The video and its subsequent response sparked a significant reaction on social media, with numerous users rallying behind Sangwan's statement. However, some others disagreed, asserting that personal opinions should not be shared within classrooms.
I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.
There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.
Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?
If you want a hot take I was looking at the supercola borehole and everything turns to lava at 14 miles down. This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball. I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit. I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time. Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?
That’s rather simplistic, though to be fair reducing politics to left and right is oversimplifying anyway. There are many variations of right and left ideology. For example, people on this site tend to identify left wing politics as anti-capitalist when leftism can definitely include capitalism in a multitude of ways.
Politics is complicated, because people are complicated. There will be some left and right ideologies that require or demand strict adherence, but that’s not true of everything.
Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
You seem to be hung up on the whole “education is a leftist ideology” mentality. It might be true, but the facts tend to have a left bias.
A good education doesn’t mean going to a very exclusive or expensive university. A well-educated person can come out of the local university or college. It really depends on the person. Being from Texas and having traveled to and lived in other states, I’ve met plenty of well-educated people on the right, left, and center. The problem is, people who disparage education either have something to gain from uneducated folks or those who’ve been convinced by those who have something to gain (and from what I can tell tend to be lacking in education themselves). It’s a long-known fact that educated people are harder to manipulate. Don’t get me wrong, very smart people can do dumb things too, but being manipulated is much harder.
As far as book burning, the last one of note in the US was in 2022 and reported here. Also, if child protection was a thing on the right, they’d really keep them out of church, although the Bible has been banned for being inappropriate reading material for children.
I seen a couple of these typical youtube commenters. “Left-leaning university”, shut the fuck up jeez. They are either completely lost here, or intentionally trolling, or pursuing their victim complex by venturing into enemy territory.
They’ve uniformly spent no time in or around academics. Most went to no school except “school of the hard knocks” as they like to say (not accredited).
Sure. Some of them went to college, but went in with pre-existing authoritarian sympathy, and learned next to nothing, doubting the evidence before their own eyes every day. These people call everything they disagree with fake news, having been educated only in ignoring evidence before their own eyes and ears, masters of cognitive dissonance.
Some of them are definitely trolling. They went to ivy leagues and know they are lying not just about why education trends leftward but about everything else too. Such as Tucker Carlson and Trump, who knows Trump lost and who are both vaccinated, for example. They know climate change is anthropogenic and they don’t care because it won’t affect their lifestyles.
Eh, more like you want law makers to prove they’re smart enough to understand how the law works. Honestly, a high school education doesn’t prove that. It’s not that someone with only a highschool education can’t teach themselves law, only that they’ll have to find a different way to prove they have the ability to be a good administrator. Even just a college degree doesn’t guarantee the person is all that competent, but it’s better than no degree. It sucks that the world is that way, but any other education system just changes exactly where the lines in the sand are for quickly judging people.
I’d rather they are educated in facts and not feelings.
The facts they teach in school have been rigorously tested for centuries. They aren’t just some opinion of an angry Youtuber. If you don’t agree with them feel free to debunk them using science and receive your Nobel price.
That you don’t get how most facts support left leaning policies says more about you than about the left.
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
Removed by mod
It turns out that the more you know about the world, the more you tend to lean left.
It’s no wonder the right wants to keep people as ignorant as possible.
Traditional education !== knowing about the world
Identifying left and right is also ignorant. There is no balance to the thought process.
Can you read that out loud to me please?
I’m a centrist, I think about problems and the nuance involved without using identity politics to form my decision.
I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.
There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.
Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?
If you want a hot take I was looking at the supercola borehole and everything turns to lava at 14 miles down. This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball. I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit. I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time. Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?
That’s rather simplistic, though to be fair reducing politics to left and right is oversimplifying anyway. There are many variations of right and left ideology. For example, people on this site tend to identify left wing politics as anti-capitalist when leftism can definitely include capitalism in a multitude of ways.
Politics is complicated, because people are complicated. There will be some left and right ideologies that require or demand strict adherence, but that’s not true of everything.
Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.
How does pointing out cult like behavior not help?
Insulting people hardly ever inspires change
I’m open to rebuttable of why choosing a side of predisposed conclusions is not ignorant.
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
Removed by mod
This is some of the best satire I’ve read on Lemmy yet.
“Lemmy: from the makers of Truth Social” - this guy
You seem to be hung up on the whole “education is a leftist ideology” mentality. It might be true, but the facts tend to have a left bias.
A good education doesn’t mean going to a very exclusive or expensive university. A well-educated person can come out of the local university or college. It really depends on the person. Being from Texas and having traveled to and lived in other states, I’ve met plenty of well-educated people on the right, left, and center. The problem is, people who disparage education either have something to gain from uneducated folks or those who’ve been convinced by those who have something to gain (and from what I can tell tend to be lacking in education themselves). It’s a long-known fact that educated people are harder to manipulate. Don’t get me wrong, very smart people can do dumb things too, but being manipulated is much harder.
As far as book burning, the last one of note in the US was in 2022 and reported here. Also, if child protection was a thing on the right, they’d really keep them out of church, although the Bible has been banned for being inappropriate reading material for children.
Removed by mod
This is the dumbest comment I’ve seen on lemmy yet.
I seen a couple of these typical youtube commenters. “Left-leaning university”, shut the fuck up jeez. They are either completely lost here, or intentionally trolling, or pursuing their victim complex by venturing into enemy territory.
They’ve uniformly spent no time in or around academics. Most went to no school except “school of the hard knocks” as they like to say (not accredited).
Sure. Some of them went to college, but went in with pre-existing authoritarian sympathy, and learned next to nothing, doubting the evidence before their own eyes every day. These people call everything they disagree with fake news, having been educated only in ignoring evidence before their own eyes and ears, masters of cognitive dissonance.
Some of them are definitely trolling. They went to ivy leagues and know they are lying not just about why education trends leftward but about everything else too. Such as Tucker Carlson and Trump, who knows Trump lost and who are both vaccinated, for example. They know climate change is anthropogenic and they don’t care because it won’t affect their lifestyles.
You forgot the third option. That some of then are still in high school.
Well the first part is spot on…
The second part, not so much…
Aren’t most lawyers anyways?
Elaborate?
IIRC most of Congress started as lawyers. Could be wrong.
So apologies for not getting this, but what does that have anything to do with my comment that you originally replied to?
Eh, more like you want law makers to prove they’re smart enough to understand how the law works. Honestly, a high school education doesn’t prove that. It’s not that someone with only a highschool education can’t teach themselves law, only that they’ll have to find a different way to prove they have the ability to be a good administrator. Even just a college degree doesn’t guarantee the person is all that competent, but it’s better than no degree. It sucks that the world is that way, but any other education system just changes exactly where the lines in the sand are for quickly judging people.
Does the word “left” mean science to you?
No. It means ‘science, bitch’
I’d rather they are educated in facts and not feelings.
The facts they teach in school have been rigorously tested for centuries. They aren’t just some opinion of an angry Youtuber. If you don’t agree with them feel free to debunk them using science and receive your Nobel price.
That you don’t get how most facts support left leaning policies says more about you than about the left.
Removed by mod
I don’t think we went to school in the same dimension, because that’s not how I would describe math, science, and literature.
Ooooh. Now I get it. He’s a troll.
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
“Medicine has a clear goal - politics do not. “
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
I think politician has a goal of health of a nation. FTFY.
Your argument is stupid. Stop making yourself look the same.
Why does health of a nation matter? I don’t agree. And what does health of a nation mean?
I’d prefer a politician who let’s a nation collapse but greatly improves the quality of life of many. (Like what Gorbachev could’ve been.)
Lol. I’m sure you would agree that improving the quality of life of many is improving the health of a nation. QED.
Okay so thats how you define it. Again, QoL is not every politicians goal.
Removed by mod
Tell me you don’t know what the work “educated” means in a truly demented political rant without admitting you don’t know what the word means.
Removed by mod
Well, you did what he asked
Plumbers. He’s talking about people who’ve done plumbing appreticeships. It seems pretty obvious.
Removed by mod
“Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.”
ok boomer
Educated means someone other than you.
Removed by mod
We have found Tom McDonald’s Lemmy account
It means it pisses off GOP’s