. Just a tad under being an open socialist like Cortez is.

 

[Lyndon]

AOC is an open far left socialist which tells me that view is skewed by personal bias.

Warren is a bit more complicated , but she's left leaning enough to say it's farther than normal. Just a tad under being an open socialist like Cortez is.

They're only far left when compared to the extreme right of American politics, In Europe they would just be middle left.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They're only far left when compared to the extreme right of American politics, In Europe they would just be middle left.

Just look at the state Europe is in now.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah free medical care, generous welfare and subsidized college education, open borders, what a hellhole

 

[Augustus]

And yet, that seems to be where the author of the article you cited is trying to get at: Leftists are persecuting conservatives (i.e. don't invite them to congresses as much as they do their peers), holding "Inquisitions" (i.e. publish political critiques) and "destroying careers" (i.e. spark public controversies that raise certain authors' profile in the right-wing press).

Leftist "dominance", they argue, leads to purges, persecutions, and research bias in favor of leftist issues such as anti-sexism or anti-racism, and "canonizes" leftist narratives such as discrimination against women being pervasive in academia or the job market.

No, I wouldn't agree that is what they are saying.

Seems more like a cartoonish misrepresentation of what you want to think they are saying.

So what better to do, I ask, than to remove this dominance from the equation, by purging academia of leftists and inserting conservatives to balance out leftist dominance? If leftists have perverted science and are threatening correct truths with their dominant bias, then what other ways are there, than to reduce their numbers in academia?

"Purges" seem very silly to me. I'd say institutions who value knowledge and learning should aim to create viewpoint diversity, the same as they aim to create demographic diversity.

Personally, I think viewpoint diversity is a good thing, as in our complex world solutions from all across the political spectrum may have validity in different circumstances.

Not only this, but if academic institutions become highly polarised ideologically, then this damages trust in the whole scholarly endeavour.

Do you think academia, and society as a whole, benefits from considering a wider range of views than a narrower one?

 

[Lyndon]

Academic institutions should hire people that are overly knowledgeable in the topic they are going to be teaching, their political views should not enter into it, If the overly knowledeable people tend to be more left wing, so be it. I'm sure the religion professors might tend to be more right wing, etc Maybe the computer programmers too.

I for one don't think we need to be hearing far right wing teachers teach the history of slavery, for instance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

AOC is an open far left socialist which tells me that view is skewed by personal bias.

And that's what I'm saying. You keep calling her far left, but she's not. She'd change things around, but under her capitalism is safe. Under me it's day are numbered before it's relegated to history. This is what so many fail to realize. AOC isn't far left. She's only far left if you're positioned about "mid or further Right," and aren't educated enough on Left wing politics to realize she is to the right of many of us who actually are Far Left.
Yes, she would overhaul the system, but I would dismantle it piece by piece.

 

[epronovost]

They're only far left when compared to the extreme right of American politics, In Europe they would just be middle left.

In Canada she would fit in the NDP, our left wing party. While definitely on the Left wing, she isn't on the far Left. That would be a space occupied by actual marxists and anarchists. She would be on the right of the UK Labor at the moment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say that's iffy, because Texas defines itself in opposition to those things. Texas has what is almost entirely it's own electric grid system just so they can dodge federal oversight. Carry a gun no permit, no training needed. And they'll shoot their foot off to reduce welfare and public assistance.

Sorry...I was being sarcastic. There is a case for us being less classically liberal than America in some ways, but on a left-right continuum we are well left of America overall.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Academic institutions should hire people that are overly knowledgeable in the topic they are going to be teaching, their political views should not enter into it, If the overly knowledeable people tend to be more left wing, so be it. I'm sure the religion professors might tend to be more right wing, etc Maybe the computer programmers too.

I for one don't think we need to be hearing far right wing teachers teach the history of slavery, for instance.

No issue with your post, but how did you conclude computer programmers would be more right?

 

[Lyndon]

No issue with your post, but how did you conclude computer programmers would be more right?

pure speculation

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry...I was being sarcastic. There is a case for us being less classically liberal than America in some ways, but on a left-right continuum we are well left of America overall.

From all the conversations I've had, I gather America tends to be unique among the Western nations in such things. Even Ayn Rand is more popular here than in other countries.
And we keep getting more *** backwards with firing squads and cancelling unemployment benefits as a pandemic continues on.

 

[F1fan]

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.

You're right about that. I had to take a "history of psychology" class for my degree and what they did through the early 1900's would be criminal today. They ere doing experiments on animals through the 60's and then there was a serious review of ethics. The cartoon movie "The Secrets of NIMH" was about these kinds of experiments on animals.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I remember watching a discussion of him with Slavoj Zizek on Marxism, where Peterson confessed that despite having railed against "Cultural Marxists" and "Postmodern Neomarxists" for most of his stint as public intellectual, the first time he actually read the Communist Manifesto was in preparation for that debate.

I repeat for effect - when he was about to debate a fairly infamously Marxist intellectual was literally the first time he had read anything at all that had been written by Marx. He had been ranting and raving against a school of thought that he'd known literally nothing about for years before that.

What an "intellectual titan"!

Marx is virtually unreadable to be fair. Not because the ideas are unintelligible, but because his use of language is turgid in the extreme. The Communist Manifesto is more accessible than Capital, though thin on content, but that’s almost certainly down to Engels’ input.

It’s not necessary to have read Marx in the original, to be familiar with Marxist thought. And it’s not necessary to be a committed socialist, to be persuaded by some of Marx’s ideas.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah free medical care, generous welfare and subsidized college education, open borders, what a hellhole

It is for the people who have to pay for it all .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Marx is virtually unreadable to be fair. Not because the ideas are unintelligible, but because his use of language is turgid in the extreme.

I've not had this issue, not have I heard this as a common criticism.

It’s not necessary to have read Marx in the original, to be familiar with Marxist thought. And it’s not necessary to be a committed socialist, to be persuaded by some of Marx’s ideas.

Yeah, you kind of do have to read it to know it. You don't have to read all of it, but there is no getting out of reading some primary texts if you want to understand someone's ideas.
That is a trap many have fallen into, believing they don't actually have to read it to know it. And then they act like it's a travesty to promote the idea there has never been a Marxist society, something we can say because when you've read Marx and know what he and Engels actually wrote you don't see this going on where people have claimed them, and misunderstandings and fallacies about them run rampant.