all 17 comments

[–]antireddit 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Modern day woke leftists are just oversocialized. They are so heavily invested in social status and governed by peer pressure they could never think for themselves and go against the grain, and the grain is set by a hostile media and academic elite backed by a lot of money. It is mob mentality on an epic scale. Everyone is afraid of the mob, and the closer to the mob you are personally, say a twenty something living in Portland, a member of the media, or a ladder climbing professional active on social media, the more likely you are to join the mob to avoid being a target of it. It really is the Salem witch trial mentality. A mass hysteria that has overcome huge segments of the population in the same way charges of witchcraft overtook Salem, only in this case it is being fueled deliberately by a group of people with an agenda.

BLM and antifa are primarily weapons of terror wielded by a hostile elite in order to keep the population from outwardly opposing their agenda and push the overton window on their brand of identity politics. It's a dubious strategy by a group of risk taking sociopaths from a culture that has always been about high risk and high reward behavior.

[–]Trump77 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Modern day woke leftists are just oversocialized.

Yes, and this is the result of our public education system. It isn't healthy for children to be subjected to so much social pressure for such a long period of time.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good post, you make a good point about own experience having to do with perceiving the HuffPo article.

I think that's kinda like why the establishment flames video games and used to flame YouTube algorithms, because when growing up liberalism is the default state, and younger people are more likely to observe stuff critically (like when a child asks why does God do X or something in similar manner, and he has some sort of punishment for questioning it, mostly parents just raising their voice). People past their teenagership (is that a word?) can only learn through hard experience sadly.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

If you're left wing, then you will never experience this.

This would be false for me, but I understand what you mean as in the vast majority won't. Arguing for both points from the right and left showed me the right is right about many more things but not when it comes to ethics subjectively, and arguably objectively in certain cases (In university for instance related to a philosophy course, but I took it upon myself to argue certain points without upsetting the status quo too much) and what to do with the difficult truths of reality.

Back to the original statement though, saying that this alone stops them from becoming critical thinkers is false because critical thinking is still required to get almost any PhD. It's better said critical thinking related to race and politics is something that becomes non-existent.

[–]WaltzRoommate[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

When you argued for a right wing point, did you argue for something authentically right wing such as race realism or did you argue that taxes were too high?

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I steered clear of race specifically but mentioned some quotes from Nietzsche such as how not all men are created equal.

[–]WaltzRoommate[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Okay, so then my post stands. You didn't argue anything dissident or especially right wing. Moreover, you chose a very safe citation rather than something scientific, which would actually have shown some commitment and challenged their worldview.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Stating that not all humans are equal is pretty dissident under the current dispensation though.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not, that's very much within the accepted framework, especially when you're shitting on poorer (white) people. It's only dissent if applied across racial or national lines.

[–]WaltzRoommate[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not really.

Only stating that groups of humans are not equal on average is dissident. Everyone gets that someone will be smarter or stronger than someone else.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

saying that this alone stops them from becoming critical thinkers is false because critical thinking is still required to get almost any PhD.

This statement is full of assumptions and is fallacious.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The classes required, especially math, medical school for some, in earning most PhD's requires critical thinking. This should be a pretty obvious true statement.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're (wrongfully imo) assuming that giving presentations and taking classes requires or creates critical thinking. While I can understand why you're highlighting math due to the very real intellectual rigors of that area, the fact remains that the number of PhDs in math is miniscule compared to the arts and other sciences. (edit: I see you edited while I was writing. Why are you stating that critical thinking is required for most PhD's and then citing two areas that are a minority of graduate degrees given (you only stated math prior to your edit)?)

See here

Masters

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctb.asp

Doctorates, see table 12 and others

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf20301/data-tables/

This is just a fact of statistics and intelligence. Very few people have the mental requirements for high level mathematics. See here for a plot of IQ and field of study

https://chart-studio.plotly.com/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/#/

When you're in a system that rewards parroting the beliefs of that system, i.e. not questioning it, going with the mainstream, etc., that means that you're not required to challenge the beliefs of that system.

Are you actually in university?

Why does that matter for this conversation? Are you? Do you think that credentialism and intelligence are the same?

If I didn't attend university or have a degree, does that nullify my criticism? You realize that you're resorting to an ad hominem for your argument?

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why does that matter for this conversation? Are you? Do you think that credentialism and intelligence are the same?

Took it out before you replied. I realized this wasn't appropriate.

Why are you stating that critical thinking is required for most PhD's and then citing two areas that are a minority of graduate degrees

I said required classes for most PhD's which also includes things besides math and the specifics I mentioned. From things like chemistry to philosophy. Philosophy itself requires some critical thinking. Seems like we just have a different threshold to what can be considered critical thinking, but objective thinking is required.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, fair enough. I'm responding too fast. I edited my statement based on your edit, so please re-read before responding so we can be on the same page.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ethics

Doesn't exist.