^ what he/she said.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx says right at the beginning:
From that and the graph, it is 38% creation, 38% guided evolution, 19% unguided evolution.
The difference is that prominent conservatives who praise very fine people allied with Nazis and make textbook definitions of racist comments and others who are comfortable with such textbook definitions of racist comments are elected conservative leaders who have high approval rates among conservatives, not fringey types with insignificant power or support like those black mask people you like to incorrectly paint others with. (Note that it does not mean that conservative = Nazi, but that conservatives appear to be comfortable with various kinds of bigotry, even if they less extreme than Nazis.)
@ohiodad51 “I would point out in the university context that we have seen exactly one example of righty college kids shutting down a speaker they didn’t like.”
Again, I am not an ideologue. I agree with you that speakers should be allowed to speak. We don’t need the first amendment to protect speech that everyone likes. The left has been worse recently and they are wrong about that.
@Corinthian wrote:
Guest speakers are fine. So long as they have actual, supportable arguments and not just invective. Charles Murray=yes, Milo Yiannapoulos=no.
As I said before, I am always open to facts and evidence, and I do agree with several conservative views. Can someone provide specific examples of conservative views deserve to be given more attention at college?
@Much2learn As an example, here are a list of some issues where I think it would be desirable to have actual conservatives articulate their positions and engage in debate: immigration reform, election integrity, school choice, gun control, criminal justice reform, health care reform, defense, terrorism, cybersecurity, global politics, energy and environmental protection. Again, there is a big difference between a professor saying here’s my version of the conservative view and having an actual conservative there to defend his or her position. Several people on this thread want to focus on the fringe. I don’t think anyone is advocating for recruiting professors to teach creationism or advocate for white supremacy. I think the goal being described in the OP’s article is bring more conservatives onto the campus to engage in the core issues of the day.
@corinthian I agree that those subjects are worth discussing with real conservatives. Although some like school choice (Improving education) both sides fail because neither party puts the kids first. The both push the views of their donors.
I don’t agree that the issues I mentioned before are fringe views. Not out here in flyover country they aren’t. Maybe they are on the coast, but not in Trumpland.
I find the sneering talk about “creationism” funny from Leftists, especially when they hug “science” as the be all, end all of thought. Never mind that “science” is really just people, with all their flaws and biases. I’m talking about explaining the world around us. In a few minutes I can have the most ardent atheist admitting they have no idea what’s really going on and that it’s unknowable … and I’m an atheist!
edit
@circuitrider, Mighty generous of you to permit real conservatives to pollute the academy as guest speakers. That is something at least. I will tell you what, I am fine with your standard, as long as I am the one who gets to decide who is a “real conservative”, and of course the same standard has to apply to “real liberals”, right? Then I can kick out any of the liberals I disagree with because I decide their arguments suck. You good with that?
@Much2learn I have lived in fly over country almost my entire life. I live in probably the swingiest swing state, and even lived in Texas for awhile. I have never heard anyone say a woman’s place is in the home who wasn’t born before say 1930. I have never heard anyone say they favor segregation (except the silly Nation of Islam types back in college) or that the earth is 5,000 years old. You are imputing all these beliefs to people you do not agree with.
@ucbalumnus we all understand you are referring to Trump, and that in your world saying there were fine people who were in Charlottesville to protest ripping down the statute means Trump is a Nazi. Just like Bush was Hitler, Romney wanted to put black people in chains, etc. It is neither a new nor subtle point. It also has nothing to do with the issue here.
I hope you all realize that all of the arguments made here were made about women in the workplace, desegregation, affirmative action, etc. They ultimately lost because at some point the populace realizes the numbers are so lopsided they become impossible to defend. It took 40 years for this brand of liberalism to take control of the academy, and another generation to purge those of not like mind. As the purge completed, there was no one left to push back against the crazy side of the progressive intelligentsia, and positions became weirder. We have now swung so far that people are no longer just making counter factual arguments but arguments that directly challenge or ignore reality completely. People are beginning to pay attention to this, and once that happens, things will slowly change. The pendulum always swings. This will happen because at the end of the day, you may be right and half the country are horrible who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But it is still half the country. That is really the whole point.
The proof is in the pudding. The academy has done a pretty good job being in charge of its own house over the past century and a half since the proliferation of the German university model. Not all ideas deserve equal weight - that’s the very essence of a marketplace, whether it’s an I-phone or a scientific hypothesis. You can choose to spin your wheels on whether the world is round or build on the consensus (that it is indeed round) with the hope and expectation that it will conform with reality in the long run. Carefully weighing what is good evidence and what is not is (in part) what we pay good money for universities to do.
No, just that he sympathized with people who allied with Nazis in the march led by Nazis and similar types.
Of course, that wasn’t the only racist comment. You can ask Paul Ryan about another example of a textbook definition of a racist comment.
Pretty sure this is no longer a majority opinion. That is the entire point Roth, among many others, is making.
@ucbalumnus, yes I understand that is your opinion. Doesn’t make it true. More to the point Trump = nazi doesn’t mean conservatives = support nazis. It’s a basic fallacy.
Anyone care to guess Dwight D. Eisenhower’s last job before accepting the Republican nomination for president in 1952?
I believe he was the supreme commander of NATO. Why? Or are you referring to his stint before that as president of Columbia?
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Not surprisingly, the conversation quickly went off the rails, and will take more time to clean up than warranted. Closing thread.