https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electoral-votes-2024/index.html
on the other hand Trump looks very likely to win this time.
on the other hand Trump looks very likely to win this time.
Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
No mate, Academias just teach.
What a lot of you guys here are still failing to understand is not that Academias are teaching leftism therefore academia are leftist, its that Academias are leaning left because they are teaching scientific and researched knowledges and those knowledge happen to rely on reality therefore they are adopted by the left.
Once you will understand that scientific consensus are always supported by the left, you will also understand why academias seems - from an outside point of view - to teach "leftist dogmas"
What a lot of you guys here are still failing to understand is not that Academias are teaching leftism therefore academia are leftist, its that Academias are leaning left because they are teaching scientific and researched knowledges and those knowledge happen to rely on reality therefore they are adopted by the left.
Once you will understand that scientific consensus are always supported by the left, you will also understand why academias seems - from an outside point of view - to teach "leftist dogmas"
Mate, that's exactly what I said. Life beginning at fertilization does not matter for the debate on abortion. Therefore we, leftist, still agree with the consensus.
The point is that the left is the reality leaning side. We are basing our reasonning on facts, data and researches hence why in the end.... We are always the side that wins.
I'm not trying to reason with liberals/confusionnist/incel and far rightist on this thread because I'm scared that the left side we lose, I'm not. I believe that as long as human will look at reality, progress and therefore the side that helps it advance, will eventually win in the end... The reason I'm doing this is because in the process of progress... we might witness multiple wave of fascists/ultraliberals/racist/sexist decades/centuries where humans rights and human lives are completely negated.
For example, although I think that in a few decades, we MIGHT live in a golden age of social advances, I think that within the next few years, we might witness the rise of true fascism again... And in a world where a simple button can end the human species, I think its better for us all to do everything we can to prevent that.
This is why the fight again fascism and far right ideas is so important
The point is that the left is the reality leaning side. We are basing our reasonning on facts, data and researches hence why in the end.... We are always the side that wins.
I'm not trying to reason with liberals/confusionnist/incel and far rightist on this thread because I'm scared that the left side we lose, I'm not. I believe that as long as human will look at reality, progress and therefore the side that helps it advance, will eventually win in the end... The reason I'm doing this is because in the process of progress... we might witness multiple wave of fascists/ultraliberals/racist/sexist decades/centuries where humans rights and human lives are completely negated.
For example, although I think that in a few decades, we MIGHT live in a golden age of social advances, I think that within the next few years, we might witness the rise of true fascism again... And in a world where a simple button can end the human species, I think its better for us all to do everything we can to prevent that.
This is why the fight again fascism and far right ideas is so important
I find it funny how the term Liberal turn into a negative term for the right and conservatives like socialism did.
When someone calls me or someone else a liberal, I'm like "Which one?" Cause there's modern liberalism, classical liberalism, and neoliberalism, making liberalism in general an umbrella term like socialism.
Liberalism in general is freedom of speech, press and religion, equality under the law, separation of religion and state, divided government and political parties(along with being voted by the people) and free markets. Neoliberalism for example focuses on the freedom of trade, strengthening of private sector with limited government, and globalization.
When someone calls me or someone else a liberal, I'm like "Which one?" Cause there's modern liberalism, classical liberalism, and neoliberalism, making liberalism in general an umbrella term like socialism.
Liberalism in general is freedom of speech, press and religion, equality under the law, separation of religion and state, divided government and political parties(along with being voted by the people) and free markets. Neoliberalism for example focuses on the freedom of trade, strengthening of private sector with limited government, and globalization.
The problem of liberalism are its limits implanted in its core values.
While liberalism as a progressist ideology was a necessity to overcome the challenges that faced people a few centuries ago, it has become completely irrelevant, worse, sometimes dangerous to resolve contemporary challenges.
This is due to the values that liberalism represent : individualism / Freedom / Equality, values that rose during the age of enlightenment. Those value, good in theory are actually traps that we created for ourselves as they open the door for corruption and recuperation by the upper classes.
Because the reality is that despite the age of enlightenment and the changes in the human rights, those who have the power didn't change magically, they just adapted to those new values. The French revolution was recuperated by the upper classes and with it, the age of meritocracy was born. An age of universalism were all human are supposed to be equal from birth, a paradise were all people have the same chances. But as Bourdieu explains in really well through concept like the Habitus and the social/economic/instituional capital (cf the two videos I shared a few post ago)....
.. this meritocratic society.. actually never worked and never will. The universalism that was supposed to be created has trapped us into the thinking in a world where we all have equal chances when reality is completely different. Which means that the values of Freedom and equality in front of the law.. are actually becoming prisons and traps for people who don't have the same chances in life as others.
- Women
- People of Color
- People with non Heteronormative gender and sexual identities
- And mostly.. people of the lower classes
Are now all in jeopardy because of the liberalism values that the elite are still pushing forward
Liberalism, that was meant to free us all, has become the conservative prison that is preventing us from evolving toward social progress.
Liberalism, that was a progressive (yet elitist) ideology in the past, is now a conservative vision from a dying world. This is why you can see liberalism being praised by the elite, by the rich and even by conservative through economic liberalism and neoliberalism.
Don't be fooled by the rethoric of the far right that want to prevent the left from evolving by calling it what it is not anymore in labelling it "liberals", the left is not liberal anymore, hasn't been for at least a century. Some liberals entry rightist are still leaning toward progressive ideas (the biden administration is an example of that, even if they still support far right gov on the international) but they are still adopting the economic side of liberalism, a side that has become (was always ?) quite problematic for lower classes.
Liberalism is not relevant anymore, we need something better, something smarter and more in line with reality.
We need to stop thinking in term of individualities and start thinking in term of systems.
While liberalism as a progressist ideology was a necessity to overcome the challenges that faced people a few centuries ago, it has become completely irrelevant, worse, sometimes dangerous to resolve contemporary challenges.
This is due to the values that liberalism represent : individualism / Freedom / Equality, values that rose during the age of enlightenment. Those value, good in theory are actually traps that we created for ourselves as they open the door for corruption and recuperation by the upper classes.
Because the reality is that despite the age of enlightenment and the changes in the human rights, those who have the power didn't change magically, they just adapted to those new values. The French revolution was recuperated by the upper classes and with it, the age of meritocracy was born. An age of universalism were all human are supposed to be equal from birth, a paradise were all people have the same chances. But as Bourdieu explains in really well through concept like the Habitus and the social/economic/instituional capital (cf the two videos I shared a few post ago)....
.. this meritocratic society.. actually never worked and never will. The universalism that was supposed to be created has trapped us into the thinking in a world where we all have equal chances when reality is completely different. Which means that the values of Freedom and equality in front of the law.. are actually becoming prisons and traps for people who don't have the same chances in life as others.
- Women
- People of Color
- People with non Heteronormative gender and sexual identities
- And mostly.. people of the lower classes
Are now all in jeopardy because of the liberalism values that the elite are still pushing forward
Liberalism, that was meant to free us all, has become the conservative prison that is preventing us from evolving toward social progress.
Liberalism, that was a progressive (yet elitist) ideology in the past, is now a conservative vision from a dying world. This is why you can see liberalism being praised by the elite, by the rich and even by conservative through economic liberalism and neoliberalism.
Don't be fooled by the rethoric of the far right that want to prevent the left from evolving by calling it what it is not anymore in labelling it "liberals", the left is not liberal anymore, hasn't been for at least a century. Some liberals entry rightist are still leaning toward progressive ideas (the biden administration is an example of that, even if they still support far right gov on the international) but they are still adopting the economic side of liberalism, a side that has become (was always ?) quite problematic for lower classes.
Liberalism is not relevant anymore, we need something better, something smarter and more in line with reality.
We need to stop thinking in term of individualities and start thinking in term of systems.
It can happen yes. Those are people who are unaware of the consensus (just like I was) therefore they have a non scientific vision of the reality.
But this doesn't negate the fact that even in the case were people are not on the same line when it comes to the beginning of life, leftist will eventually align with the scientific consensus as long as the conclusions and methodolodies stay ethic and just.
This is what I did. I do not agree with the beginning of life beginning at the fertilization (I believe that there is absolutely no frontiers between life and the absence of life), but I align with the consensus and therefore support their consensus in this case.
But this doesn't negate the fact that even in the case were people are not on the same line when it comes to the beginning of life, leftist will eventually align with the scientific consensus as long as the conclusions and methodolodies stay ethic and just.
This is what I did. I do not agree with the beginning of life beginning at the fertilization (I believe that there is absolutely no frontiers between life and the absence of life), but I align with the consensus and therefore support their consensus in this case.
???
There's nothing consensus about things like Critical Race Theory, Gender theories that are taught in Academia. But that isn't even the issue, the issue is the ostracization or even banning when it comes to opposing ideas.
Academia isn't supposed to be dogmatic, it's why thesis are presented and then scrutinized
There's nothing consensus about things like Critical Race Theory, Gender theories that are taught in Academia. But that isn't even the issue, the issue is the ostracization or even banning when it comes to opposing ideas.
Academia isn't supposed to be dogmatic, it's why thesis are presented and then scrutinized
"Critical race theories" are not a consensus, its a branch of study, it englobs a lot of type of researches. Saying "critical race theory is not a consensus" is like saying "Cosmology" is not a consensus, its a nonsense.
And there is no such things as "gender theories". THe term "gender theories" is a label invented by the far right to critic the gender studies (which is, again, a branch research of sociology)
There is no "banning of opposing ideas" unless you are talking about unscientific theories. What you are talking about is the same process that ban the studies of platist theories.
And you not implying that platist theories should be AS studied AS scientific datas of earth, are you ?
And there is no such things as "gender theories". THe term "gender theories" is a label invented by the far right to critic the gender studies (which is, again, a branch research of sociology)
There is no "banning of opposing ideas" unless you are talking about unscientific theories. What you are talking about is the same process that ban the studies of platist theories.
And you not implying that platist theories should be AS studied AS scientific datas of earth, are you ?
