9 ms·

Academia _as a whole_ is biased against republicans/libertarians/capitalists and toward the state, i.e. towards leftism, because thats where their paychecks com

Academia _as a whole_ is biased against republicans/libertarians/capitalists and toward the state, i.e. towards leftism, because thats where their paychecks come from. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

gress 12y ago
What you are saying here implies that Republicans are biased against academia, not the other way around.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  If one of these statements is true then it's more likely that the other one is also true. It's a chicken and egg relationship.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Why not both?
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  Not necessarily Republicans, since they are statists too, although somewhat less than Dems. But for the sake of argument, yes, conservatives tend to be biased against statist academia because they are aware that since academia wouldnt exist without a state it is biased toward the state and against contra-statists. The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing.
  - ameister14 12y ago
    I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican party- they advocate and have historically voted for extremely strong State power, just distributed for a greater degree of regional control.
    - JackFr 12y ago
      I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican Party.
      - ameister14 12y ago
        Why? What would that be?
  - gress 12y ago
    > The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing. This is a complete straw man. Nobody is saying conservatives would be biased against 'knowledge itself'. What is being suggested is that they would be biased against social psychological research with the potential to change ideas about power relations away from supporting the status quo. Furthermore, if as you say, conservatives are supportive of this research being done, but just object to 'statist' academia, you will easily be able to prove that by pointing us to the independent institutions they have funded.
vdaniuk 12y ago
>Academia ... republicans/libertarians/capitalists ... state ... leftism. There are so many generalizations that this statement loses any value. Also state == leftism? What about fascist and quasi-fascist states?
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  > Also state == leftism? Precisely. > What about fascist and quasi-fascist states? Fascism, communism, nazism, socialism, etc, are subsets of leftism/statism.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Now I'm curious to know where you put (left) anarchism, such as mutualism and anarcho-communism.
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      > left anarchism If it is not statist, what actually makes it "left"? > anarcho-communism Same question, how could a stateless communism possibly work?
      - icebraining 12y ago
        If it is not statist, what actually makes it "left"? Lack of private property over the means of production would be a big difference.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Same question, how could a stateless communism possibly work? In even Marxist theory, communism-as-a-system (communism-as-an-ideology is simply the ideology which seeks communism-as-a-system as its ultimate goal) is what happens to socialism (which uses the State) when it succeeds and the State withers away. If the State hasn't withered away, you have (in Marxist parlance) socialism-as-a-system even if you have communism-as-an-ideology that motivates the present use of socialism-as-a-system. You can't have communism with a State. (Whether you can have communism at all in practice is still an open question.)
b_emery 12y ago
If people in academia were that driven by money, they wouldn't be in academia.
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  They _are_ driven by the money that is necessary to finance academia. They wouldnt be in academia if adacemia had to actually earn the money it needs to exist.
- omg2k 12y ago
  People in academia are absolutely driven by money: they need funding to purchase equipment, hire grad students, and pay their salary. Also, whether or not to grant tenure is judged (in part) by how much grant money an assistant professor has brought into the university.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    Yep. Also, beggars too are absolutely driven by money: it prevents them from starving.
mikeash 12y ago
That explains why academia is so pro-military. Oh, wait....
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
Oh, yes, those money-hungry academics, driving their Ferraris all day long...
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  Even if they all rode rusty bicycles, basic logic implies that they won't/can't bite the hand that feeds them simply because obviously nobody else would voluntarily feed them and they're (obviously) intelligent enough to realize this. Its a synergy. The state provides the academia funds nobody else would voluntarily provide them. In return, academia produces statists. Cue vicious circle of win-win.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    "statism", "basic logic", absolutization of money - you're showing all the symptoms of the die-hard libertarian.
kazinator 12y ago
Plenty of academics (and others) bite the hand that feeds them: they take their money from exactly those whom they criticize. This is in fact necessary for academic freedom. Just because you fund something at some university doesn't mean you get to dictate everyone's public expression there, as if that institution were a corporate subsidiary. However, in practice, those who are close to some particular project involving an outside agency probably face repercussions if they express criticism of that agency.

gress 12y ago

What you are saying here implies that Republicans are biased against academia, not the other way around.

jiggy2011 12y ago
If one of these statements is true then it's more likely that the other one is also true. It's a chicken and egg relationship.
fit2rule 12y ago
Why not both?
muuh-gnu 12y ago
Not necessarily Republicans, since they are statists too, although somewhat less than Dems. But for the sake of argument, yes, conservatives tend to be biased against statist academia because they are aware that since academia wouldnt exist without a state it is biased toward the state and against contra-statists. The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing.
- ameister14 12y ago
  I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican party- they advocate and have historically voted for extremely strong State power, just distributed for a greater degree of regional control.
  - JackFr 12y ago
    I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican Party.
    - ameister14 12y ago
      Why? What would that be?
- gress 12y ago
  > The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing. This is a complete straw man. Nobody is saying conservatives would be biased against 'knowledge itself'. What is being suggested is that they would be biased against social psychological research with the potential to change ideas about power relations away from supporting the status quo. Furthermore, if as you say, conservatives are supportive of this research being done, but just object to 'statist' academia, you will easily be able to prove that by pointing us to the independent institutions they have funded.

vdaniuk 12y ago

>Academia ... republicans/libertarians/capitalists ... state ... leftism. There are so many generalizations that this statement loses any value. Also state == leftism? What about fascist and quasi-fascist states?

muuh-gnu 12y ago
> Also state == leftism? Precisely. > What about fascist and quasi-fascist states? Fascism, communism, nazism, socialism, etc, are subsets of leftism/statism.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Now I'm curious to know where you put (left) anarchism, such as mutualism and anarcho-communism.
  - muuh-gnu 12y ago
    > left anarchism If it is not statist, what actually makes it "left"? > anarcho-communism Same question, how could a stateless communism possibly work?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      If it is not statist, what actually makes it "left"? Lack of private property over the means of production would be a big difference.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Same question, how could a stateless communism possibly work? In even Marxist theory, communism-as-a-system (communism-as-an-ideology is simply the ideology which seeks communism-as-a-system as its ultimate goal) is what happens to socialism (which uses the State) when it succeeds and the State withers away. If the State hasn't withered away, you have (in Marxist parlance) socialism-as-a-system even if you have communism-as-an-ideology that motivates the present use of socialism-as-a-system. You can't have communism with a State. (Whether you can have communism at all in practice is still an open question.)

b_emery 12y ago

If people in academia were that driven by money, they wouldn't be in academia.

muuh-gnu 12y ago
They _are_ driven by the money that is necessary to finance academia. They wouldnt be in academia if adacemia had to actually earn the money it needs to exist.
omg2k 12y ago
People in academia are absolutely driven by money: they need funding to purchase equipment, hire grad students, and pay their salary. Also, whether or not to grant tenure is judged (in part) by how much grant money an assistant professor has brought into the university.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  Yep. Also, beggars too are absolutely driven by money: it prevents them from starving.

mikeash 12y ago

That explains why academia is so pro-military. Oh, wait....

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

Oh, yes, those money-hungry academics, driving their Ferraris all day long...

muuh-gnu 12y ago
Even if they all rode rusty bicycles, basic logic implies that they won't/can't bite the hand that feeds them simply because obviously nobody else would voluntarily feed them and they're (obviously) intelligent enough to realize this. Its a synergy. The state provides the academia funds nobody else would voluntarily provide them. In return, academia produces statists. Cue vicious circle of win-win.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  "statism", "basic logic", absolutization of money - you're showing all the symptoms of the die-hard libertarian.

kazinator 12y ago

Plenty of academics (and others) bite the hand that feeds them: they take their money from exactly those whom they criticize. This is in fact necessary for academic freedom. Just because you fund something at some university doesn't mean you get to dictate everyone's public expression there, as if that institution were a corporate subsidiary. However, in practice, those who are close to some particular project involving an outside agency probably face repercussions if they express criticism of that agency.