/sci/ - Science & Math

Because no intelligent person would be far right. Now fuck off back to >>>/pol/

Because academia is an echo chamber

>>8425206
and /pol/ isn't?

>>8425211
/pol/ is anti echo chamber echo chamber.

>>8425211
No. On /pol/ you're allowed to have whatever view you want, people will just mock you if you can't back it up with facts. In academia following the facts regardless of politically correct dogma will get you fired.

>>8425220
>being this retarded

>>8425228
He's not wrong.

>>8425220
>In academia following the facts regardless of politically correct dogma will get you fired.

Give literally one example of this

>>8425190
>you're either liberal or a fascist

>>8425170
If you want an actual non conspiracy explanation from the right, then check out unqualifiedreservations

>>8425170
Because a rational analysis of available good quality evidence suggests that left-wing policies would increase the wellbeing of the most people, while right-wing policies pool power and resources in the hands of the already powerful and wealthy.

Combined with a broad understanding of the universe and humanity's place in it, particularly the temporary icons around which humanity forms tribes leading to competition and strife, which results in a much lower chance of becoming violently nationalistic, religious or politicised.

Oh no wait, it must be a conspiracy and all the most apparently intelligent people are actually credulous nitwits or perfidious cowards that bend to whatever the latest revision of history is (despite working in the disciplines most strongly associated with rigorous adherence to the truth as observed, regardless of conflict with preexisting literature), and the real truth and wisdom lies in the hands of those who discuss the political matters they heard about on TV last night at the bar of the same town they were born in.

>>8425678
Why would an evolutionary biologist or an astrophysicist understand societies? Being a master of one subject doesn't make you a master of all the others as well. Just read Dawkins' terrible attempts at being a philosopher and laugh.

>>8425228
typical liberal response to facts

kys

>>8426169
Its safe to say that the scientific community has above average intelligence. This means that, as a collective, they will have more logical decisions and see through logical facilities.

Where is the evidence to say that they are less informed about politics than the average man on the street?

>>8425231
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

>>8425170
The hubris exhibited by posts like yours is quite extraordinary. The difference intelligence between working researchers and common people like you is larger than the one between you and a monkey; how you can think that a NEET can predict better and more reliably than scientists what's good for a society is beyond me.

>>8425678
/thread

>>8426202
>give one example
>doesn't give an example

That guy was 86. He didn't get fired. People just ostracized him because saying things like that make you, in the eyes on the vast majority of the population, an asshole.

>>8426200
>It is safe to say
No it isn't. People are part of the scientific community because they sweatshopped through university, not because of any inherent selectivity. These kinds of assumptions about broad demographics because "it just intuitively makes sense!" always trigger me. Please back this up with fact.

>>8426217
>I'm sooooo smart and valuable
>stop showing so much hubris
take a quick break from fellating yourself to drink some bleach: it's good for your IQ.

>>8426227
>People just ostracized him because saying things like that make you, in the eyes on the vast majority of the population, an asshole
So, like Galileo? Glad you agree the general public gets to vote on what's scientifically true.

>>8426228
Here you go
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

>>8426243
The work he did is still regarded as valid you fuckwad. People don't just stop using his material.

>>8426228
>brainlet NEETard thinks he can hold a candle to scientists
jej

>>8426244
>IQ
Oh wow, people who went through ten extra years of taking tests are marginally better at taking tests!
>Medical Occs
which are one of the most politically moderate occupations, congrats you proved less than nothing.

>>8426202

Not him but Watson was talking out his ass about economics and employee behavior with second hand information.

No one really disputed the intelligence/IQ issue with Africans. Just the "outlook" which can't really be scientifically assess since it's fucking "economics" where Nigeria and the United Arabs can economically blow out countries like North Korea despite a 20 IQ difference because of their alliances, resources and non-irregular behavior doesn't isolate themselves to oblivion.

>>8426227
>He didn't get fired
No, he just got heavily encouraged to retire.

For stating the obvious. Here's his fucking unacceptable hate speech:

>I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really. There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal, but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.

>There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

>>8426268
Africa is the dumbest, poorest and most violent continent.
>Muh guns, germs and steel

The African diaspora in the United States is the most violent, poorest, least academically accomplished cohort in the United States.
>Muh slavery and Jim Crow

The African diaspora in Britain is the most violent, poorest, least academically accomplished cohort in Britain.
>Muh colonialism

Sweden has no history of African slavery, colonialism or segregation and dedicates a massively disproportionate amount of its already generous welfare state to its African immigrants, yet lo and behold the African diaspora in Sweden is the most violent, poorest, least academically accomplished cohort in Sweden.

It's an easily falsifiable hypothesis. All you have to do is find a wealthy, peaceful, developed Negro population. Anywhere on the surface of the Earth.

>We'll make it better
What do you propose we do a century from now if we spend a couple trillion more dollars on their welfare and blacks are still poor, violent retards?

>>8426285

>If I spout a bunch of irrelevant information to the topic surely anons will treat my post seriously

What fucking part of "economics" do you not understand? No one gives a flying fuck about muh violence and intelligence.

They weren't acting like complete assholes like North Korea. They also had resources other more powerful countries want. So despite their lower intelligence they are doing much better.

>>8426285
>The African diaspora in Britain is the most violent, poorest, least academically accomplished cohort in Britain.
Wrong

>>8426300

>>8426257

>Trying to deny scientists are on average more intelligence than the general population

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

Give it a read then come back to me. It would also be nice if you could gather some actual evidence for your counterargument instead of just dismissing everything you don't agree with.

>>8426319
>There is no clear evidence of trend in the role of cognitive ability in the stratification
process, and other social psychological variables may be equally important. There is no evidence that cognitive ability is the central variable in the process of stratification.
Thanks, really made me think

>>8426308
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/Parliamentary%20briefings/EducationWHdebateJune2012.pdf
Black African has the same educational achievements as White British

>>8426331
Did you even read what you linked? It said that Africans have similar GSCE scores to white students but fall behind miserably at every academic level above that

reminder national socialism is the true ideology

>>8425211
/pol/ is a hugbox, which is something similar to an echo chamber.

>>8426338
Only at purely racist parts where provably superior academically races like the Chinese or Indian also suffer. Chinese students perform much better but also earn way less.

>>8426330
>reading comprehension

He's discussing the causation, dumbass. He has provided 11 figures showing a correlation between job category and cognative ability, using 11 different metrics to measure it. They all show a positive result.

>>8425190
Hi millennial! Did they let you out of your mom's basement today?

The problem with the right is that they've aligned themselves with the Bible thumpers who are incapable of seeing logic or listening to reasoning. If they merely stuck with conservative principles without all of the science denial (as well as basic skills such as valuing sources of information correctly), then this would be a very different picture.

As a side-note, I'm very humored by the far right chemists out there.

False comparison.

Please go back to school until you learn critical thinking especially what a logical fallacy is k thnx.

>>8426452
>go to libtard recruitment camp to think like me, a libtard
stupid libtard get the fuck out of this place, we are a science and math board

>>8426468
You're completely right, my apologies. I'd say read some books but you the ones I want you to read were written by people who went to school. Oh boy, now we have a dilemma....Maybe you can write a book that will explain to you what critical thinking is? Oh but wait you clearly have no idea. Ah gosh, maybe you'll be divinely inspired to write it. And then you can read it for the first time (since you didn't really write it in the first place). But now that I think about it further... if you know how to read... you yourself went to school!!! Or were taught by someone who went to school!!! Oh mother of sweet bloody baby Jesus... What can you do if you can't even trust...yourself....Oh yeah, you can always anhero plx k thnx.

The majority of this thread's replies are argumentative.

>/pol/ this
>Intelligence difference that

What's missing? Namely, that nobody is talking about what the image indicates, or it's inherent rational.

First, a great deal of left-wing and liberal policies tend to put money into the sciences and into education, while generally the opposite is true of the right.

Secondly, that the sociological department displays the most extreme disparity comparatively. Why is this? Because sociologists--and the scientific study of society as a whole--understand that a nations inability to change and grow results in stagnation, that the right wing's reflex to protect and maintain safety and security is tantamount to stopping rapid change, and thereby growth. And that only with left wing policies and to an extent liberal policies, can a nation continue to evolve.

History repeats itself, ergo it is wisdom to learn from history.

The Roman empire is one, among dozens, of examples who's recorded history delineates stagnation, a lack of change or the ability to adapt to the world around, results in the destruction or at least the break down of that empire / nation.

I'm not saying that it is always a good thing for policy and political leaders to be left, or to always want to incite change. Sometimes the right is a better way, more capable of protecting the inner sanctum of that culture, that society, from agents of destruction. i.e. closed borders, stricter policing, etc...

The irony is, however, that an over abundance and movement in the left, rarely results in the destruction of freedoms, and while appearing risky, often ends up being safer than right wing fear mongering.

The right, is useful in short bursts, when necessary. But it is human nature to want control and power, and the right is awfully close in policy and structure to dictatorship, war, and power consolidation.

>>8425170
why would any sientist in the US associate themselves with people that belive that crationism is on the same level as evolution?

>>8426489
So does your whole premise go to shit IF a Western European democracy ends up implementing sharia by popular demand in the next few decades?

After all, it would just be welcoming and adapting to change

>>8426538
A massive contestant in the reasoning of right wing policies is religious tension.

Interestingly, religion and religious values don't define society, rather intrinsically, it is culture that moulds and bends religion.
So Sharia law, which isn't so much a religious law, even though it's vilified by being called as such, is more of a cultural law. You don't have Sharia law in every islamic nation, in fact you don't have it in most. So IF America became mostly islamic (which is statistically fucking miniscule btw based on the current percentage of islamic believers in America or even Europe, something like less than 3%) there is still essentially no way that the American Culture would ever adopt such a law, regardless of religious consistency.

>>8425220
>No. On /pol/ you're allowed to have whatever view you want, people will just call you a shill if they don't like what you're telling them.

You mean you'll be called a shill for disagreeing.

>>8426560
But, its not like Sharia Law citizens are instantly converted to the culture and customs of a country by immigrating into it. Just saying, its not religion that passes through borders in this scenario, its also that same culture

>>8426270
>fucking unacceptable hate speech
Bait?

>>8426572
You're right, can't deny that.

I will say though, that one generation on, a son / daughter of parents born into America, who's parents are advocates of Sharia law, will mostly be influenced by the American culture, not the family norms. Just like any child, they rebel against their parents, and find friendships or at least education among contemporaries.

>>8426270
That _is_ a quite hateful unscientific speech. Let me correct it to the more scientific one to show the difference:

>I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the belief that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing suggests the opposite. There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal, but this may not be true. (And my anecdotal evidence tells me it might be true)

>There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity may not be enough to make it so.

>>8426575
Problem is, the domain (lul) is "a Western Democracy", and I can guarantee America would be the very far from this relative to her peers

>>8425220

/pol/ retreats to insults when they are presented with a narrative that doesn't fit their circlejerk. Not to mention that /pol/ usually doesn't answer to the arguments but to the flags.

>>8425170
wtf i hate astronomy now

>>8425170
Just look at how many scientists defected Germany or the Soviet Union after the collapse.

They don't care about nation states, governments, or anything of the sort. They just want to make progress in their fields in the fastest way possible.

>>8426646
> They don't care about nation states, governments, or anything of the sort.

Then they are fucking idiots. Nationalism has consistently shown that it is the best path when it comes to scientific development. Lacking nationalism is a sure fire way to fall behind and stagnate in mindless bickering over gender pronouns and political correctness.

/sci/entist here, I grew out of my liberal leftwing views pretty quick - now I have a PhD in /pol/

Everybody in my lab is a Remoaner lel

>>8426842
That's funny how every prominent scientist was circulating from country to country, and a close thought was told in the post you reply to and still you write:
>oh it haz been proven nationalizm is good for sci, those fuckin idiots scientists don't understand!
By whom then it was "proven"? Oh jesus could you be even more stupid

>>8426489
>adapt to the world around

How will putting trannies and faggots on pedestals prevent civilization from stagnation? Your whole post is bullcrap

>>8426200

> intelligence
> logical reasoning

pick one

Because life has a liberal bias, it's why /pol/ is so full of retards.

>>8425678
>Because a rational analysis of available good quality evidence suggests that left-wing policies would increase the wellbeing of the most people

This is absolutely false by every single measurement.
Left wing agendas are in fact about REDUCING quality of living and creating voting plantations + underclasses to perpetually maintain their power in a democratic system.

Scientists are liberals because they work for the government and have never had a real job.

>People making a living off government grants and funding being against big government

Just wouldn't make sense would it?

>>8426603
>That _is_ a quite hateful unscientific speech.

Kill yourself fucking idiot
This is why we are going to hell, political correctness is COMMUNISM. Speaking about reality, science, and personal experience is unallowed. The cultural marxists believe if everyone pretends to believe a lie it becomes true.

>>8425170
because the problems that liberal politics deals with are problems that talk about wheither we should use our economic strenght to pursuit altruistic goals.

these are issues people with low income will not empathize with, unless they are the group being cared for.
notice how low income groups usually are underrepresented in academics.

high income groups have the luxury to worry about other peoples well being, thus giving possibility to worry about the issues that liberal politics aims to solve.

the rest is obvious.

QED

>>8426894
>about wheither we should use our economic strenght to pursuit altruistic goals.
It's more about them pushing self-sacrifice on the rest of their race, when it doesn't effect them personally.

These rich liberals are always removed from the consequences of their virtue signalling, and wealthy enough to flee the city/state/country if their social experiments fail.

>>8426882
>he thinks scientists can't use logical reasoning

man stop, you're embarrassing yourself

>>8426893
No, the post was about showing anecdotal evidence, making false implications to support your feelings and pretending to stay scientific and neutral. It shares nothing with scientific attitude or reality. But it's the definition of being hateful and subjective.

>COMMUNISM11
Oh god, I'm so scared.

>>8426944
*And yes, I don't think you're NOT ALLOWED to do that "science" or saying such things. I just say why it's hateful and unscientific.

>>8425190
rightfags are BTFO by this shit.
It seriously just proves that only uneducated people actually lean towards right wing politics.

>>8426987
I have a degree, a stem degree (but one that /sci/ would scoff at).

I wouldn't call myself far right, but I am far to the right of what I perceive this board to be.

What topics do you want to actually discuss?

>>8426990
This board isn't inheritably liberal. /pol/ just calls everyone that disagrees with them (so everybody) a libtard. I'd consider myself centre-right.

>>8425206
>>8425211
It's a safe space, like the_Donald.

>>8425170
CS student here.
I literally don't know any programmer who is leftist. Even at work everyone ironically use /pol/ memes and vote for anything from middle to far right.
The only people I know who likes socialists are old people, people outside STEM and uneducated basement dwellers(not meming, I'm serious. They know socialists will give them money for living without working).

>>8425678
>Because a rational analysis of available good quality evidence suggests that left-wing policies would increase the wellbeing of the most people, while right-wing policies pool power and resources in the hands of the already powerful and wealthy.
Or you can just look at China and how is it changing as it drops left-wind policies and gradually embrace free market. There is no other nation in history that raised so many people from poverty at such a short time.

>>8426449
That's why libertarianism is best.
It sounds like US thing that right-wing focus on christian values. In here, right politics just focus on freedom and NAP at reasonable degree.

>>8426894
Liberal politics try to solve problems they cause. Not intentionally, but the means they use to solve problems like positive discrimination, quotas, social support etc. only sounds good on paper and brings fame but doesn't really solve anything. These things would be nonexistent if they just make everyone legally equal, free and reduce social support only to these who are really not capable of working. But then there would be no one to get praised for solving these problems.

>>8425220
Yes, and /pol/acks will respond like this
>cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck

Any rational person who just leave

Freedom of speech is supposed to lead to discourse. What it has done to many people is make them think they're right because they can save what they want and be heard.

>>8426888
>left wing is about lowering quality of living
Economically false.

>academia works for the government
Most of the university's revenue comes from student fees.

>>8425170
scientist need a deep rooted feeling of improving the world. literally hippies only become scientists. No self respecting human would go through all that with so little monetary gain.

>>8427093
Liberal politics isn't about positive discrimination and quotas in the same way that right wing politics isn't about creationism. You get idiots at both ends.

I believe in meritocracy. But in order to truly achieve that, you need to give everyone an equal footing.

>>8427093
>positive discrimination, quotas, social support
>liberal

do you understand what liberal means

>>8425170
WTF? I´m a Physicist and i´m far right! Is it because i'm not a burger?

>>8425228
I bet you´ll vote for Hillary right faggot?

>>8427124
Well, that's what they talk about, at least here.
They already give money for nothing to people who have children and it results in them stopping working, lot's of children in pathological families that only cares about social money and huge inflation. They plan to increase tax to absurd amount for medium and large companies and it results in them leaving. The mayor of my hometown who is know socialists even created quotas for female street names.

>>8427130
Well I know liberal originally meant something different. But some time ago someone on /sci/ told me that in US you use liberal for people who are left-wing. In here, we call liberal someone who wants are right-wing, want free market and personal freedom with low taxes. We call left-wing simply socialists.

>>8426202
holy fucking shit! /pol/ was right. i didn´t listen. Who´s next, Plank? Feynman?

>>8427144
>Well, that's what they talk about, at least here
Yeah, not shit. Because its an easy target and laughing at SJW is funny. I literally don't know anybody that agrees with positive discrimination.

Disagreeing with certain policies is fine. In fact, I disagree with all the policies you listed there. But don't write off an entire school of thought simply because of some regarded feminists on youtube.

>>8426538
kek just saw this today on my college news stand.
Glad my country only has 0.6% muslims

>>8427160
meant to say
>some retarded feminists on youtube.

>>8427093
>China and how is it changing as it drops left-wind policies and gradually embrace free market. There is no other nation in history that raised so many people from poverty at such a short time.
Replacing poverty with a literal slavery of the worst kind. Nice work, dipshit

>>8425170
jewish brainwashing, and they'll get ostracized if they challenge the globalist agenda

>>8427184

>>8425170
Love how the more your budget depends on taxpayer money the more liberal you are and the more it depends on private R&D investment the more right.

We're all selfish pricks to be honest.

>>8427187
it's kind of true in some universities

The right is just smart enough to not disclose their political ideology.

>>8425170
wow does chemistry slightly edge everyone out in being far-right?
never been happier to be studying the field of the master race lads

>>8427160
>I literally don't know anybody that agrees with positive discrimination.
I know people like that.
Even in my family there are people who strongly support socialists. They believe that positive discrimination is productive and necessary because white, rich people are doing so much bad things to poor, imigrants and color people so they deserve it. They believe that without unconditional support for these groups they will only become poorer and won't have chance to leave poverty. Which is hilarious since they are rich white people but only wants goverment(ie. everyone) to pay for these things. Also my mother is a feminist and she talks a lot how women are oppressed and about various policies that directly favor women over men.
I don't know about what socialism is in theory, I think there might be policies that make sense. However actual all socialistic parties here use these dangerous politics because it gives them votes from people who don't want to work and don't understand that these things only makes them poorer. They are majority, sadly.

>>8427179
We all know that work in Chinese sweetshop is hard and unhealthy. They use child labor and their month salary is about as much as we do in one day.
But how it was before they opened market and factories were created? They didn't had choice to work in factory, they had to work on social farms. Child labor was even more popular, and 50% of children didn't even reach 10th birthday. Excepted lifetime was 39. They earned less money and were even poorer.
When they got factories, they actually got chance to raise from poverty. They can work in relatively better conditions, make money and get into middle class. They will produce lot's of wealth for them and their children. Some will then move to cities and send their children to school instead to work. They will be educated, will find better jobs and make even more money, some might become businessmen and become rich.
Of course it would be nice if we could pay them more, but who is going to give this money to them? The only way we can help them advance without lowering our own wealth is to let them work for us. They will make money and when they become rich we will become even richer and no one will have to work like slave and die on farms in poverty.

>>8426538
beautiful jewish propaganda

>>8426339
>true
>ideology
Pick one

>>8427144
> But some time ago someone on /sci/ told me that in US you use liberal for people who are left-wing. In here, we call liberal someone who wants are right-wing, want free market and personal freedom with low taxes. We call left-wing simply socialists.

In the US, socialist means someone like Bernie Sanders, who wants a national system of health insurance and government funded universities. That's about as far to the left as it goes in the US. Liberals are somewhat to the right of that, then there are the moderates to the right of the liberals, and conservatives are further to the right of them.

>>8427255
I see, thanks.
But where does these liberal, social and conservatives lays on two axis spectrum(economic freedom and personal freedom)? I mean are left just less economic freedom and more personal freedom, and right are more economic freedom and less personal?

>>8427100

>cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck

Oh my god, that is so terrible, it's totally the same as being Watson'd

None of you have actually been on /pol/, why keep bringing it up?

>>8427271
> two axis spectrum(economic freedom and personal freedom)
Doesn't exist. Personal and economic freedom are inseperable. "Economic freedom" is just the personal freedom to do what you want with your own property.

Left = Less freedom
Right = More freedom

>>8427207
Socialism and positive discrimination are not the same thing.
Read a fucking book.

>>8427271
In the US, conservatives are generally heavily influenced by religious ideology, so a big chunk of conservatives believe in a combination of laissez faire capitalism and biblical literalism. Almost half of the country believes in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, while at the same time believing in things like the prohibition of all recreational drugs aside from alcohol and tobacco yet also as little regulation of the free market as possible. If that sounds a bit strange, that's because it kind of is.

>>8427271
You are generally correct.

>>8427285
Maybe if you are retarded and strictly believe in corporate personhood.

Because the far right has always relied on Gods to answer all life's enigmas

>The city of sociology

I would love to see a survey of all Ph.D holders and how that contrasts to university faculty members

>>8427285
Isn't fascism a system where you have fair economic freedom and private property, but you are not free to support different ideologies, do prostitution, be gay and various other things?
And social anarchism that is the exact opposite of it?

>>8427292
Theory doesn't go well with what actual politicians claim to be.

>>8427297
That's interesting.
Here, right-wing does respect religion, but don't put believes over freedom(except for nationalists).
However left-wing usually are very religious, anti-gay, anti-drugs, want to forbid working on sundays etc.

>>8427320
>However left-wing usually are very religious, anti-gay, anti-drugs, want to forbid working on sundays etc.

I think you have that the wrong way round desu.

>>8427325
I'm talking about how it is here, in Poland.
There are anti church left-wing parties but they are and will always be minority because the church is very powerful here.

Academics are idealists and funded by the government. They don't operate in the same kind of conditions your average middle class worker does in the private sector.

On top of that, they are turned off by common conservative tenets of anti-science. But weirdly, not by the common liberal tenets of anti-science.

Universities are largely liberal echo chambers so I'm sure the effect compounds across departments. It's simply non-advantageous to be conservative in that kind of environment.

>>8427332
Interesting how the 'left you describe in Poland is the same as the right in America. Its almost like you've lumped everything you agree with into the category of 'right' and everything you disagree with into the category of 'left', regardless of where the philosophies actually lie on the traditional political spectrum.

>>8427338
IIRC, the US convention used to be the same as what our Polish friend is describing, but the "left" became whatever the Democratic party stood for and the "right" whatever the Republican party stood for and some point after WW2, the two ideologies migrated to center and then flipped, but we didn't change the left/right association as it became an effective stand in for party affiliation.

>>8427335
Do you have anything at all to base this on?
I'm studying for a PhD in a STEM subject in a decent university in the UK.
The academics and other post grads I know, and there are many, are as removed from the typical image of the SJW student as you can imagine, such that senior academics routinely mock students for that sort of thing, and yet they are left-leaning in the majority

>>8427304
Far right here. Not true. Of course some retard Americans think that but There's people who are very different.
t. Physics bachelor

>>8427341
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Its pretty consistent everywhere. I find it much more likely that you are mistaken than that Poland has an inverted definition of right and left politics.

>>8427347
the polish are just really catholic in general on both sides of the spectrum

It's hard to be both scientist and Republican rejecting reason for the sake of bible

>>8427347
So I am wrong. I got to thinking that the US had somehow flipped the generally used terminology. I can't remember where I got this from, however.

>>8427376
the parties flipped after the civil rights act

>>8427338
I don't agree with every right-wing party. I'm all for freedom, something like acap but I believe minimal state is necessary to control natural monopolies etc.
We have right-wing parties that are very religious and nationalistic and I don't like them.
And there are left-wing parties that strongly support personal freedom, but are against economic freedom.
In general we call right/left according to less/more state interventionism rather than personal freedoms or religion.

>>8427285
>Left = Less freedom
>Right = More freedom

Nope, that's just meme of American right-wingers. left x right is a more complex spectrum that originated in France during the revolution and generally distinguishes between conservative and progressive (aka liberal+socialist) parties.

>>8427438
>Left = Less freedom
>Right = More freedom

It's more like:
>Left = Big government
>Right = Small government
Right side usually represents the more traditional views of small government, like less regulations in the economy, less taxes, less social support. Unfortunately, the more traditional views also seems to attract the conservative religious viewpoints, including anti gay-rights, anti abortion, pro death penalty (people are stupid), etc. Somehow these people don't realize that in the U.S. there is meant to be a separation of church and state. They don't see that their belief in personal freedom logically clashes with the religious regulations they believe in. This probably explains why STEM majors, who are more experienced with logical/critical thinking, are not right-wingers.

At the same time, all educated people support the "socialist" or "leftist" idea of cheaper education, because educated people obviously don't want to pay as much out of pocket. Unfortunately educated people include art or literature majors, who are thought of as society as useless hippies. OP is therefore grouping all educated people into this one term "hippies" which is meant to be useless. I agree that government financial support of college education is supporting these useless people, but at the same time it's giving support to the useful people. I agree with more personal and economic freedoms for every individual, but government exists for a reason. Let's use it to our advantage and make society better as a whole (even if that means supporting the useless retarded people). More taxes =/= Less freedom.

>>8427509
> More taxes =/= Less freedom.
Leftists nonesense.
The more the government takes from you, the less freedom you have.

>>8425170
Because of kikes. Their time is almost up though.

>>8427341
Both the dems and the republicans had their left and right branches.

Both parties were controlled by their leftists, and they still are today. They both have engaged in mass purging of anyone with slightly right wing beliefs.

It is only in the very recent times, that there has been a resurgence & embrace of right wing thought among the Republicans. While the dems begin to more openly display their jewry/marxist leanings.

>>8427515
You're getting that money back by not paying for your education. If you don't want to spend time getting educated, think of it as a stupidity tax. If you have already gone through schooling and are educated, why don't you support more people being educated? You're acting selfishly. More educated people means your field will advance further. If you are afraid of getting replaced in the workplace, you could always go back to school (education is paid for, remember?) There's literally no downside except that you're comfy in your current position and don't want to put in any work to make society better. You're literally no different than the lazy unemployed wanting support from the government without working for it. Government is the backbone of society, so if you're not trying to better society why should you be given a vote in what the government does?

>>8427347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

This is you right now :)

>>8427376
Democrats and Republicans used to be pro-Democracy or pro-Republic. Which meant local government vs federal government.

One of the great ironies of today's American politics is that the Republican Party arose just before the civil war, and was seen as a radical abolistionist party. The first republican president? Abraham Lincoln.

That's because the slavery debate leading up to the American civil war was mostly about states' rights to determine for themselves whether they'd be slave states, vs the federal government superseding state-level authority.

So aside from "which party is more overtly racist" being flipped on its head, so has "which party is pro federal regulation". You can see that in everything from gun control to welfare.

>Why are scientists such dirty hippies?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY

There is your reason you stupid poltard

>>8427530
That "education" has become little more than marxist indoctrination. If even a fraction of the people were going toward STEM fields, that would be one thing. But they're not. They're going to worthless things like women's studies, sociology, history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. There is literally no upside there, and it does nothing but drain money away from the actually productive members of society.

Government should focus on making sure that the society is safe. As long as we have that, resources will naturally flow to the capable and deserving and they will be able to use them the most efficiently. Government doesn't need to get involved in that, and trying to do so will only mess things up.

>>8427553
Dims are no better, they barely even know what evolution is. The fact that they "believe in" evolution doesn't mean much when they have a third grade understanding at best. And at the same time they deny every known fact about race and IQ, continuing to repeat their politically correct dogma that africans have anywhere near the mental capabilities of whites despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

The only true science is in Islam. Allahu akbar!

>>8427215
>They didn't had choice to work in factory, they had to work on social farms. Child labor was even more popular, and 50% of children didn't even reach 10th birthday. Excepted lifetime was 39. They earned less money and were even poorer.

You are skipping the time China went EXTREME_FULL_SPEED_AHEAD COMMUNISM, from 1966 to Mao's death (1975). The life span grew significantly more in that time.

Capitalism isn't the only way forward,

>>8425170
In academia you express left opinions to keep your job/credibility. Don't trust "anonymous" surveys. I say this as someone who is left leaning.

>>8427558
>There is literally no upside there, and it does nothing but drain money away from the actually productive members of society.
Then your problem is with education not with government. Granted, public education is a part of the government and payed for by taxes, so the way that is run is definitely of concern to us. But we're discussing college and universities, which are private educations. We cannot change how we run private institutions until we make them public by use of government funding/intervention.

>Government should focus on making sure that the society is safe. As long as we have that, resources will naturally flow to the capable and deserving and they will be able to use them the most efficiently.
But what if allowing resources to flow naturally to the capable and deserving is unsafe for the society? Should society opt to purge itself from the undeserving and thrive, or should we keep our weakest links around and allow the society we know and love to continue surviving, even though it isn't as efficient? These are all questions of philosophy not science, so maybe it's best we keep around those "useless" classes until we have a satisfactory answer.

>>8427285
Based Milton Friedman