He Hated the Hippies...Didn't He?

[cooleddie74]

This thread makes Carl Spock sad.

Like...you dig, baby?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think you meant reach.

 

[cooleddie74]

That correction was Now. Real Now.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Wow, sock it to me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I have been a part of academia for the last 20 years and I can tell you that it has changed a lot just during that time. Neo-Marxism and enthusiastic leftism is not viewed as ONE point of view in the curriculum, it has become the ONLY point of view and it is the curriculum.

Pet topics like: gender constructivism, feminism, class warfare, anti-capitalism, white privilege, and others are now central to all areas of study in most modern N. American colleges (even for subjects where these topics are ill-placed such as the pure sciences). Anyone pursuing post-doctoral studies is practically required to touch upon one or more of these if they wish to have any hope of succeeding. If these topics are not dominant in the curriculum, or if opposing viewpoints are permitted, untenured faculty runs the risk of losing their postings. Students wishing to engage in dissenting views are smacked down and their grades suffer for it. This is happening right now. I have witnessed it personally in a prestigious university. Check out the film Indoctrinate U.

While I'd like to take your word for this, I'd rather see or read examples.

Documentaries like any other form of film can and are edited to force a particular view point.

The hippies who championed the right to dissent have become the establishment and have unfortunately adopted the same parochial practices as their one-time opponents. They are going to make this world a kinder and better place according to their own standards no matter what anyone else thinks. For now, this seems not to have become as pervasive in government as it has in academia.

Again, I'd prefer examples over rhetoric. Though, lets be honest, this is not a concept limited to "hippies". Folks on the right have their own ideas about making the world a better place according to their own standards no matter what anyone else thinks.

I am not saying that their positions should be silenced, I am simply saying that theirs is not the only valid position. As soon as people en masse start believing that they have any moral authority, bad things happen. As a student of history, you have surely come across many examples of this.

Yes and in recent history. People trying to use a moral code based on their religion trying to force others to conform to that code when they don't follow that religion. Or trying to make that code into law.

Why should a store be permitted to dictate to people how they should express their holiday sentiments. Do Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians really get offended if someone wishes them a Merry Christmas? Perhaps atheists do, but then why should they care?

Because it's their business and the people are their employees. They can dictate some aspects of how, as representatives of the company, their employees interact with customers. After all, they want to maximize profit and attract as many customers as possible ( Yay Capitalism!!!)

I don't know if they are offended or not. You'd have to ask them. Would a Christian be offended if wished a Happy Hanukkah or Wonderful Ramadan? It would depend on the individual is my guess.

I'm an atheist and I say Merry Christmas without offending myself.

I am sure that there are many hippies that were veterans, but let's be frank here, the vast majority of them burnt their cards and skipped out. I probably would have done the same thing, but you see, I would have been more honest about it. I would have dodged the draft to save my own ass from being shot up and would not have claimed to be taking some moral high ground.

Let's not conflate hippies with draft dodgers. While there maybe some crossover they aren't the same thing. Not every liberal was a hippie in the 60s either.

 

[Maurice]

No need to thank me, you are welcome.

You proceed from the false assumption that there's any reason for thanks at all.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

I have been a part of academia for the last 20 years and I can tell you that it has changed a lot just during that time. Neo-Marxism and enthusiastic leftism is not viewed as ONE point of view in the curriculum, it has become the ONLY point of view and it is the curriculum.

Pet topics like: gender constructivism, feminism, class warfare, anti-capitalism, white privilege, and others are now central to all areas of study in most modern N. American colleges (even for subjects where these topics are ill-placed such as the pure sciences). Anyone pursuing post-doctoral studies is practically required to touch upon one or more of these if they wish to have any hope of succeeding. If these topics are not dominant in the curriculum, or if opposing viewpoints are permitted, untenured faculty runs the risk of losing their postings. Students wishing to engage in dissenting views are smacked down and their grades suffer for it. This is happening right now. I have witnessed it personally in a prestigious university. Check out the film Indoctrinate U.

While I'd like to take your word for this, I'd rather see or read examples.

Documentaries like any other form of film can and are edited to force a particular view point.

The hippies who championed the right to dissent have become the establishment and have unfortunately adopted the same parochial practices as their one-time opponents. They are going to make this world a kinder and better place according to their own standards no matter what anyone else thinks. For now, this seems not to have become as pervasive in government as it has in academia.

Again, I'd prefer examples over rhetoric. Though, lets be honest, this is not a concept limited to "hippies". Folks on the right have their own ideas about making the world a better place according to their own standards no matter what anyone else thinks.



Yes and in recent history. People trying to use a moral code based on their religion trying to force others to conform to that code when they don't follow that religion. Or trying to make that code into law.

Why should a store be permitted to dictate to people how they should express their holiday sentiments. Do Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians really get offended if someone wishes them a Merry Christmas? Perhaps atheists do, but then why should they care?

Because it's their business and the people are their employees. They can dictate some aspects of how, as representatives of the company, their employees interact with customers. After all, they want to maximize profit and attract as many customers as possible ( Yay Capitalism!!!)

I don't know if they are offended or not. You'd have to ask them. Would a Christian be offended if wished a Happy Hanukkah or Wonderful Ramadan? It would depend on the individual is my guess.

I'm an atheist and I say Merry Christmas without offending myself.

I am sure that there are many hippies that were veterans, but let's be frank here, the vast majority of them burnt their cards and skipped out. I probably would have done the same thing, but you see, I would have been more honest about it. I would have dodged the draft to save my own ass from being shot up and would not have claimed to be taking some moral high ground.

Let's not conflate hippies with draft dodgers. While there maybe some crossover they aren't the same thing. Not every liberal was a hippie in the 60s either.

Of course there are zealots on the right who would love to take things back to the 1950s or 1880s and I am not trying to defend them. I am trying to point out that the left seems to have convinced itself that not only is its point of view the only correct one, but that any opposing point of view is inherently evil or unenlightened. As this is the predominant position at most of our institutions of higher learning, I think there is a very real danger of spawning a generation of people who accept without question or critical analysis such concepts as:

-gender identities are constructed and can't possibly be natural

-if a woman chooses to be a homemaker and stay-at-home mom, she is somehow setting back the women's movement.

-that evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

-that the decision to have an abortion requires no more consideration than having a splinter removed

-that all cultures and language systems are inherently equal

-that white people (especially if they are straight, Christian, male, and wealthy) are inherently evil

I am not saying that I fully agree or disagree with any of these ideas or others; but what is important is that no side enforce the idea that their view is the only correct one. And they certainly should not abuse the fact that they control academia to promote their close-mindedness to future generations.

We should be able to rely on the left to put forth its views without being dogmatic about them. Otherwise, we just end up with a new right that makes the original right look moderate.


I would be happy to give you more specific examples, but not here. I think we have strayed too far from Trek which is probably going to tick off the mods. Besides, the drive-by self-righteous sarcasm from some of the other posters makes me feel embarrassed for them (some of them may even be college professors, or worse high-school teachers). PM me if you like and I will give you my email address.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to: read my bible, have sex with a member of the opposite gender, not feel bad that the Indians lost, and shed a tear for all the babies killed by soldiers in Vietnam as well as for the ones killed in pro-choice clinics.

 

[JoeZhang]

that evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

No sorry, I can't believe you work in academia if you are posting such discredited (and simply incorrect) nonsense as this -do you actually understand what you are saying or did you just cut and past it from somewhere else?

I mean to start with - you do realise you aren't actually discussing the TOE?

You also don't seem to understand the words theory and law are used in scientific inquiry.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

that evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

No sorry, I can't believe you work in academia if you are posting such discredited (and simply incorrect) nonsense as this -do you actually understand what you are saying or did you just cut and past it from somewhere else?

I mean to start with - you do realise you aren't actually discussing the TOE?

You also don't seem to understand the words theory and law are used in scientific inquiry.

Alright, enlighten me.

 

[JoeZhang]

that evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

No sorry, I can't believe you work in academia if you are posting such discredited (and simply incorrect) nonsense as this -do you actually understand what you are saying or did you just cut and past it from somewhere else?

I mean to start with - you do realise you aren't actually discussing the TOE?

You also don't seem to understand the words theory and law are used in scientific inquiry.

Alright, enlighten me.

Let's start with the easy one - TOE says nothing about the origins of life.

 

[Pingfah]

Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life.

ETA, beaten to it

 

[Bubbles McGee]

No sorry, I can't believe you work in academia if you are posting such discredited (and simply incorrect) nonsense as this -do you actually understand what you are saying or did you just cut and past it from somewhere else?

I mean to start with - you do realise you aren't actually discussing the TOE?

You also don't seem to understand the words theory and law are used in scientific inquiry.

Alright, enlighten me.

Let's start with the easy one - TOE says nothing about the origins of life.

Isn't TOE about where humans came from?

 

[JoeZhang]

Alright, enlighten me.

Let's start with the easy one - TOE says nothing about the origins of life.

Isn't TOE about where humans came from?

No - it says absolutely nothing about the matter.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

Let's start with the easy one - TOE says nothing about the origins of life.

Isn't TOE about where humans came from?

No - it says absolutely nothing about the matter.

Well then you both need to get out there more because evolutionists and intelligent designers are beating the hell out of each other and out of themselves within their own camps as well.

Personally, I think we got here via Sargon's people. I think the left are the descendants of Henoch.

 

[JoeZhang]

Isn't TOE about where humans came from?

No - it says absolutely nothing about the matter.

Well then you both need to get out there more because evolutionists and intelligent designers are beating the hell out of each other and out of themselves within their own camps as well.

Sorry that's just cant - I suspect you've read it somewhere or copied it from a creationist site but while there might be discussion about various aspects of TOE - they have nothing to do with 'the origins of life' as that's an entirely different subject.

Have you thought about buying a high school textbook or similar so that you can get a basic education in the sciences?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course there are zealots on the right who would love to take things back to the 1950s or 1880s and I am not trying to defend them. I am trying to point out that the left seems to have convinced itself that not only is its point of view the only correct one, but that any opposing point of view is inherently evil or unenlightened. As this is the predominant position at most of our institutions of higher learning, I think there is a very real danger of spawning a generation of people who accept without question or critical analysis

Nah, at best they think folks with opposing view points are ill-informed or uneducated. A few might say "evil" but that's just hyperbole. The right does the same. Don't fall for the hype. Both side have been known to eschew "critical analysis", though in my experience its more common on the social conservative right.

such concepts as:

-gender identities are constructed and can't possibly be natural

What do you mean by "gender identity"? I'm an advocate of the Gaga theory of Born This Way.

-if a woman chooses to be a homemaker and stay-at-home mom, she is somehow setting back the women's movement.

Sure, if it was still 1977 you might have a point. In this Century the Womans Movement had embraced the stay at home mom as a valid choice.

-that evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

As Joe Zang pointed out its hard to believe that you've spent 20 years in academia with out an understanding of what a scientific theory is. Hint: its not just a guess. Even us lowly Liberal Arts majors had to take science.

-that the decision to have an abortion requires no more consideration than having a splinter removed

There that hyperbole I was talking about.

-that all cultures and language systems are inherently equal

It more about respect and understanding that inherhent equality. And the assumption that they must be inferior.

-that white people (especially if they are straight, Christian, male, and wealthy) are inherently evil

Again hyperbole. Those folks are at the top of the power structure right now. They are the "man" and some are a little leery of letting other up there.

I am not saying that I fully agree or disagree with any of these ideas or others; but what is important is that no side enforce the idea that their view is the only correct one. And they certainly should not abuse the fact that they control academia to promote their close-mindedness to future generations.

Sometimes there is a correct viewpoint and the opposing ones are narrow minded, limited and just plain wrong. Not every idea is of equal merit and worthy of participation ribbon. They deserve to be tossed on the scrap heap of history.

I would be happy to give you more specific examples, but not here. I think we have strayed too far from Trek which is probably going to tick off the mods. Besides, the drive-by self-righteous sarcasm from some of the other posters makes me feel embarrassed for them (some of them may even be college professors, or worse high-school teachers). PM me if you like and I will give you my email address.

Depends on the Mod. Some don't care how far off topic you stray as long as you follow the rules and remain civil. There is no Trek content percentage rule that I'm aware of.

Doing a Drive-by can be fun/funny and educators should be allowed to participate. Why should you be embarrassed for them?

Why not keep it public, there is place on the site were such discussions are allowed and encouraged The Neutral Zone

 

[Bubbles McGee]

No - it says absolutely nothing about the matter.

Well then you both need to get out there more because evolutionists and intelligent designers are beating the hell out of each other and out of themselves within their own camps as well.

Sorry that's just cant - I suspect you've read it somewhere or copied it from a creationist site but while there might be discussion about various aspects of TOE - they have nothing to do with 'the origins of life' as that's an entirely different subject.

Have you thought about buying a high school textbook or similar so that you can get a basic education in the sciences?

I am not sure what "that's just cant" means. Instead of being insulting and close-minded, why don't you just explain yourself better? Also, if it helps, maybe I should have clarified that I was referring to the origins of human life which is being discussed by evolutionists and creationists and there does not seem to be a consensus among either side. Would you like me to provide you with a list of references (they are above the high-school level and were written by legitimate scientists and researchers by the way)?

I have asked you to enlighten me, your response was an attempt to belittle and you really haven't amplified your position at all. I guess I am just not as smart as you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And the world has been crap ever since.

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. This country was a lot "crappier" then than now.

I'm aging, certainly, but not yet feeble enough to succumb to the kind of "nostalgic recall" that causes some people to pine for those days.

 

[Kemaiku]

That evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

 

[Bubbles McGee]

Of course there are zealots on the right who would love to take things back to the 1950s or 1880s and I am not trying to defend them. I am trying to point out that the left seems to have convinced itself that not only is its point of view the only correct one, but that any opposing point of view is inherently evil or unenlightened. As this is the predominant position at most of our institutions of higher learning, I think there is a very real danger of spawning a generation of people who accept without question or critical analysis

Nah, at best they think folks with opposing view points are ill-informed or uneducated. A few might say "evil" but that's just hyperbole. The right does the same. Don't fall for the hype. Both side have been known to eschew "critical analysis", though in my experience its more common on the social conservative right.

such concepts as:

-gender identities are constructed and can't possibly be natural

What do you mean by "gender identity"? I'm an advocate of the Gaga theory of Born This Way.

Sure, if it was still 1977 you might have a point. In this Century the Womans Movement had embraced the stay at home mom as a valid choice.




As Joe Zang pointed out its hard to believe that you've spent 20 years in academia with out an understanding of what a scientific theory is. Hint: its not just a guess. Even us lowly Liberal Arts majors had to take science.

There that hyperbole I was talking about.

It more about respect and understanding that inherhent equality. And the assumption that they must be inferior.

Again hyperbole. Those folks are at the top of the power structure right now. They are the "man" and some are a little leery of letting other up there.

I am not saying that I fully agree or disagree with any of these ideas or others; but what is important is that no side enforce the idea that their view is the only correct one. And they certainly should not abuse the fact that they control academia to promote their close-mindedness to future generations.

Sometimes there is a correct viewpoint and the opposing ones are narrow minded, limited and just plain wrong. Not every idea is of equal merit and worthy of participation ribbon. They deserve to be tossed on the scrap heap of history.

I would be happy to give you more specific examples, but not here. I think we have strayed too far from Trek which is probably going to tick off the mods. Besides, the drive-by self-righteous sarcasm from some of the other posters makes me feel embarrassed for them (some of them may even be college professors, or worse high-school teachers). PM me if you like and I will give you my email address.

Depends on the Mod. Some don't care how far off topic you stray as long as you follow the rules and remain civil. There is no Trek content percentage rule that I'm aware of.

Doing a Drive-by can be fun/funny and educators should be allowed to participate. Why should you be embarrassed for them?

Why not keep it public, there is place on the site were such discussions are allowed and encouraged The Neutral Zone

I think the left have at the very least caught up with the social conservative right when it comes to dismissing opposing views without much follow-up and discussion (see JoeZhang's comments above for an example).

"Gender identity is the gender with which one identifies and it may or may not coincide with that person's physical sex. Gender Construction Theory to my understanding is the idea that society plays a bigger role in determining which behavioral characteristics are prevalent in males and which in females rather than these being the product of any inherent physiological causes. If you believe in born this way, then you would probably disagree that gender is constructed. This is not to be confused with sexual orientation. A gay man may still have a male gender identity and a straight man may have a female gender identity.

I grant that I may have engaged in some hyperbole, but I disagree that the upper levels of power (at least in academia) are still governed by conservative white males; nor am I suggesting that they should be, I just don't think that only one way of thinking should be elevated to the status of Truth with a capital "T."

On the one hand you say that we should be respectful and understanding and yet when it comes to different opinions you are quite ready to throw out absolutes like right and wrong and talk about tossing things onto scrap heaps. Who gets to decide what is wrong and right when it comes to opinions on these topics and who presides over the scrap heap?