Secrets of Conservatives’ Decades-Long War on Truth

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 10:13 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidBecause the remaining 1.5% got better plans, idiot. Such bullshit.

    His statement was still a lie. Many more than 1.5% could not keep their same plans. And you can't refute it dummy. As far as a better plan goes did you enjoy your better plan with pregnancy testing?
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 5262

    Mar 04, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    Because the remaining 1.5% got better plans, idiot. Such bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 10:30 PM GMT
    Imagine if we changed one word to describe conservatism icon_rolleyes.gif



    "All You Need Is War"


    War, War, War
    War, War, War
    War, War, War

    There's nothing you can do that can't be done
    Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
    Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
    It's easy

    Nothing you can make that can't be made
    No one you can save that can't be saved
    Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time
    It's easy

    All you need is war
    All you need is war
    All you need is war, war
    War is all you need

    War, War, War
    War, War, War
    War, War, War

    All you need is war
    All you need is war
    All you need is war, war
    War is all you need

    Nothing you can know that isn't known
    Nothing you can see that isn't shown
    Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
    It's easy

    All you need is war
    All you need is war
    All you need is war, war
    War is all you need

    All you need is War (All together, now!)
    All you need is War (Everybody!)
    All you need is War, War

    War is all you need
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    Yee-hai! (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)

    Yesterday (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    War is all you need (War is all you need)
    Oh yeah! (War is all you need)
    They hate you, yeah yeah yeah (War is all you need)
    They hate you, yeah yeah yeah (War is all you need)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    robbaker saidOsama is the worst democratic president ever .he's one jive sucker.talks the talk but doesn't do the walk.

    My, what a little racist YOU are! icon_biggrin.gif


    Here's your own ignorant hypocrisy exposed Art Deco.

    yelling racist one minute... and ... then a minute later......

    Art_Deco said
    QFT. You notice how they go right for the personal attacks whenever they're losing the argument? Typical childish, petullant behavior. Throw a temper tantrum until you get your way - how adult! And how US Right Wing. icon_razz.gif


    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4013652
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2015 1:50 AM GMT
    KJSharp saidAt least Conservatives don't reject the idea that objective truth exists.

    But, I agree that what Walker is doing is bad, although the Left is mostly responsible. Very few universities and academics believe in objective truth, and yet they still want funding for humanities departments, chairs, and professorships. For what purpose do humanities departments exist if truth is not held to be real and in some sense searchable and discernable? The answer for the past 60 years has been to espouse radical Leftism.

    There are (have been) only two reasons that provide a compelling incentive and impetus to fund the study of the humanities on a societal level. First is if society generally agrees that truth exists and its pursuit is therefore necessary. This is what a Medieval person would have felt, and is precisely why the university in the West was established in the first place. Second is the notion that humane learning is necessary for freedom, for how is man free if he cannot think about what the good life is and how and whether to pursue it. This is how the ancient Greek would have felt. A combination of these two gave rise to the study of the liberal arts in America, and is why until the past few decades Americans had a unique devotion to humane learning.

    But, now, there are too many Americans like the OP and not enough Americans like me to justify pouring money into the study of humane things, which is why the humanities are largely dying. Walker and Perry would rather just ditch the humanities from the university altogether, which is sad, but better than the status quo (if we aren't going to be truly free and liberally educated, at least let's not pretend in our hubris that we are). A truly authentic Conservative solution would be to return to a truly liberal arts curriculum, which means studying Western literature, philosophy, theology, theatre, history, and government from Homer until the present. Put differently, the solution would be to fire all the professors who teach classes like "Britney Spears and 1990s music", "queer ecology", "feminist popstars," and "Harry Potter", and hire professors who would teach courses like "Ancient Greek Tragedy", "Ancient Greek Comedy", "Enlightenment Philosophy", "Dostoevsky and Nietzsche," etc...

    But, alas, that would demand that we actually care about searching for truth, something that the majority of college-educated liberals do not believe in in the first place. As the New York Times described yesterday, the "Common Core" is trying to teach 2nd graders that all opinions cannot be facts (only scientific material claims can be factual). It's basically just conservatives and poor minorities who still cling to things like guns, religion, and "truth". In such a society, the university has lost its raison d'etre.


    This is the most rambling piece of crap I've read in a week. I totally missed that memo where Greek Tragedy has been supplanted by Britney Spears (but good job trying to sound relevant, grandpa, because the kids are SOOO into their Britney and Backstreet Boys today).

    I've heard of some ridiculous-SOUNDING course titles, but on deeper review found them to be pretty compelling courses with a serious discussion of contrasts in popular culture. But you gotta hate it on its face because, ugh, god, tenured professors are such entitled assholes with no grasp of the classics.

    In particular I'm amused that you believe the bar that a Medieval thinker would have measured with is what brought about the establishment of our universities. Did you mean the American Enlightenment? Which was kind of the opposite of Medieval thinking.

    But about rambling: your last paragraph. What the fuck. Somehow you've decried teaching second graders that opinion is inferior to "scientific material" (did you misquote them?). Did I misread that? THAT troubles you, an objectivist? Or that guns & religion are somewhere higher on the truthiness scale because conservatives (and poor minorities)?

    For THAT Walker gets a pass because liberals are to blame? This is such a non sequitur my head is spinning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 8:29 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said

    This is the most rambling piece of crap I've read in a week. I totally missed that memo where Greek Tragedy has been supplanted by Britney Spears (but good job trying to sound relevant, grandpa, because the kids are SOOO into their Britney and Backstreet Boys today).

    I've heard of some ridiculous-SOUNDING course titles, but on deeper review found them to be pretty compelling courses with a serious discussion of contrasts in popular culture. But you gotta hate it on its face because, ugh, god, tenured professors are such entitled assholes with no grasp of the classics.

    In particular I'm amused that you believe the bar that a Medieval thinker would have measured with is what brought about the establishment of our universities. Did you mean the American Enlightenment? Which was kind of the opposite of Medieval thinking.

    But about rambling: your last paragraph. What the fuck. Somehow you've decried teaching second graders that opinion is inferior to "scientific material" (did you misquote them?). Did I misread that? THAT troubles you, an objectivist? Or that guns & religion are somewhere higher on the truthiness scale because conservatives
    (and poor minorities)?

    For THAT Walker gets a pass because liberals are to blame? This is such a non sequitur my head is spinning.


    I don't know where to begin.

    1) Greek Trajedy HAS been supplanted by mere drivel. What percentage of college students in 1850, 1900, and 1950 read pieces of literature and thought that have been deemed by generations of men for millennia to be powerful and insightful and essential for pursuing goodness and truth? Answer: a much higher percentage of college students than in 2000 or 2015. Before you spout off bullshit, go look at a college course requirements guide in 2015 and its 1950 counterpart. You will see that the average college kid now does not become a learned individual in the same way he did 75 years ago. Hell, as most college professors know, kids can't write as well as they could 75 years ago, which is why colleges are imposing "writing" courses onto their students, courses which these colleges admit is necessary and remedial.

    2) Sure, some courses on a more esoteric topic can be enlightening if they lead back to discussing fundamental, timeless, and oft-asked questions and ideas of human existence; however, the majority of these classes fail to do so. Why am I so sure? The university by and large no longer believes in its core mission, as my initial post touches on. Why would I expect these courses to accomplish these lofty goals when the university doesn't want to aim that high anymore?

    3) It is factual that what we call "a college" or "the university" derives its existence from medieval universities. Now, what is more amusing to me is that you are completely unaware of the history of the American university, and yet you pretend to know so much! Yale and Harvard were founded as seminaries, Yale in 1701 and Harvard a little earlier. There, much like at their medieval counterparts, they had a classical liberal arts curriculum that emphasizes reading great works, classical texts, the ability to interpret classical, Medieval, and Renaissance texts, rhetoric, and grammar. This did not change until the 1960s, and even then much residual influence remained, an influence, I might add, which is responsible for Yale and Harvard better maintaining a course-offering and curriclum that is closer to a quintessential "liberal arts curriculum" than counterparts like Williams, Amherst, or Carleton.

    4) Nearly all liberal arts colleges in the United States, and therefore in the world, were established as religious institutions.

    5) I guess you "misread that". Go find the NYT article. I don't understand what you're saying.

    6) I don't give Walker a pass. I do, however, find great irony that a liberal would complain of a "Conservative decades-long war on Truth" when liberals are the ones responsible for rendering humane learning obsolete. I do not like Walker or Perry's solution. It proves that they are anti-intellectual and themselves not "humane men". I can sympathize with them, but I'd rather fix the university than get rid of it. I am authentically conservative, and like all of Yale's presidents up until at least 1950, believe that the university - as traditionally constructed and oriented - is vital for the maintenance of a democratic and free character of a polis and is vital for the preservation of an intellectual tradition. We abandon the university's rightful mission at our peril (the left). We destroy the university at our peril (Perry, Walker).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 6:44 PM GMT
    @MickeyTop

    KJSharp has done this before. His standard Modus Operandi is to (1) state a position and (2) attempt to refute everyone else by outright claiming or implying that they're unfamiliar with 'the canon' of classic literature. This is contrary to the proper way of discussion/arguing which is generally to (1) state a position and (2) introduce evidence of your own to persuade the reader/listener, or at least acknowledge your evidentiary shortcomings if you're stating a matter of faith or belief.

    He tried to do it here:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4021338?forumpage=1

    Apparently now he is, in part, waxing poetic about "the good old days" and comparing the efficacy of college then to now, in a superficial manner as you noted. Little does KJ acknowledge that but a fraction of people went to college in those "good old days" and so his suggestion that fewer people today are familiar with the classics is nonsensical beyond belief. What does the existence of a Brittney Spears course (which might have merit AND involve reference to classic works) have to do with traditional courses discussing the classics?

    What this reads like is as follows: KJ has had to read a LOT of the canon, classics are constantly on his mind because that's what occupies 8 hours of his day, every day, and he finds that most people don't want to (or can't) discuss classics and instead want to engage in more superficial and topical conversations. KJ just needs to find a person or outlet to discuss classics or ostensibly higher-level issues, and then engage the public like they don't have The Leviathan and Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature in front of them.

    Every 'profession' for lack of a better term will allow a person to become a master of that trade. The inherent problem with philosophers is that they think they're the masters of reason, which ostensibly reigns over ALL possible professions and superimposes itself everywhere.

    Very few people can truly be renaissance men. Doctors don't know about the law. Lawyers don't know about structural engineering. Engineers don't know about aesthetics. Artists don't know about derivatives and equity finance. Etc.

    Philosophy, at best, is a means to critical and proper thinking. But it's more procedural than substantive. Said another way, philosophy offers very few answers, but instead offers a methodical way of analyzing or thinking. Once KJ learns that he has an amazing machine for critical analysis and discussion, as opposed to 'having all the answers', we'll all be better off.

    If KJ or anyone else wants to dish philosophy, the following forums are excellent resources (Personally, I frequent one philosophy forum, and one religious forum, in addition to RJ):

    http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/

    http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

    Some threads crash, but other threads involve deep and heavy-hitting philosophical exchanges.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 6:54 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidThis guy is probably typical of a low informed, low intelligence voter. Likes to name call the GOP. Probably gets him hard doing so. Claims 98.5% can keep their plan and see their doctor, which most people know is false. Tries to claim the facts in what I cited support his position that Obama didn't lie, when that is contrary to the organizations' positions. Brings up Fox when neither source I cited was Fox. Anyway, it is what it is, dealing with an emotional, angry Obama supporter. Kind of like flogging an angry child.

    This seems to be the latest coordinated conservaposse script here - anyone who opposes their Right Wing propaganda is "low intelligence", "emotional" and "angry". But a problem is that it all reads like it comes from a copier machine. You guys need better and more imaginative writers!

    And an even more fundamental issue is that guys on RJ are remarkably well-educated and very intelligent. About the best of any online site I've ever known. Despite this being a jock site, kinda not what you'd expect.

    So that calling us "low intelligence" is really not gonna win you any fans here. Under-informed at times on specific issues, perhaps, but being low intelligence, very rarely here.



    +1

    But it keeps right-wingers happy and feeling superior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2015 11:13 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MickeyTop

    KJSharp has done this before. His standard Modus Operandi is to (1) state a position and (2) attempt to refute everyone else by outright claiming or implying that they're unfamiliar with 'the canon' of classic literature. This is contrary to the proper way of discussion/arguing which is generally to (1) state a position and (2) introduce evidence of your own to persuade the reader/listener, or at least acknowledge your evidentiary shortcomings if you're stating a matter of faith or belief.

    He tried to do it here:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4021338?forumpage=1

    Apparently now he is, in part, waxing poetic about "the good old days" and comparing the efficacy of college then to now, in a superficial manner as you noted. Little does KJ acknowledge that but a fraction of people went to college in those "good old days" and so his suggestion that fewer people today are familiar with the classics is nonsensical beyond belief. What does the existence of a Brittney Spears course (which might have merit AND involve reference to classic works) have to do with traditional courses discussing the classics?

    What this reads like is as follows: KJ has had to read a LOT of the canon, classics are constantly on his mind because that's what occupies 8 hours of his day, every day, and he finds that most people don't want to (or can't) discuss classics and instead want to engage in more superficial and topical conversations. KJ just needs to find a person or outlet to discuss classics or ostensibly higher-level issues, and then engage the public like they don't have The Leviathan and Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature in front of them.


    Like in the other thread, you don't follow threads very well, nor do you read posts very closely.

    1) I was not "responding" to everyone here. I raised an original objection. I was one of the very first to post in this thread. So, you are 2/2 in failing to understand the nature and contents of my post.

    2) If one is going to discuss higher education and its history, it would be helpful to know something about it. I do; MickeyTop (and many others)do not. So your quibble with my posts are that I am not talking out of my ass whereas many others are? What in heaven's name is wrong with you? You don't like reading substantive posts with which you disagree?

    Perhaps try choosing your spots better? It makes you look stupid to show sympathy to the guy who has no understanding about the history of the liberal arts or the university in Europe or America when the topic is explicitly about the university's position in American politics.

    3) Knowledge about the Western Canon is not needed for this discussion. Notice how much of my discussion concerns the HISTORY of the INSTITUTION of the university. I suppose this point is moot (and mute?) because you don't read posts very closely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2015 8:08 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MickeyTop

    KJSharp has done this before. His standard Modus Operandi is to (1) state a position and (2) attempt to refute everyone else by outright claiming or implying that they're unfamiliar with 'the canon' of classic literature. This is contrary to the proper way of discussion/arguing which is generally to (1) state a position and (2) introduce evidence of your own to persuade the reader/listener, or at least acknowledge your evidentiary shortcomings if you're stating a matter of faith or belief.

    He tried to do it here:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4021338?forumpage=1

    Apparently now he is, in part, waxing poetic about "the good old days" and comparing the efficacy of college then to now, in a superficial manner as you noted. Little does KJ acknowledge that but a fraction of people went to college in those "good old days" and so his suggestion that fewer people today are familiar with the classics is nonsensical beyond belief. What does the existence of a Brittney Spears course (which might have merit AND involve reference to classic works) have to do with traditional courses discussing the classics?

    What this reads like is as follows: KJ has had to read a LOT of the canon, classics are constantly on his mind because that's what occupies 8 hours of his day, every day, and he finds that most people don't want to (or can't) discuss classics and instead want to engage in more superficial and topical conversations. KJ just needs to find a person or outlet to discuss classics or ostensibly higher-level issues, and then engage the public like they don't have The Leviathan and Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature in front of them.

    Every 'profession' for lack of a better term will allow a person to become a master of that trade. The inherent problem with philosophers is that they think they're the masters of reason, which ostensibly reigns over ALL possible professions and superimposes itself everywhere.

    Very few people can truly be renaissance men. Doctors don't know about the law. Lawyers don't know about structural engineering. Engineers don't know about aesthetics. Artists don't know about derivatives and equity finance. Etc.

    Philosophy, at best, is a means to critical and proper thinking. But it's more procedural than substantive. Said another way, philosophy offers very few answers, but instead offers a methodical way of analyzing or thinking. Once KJ learns that he has an amazing machine for critical analysis and discussion, as opposed to 'having all the answers', we'll all be better off.

    If KJ or anyone else wants to dish philosophy, the following forums are excellent resources (Personally, I frequent one philosophy forum, and one religious forum, in addition to RJ):

    http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/

    http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

    Some threads crash, but other threads involve deep and heavy-hitting philosophical exchanges.


    Wow, you honestly need to think before you leap. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion they should take it elsewhere? In addition, you are actually the proof of his argument. You are a great example of a product of that educational system he is describing. But it's not worth debating. Having seen so many of your fabricated stories and illogical comments, I doubt you see the irony.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2015 8:28 AM GMT
    KJSharp saidAt least Conservatives don't reject the idea that objective truth exists.

    But, I agree that what Walker is doing is bad, although the Left is mostly responsible. Very few universities and academics believe in objective truth, and yet they still want funding for humanities departments, chairs, and professorships. For what purpose do humanities departments exist if truth is not held to be real and in some sense searchable and discernable? The answer for the past 60 years has been to espouse radical Leftism.

    There are (have been) only two reasons that provide a compelling incentive and impetus to fund the study of the humanities on a societal level. First is if society generally agrees that truth exists and its pursuit is therefore necessary. This is what a Medieval person would have felt, and is precisely why the university in the West was established in the first place. Second is the notion that humane learning is necessary for freedom, for how is man free if he cannot think about what the good life is and how and whether to pursue it. This is how the ancient Greek would have felt. A combination of these two gave rise to the study of the liberal arts in America, and is why until the past few decades Americans had a unique devotion to humane learning.

    But, now, there are too many Americans like the OP and not enough Americans like me to justify pouring money into the study of humane things, which is why the humanities are largely dying. Walker and Perry would rather just ditch the humanities from the university altogether, which is sad, but better than the status quo (if we aren't going to be truly free and liberally educated, at least let's not pretend in our hubris that we are). A truly authentic Conservative solution would be to return to a truly liberal arts curriculum, which means studying Western literature, philosophy, theology, theatre, history, and government from Homer until the present. Put differently, the solution would be to fire all the professors who teach classes like "Britney Spears and 1990s music", "queer ecology", "feminist popstars," and "Harry Potter", and hire professors who would teach courses like "Ancient Greek Tragedy", "Ancient Greek Comedy", "Enlightenment Philosophy", "Dostoevsky and Nietzsche," etc...

    But, alas, that would demand that we actually care about searching for truth, something that the majority of college-educated liberals do not believe in in the first place. As the New York Times described yesterday, the "Common Core" is trying to teach 2nd graders that all opinions cannot be facts (only scientific material claims can be factual). It's basically just conservatives and poor minorities who still cling to things like guns, religion, and "truth". In such a society, the university has lost its raison d'etre.


    For those who would like to read the opinion piece in the Times in order to find out exactly what was said, here is a link:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2015 11:53 PM GMT
    Quiet on the western Front
    Thanks for posting that link about common core/ moral relativism. It's in my bookmarks and will be recycled.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2015 8:23 AM GMT
    Partly on legislating based on fiction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-political-virgins.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2015 8:53 AM GMT
    QuietontheWesternFront saidPartly on legislating based on fiction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-political-virgins.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region


    I skimmed over that and wished I hadn't. Sickening.

    I'll read it later when I'm in another frame of mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2015 2:24 PM GMT
    KJSharp said 2) Sure, some courses on a more esoteric topic can be enlightening if they lead back to discussing fundamental, timeless, and oft-asked questions and ideas of human existence; however, the majority of these classes fail to do so. Why am I so sure? The university by and large no longer believes in its core mission, as my initial post touches on. Why would I expect these courses to accomplish these lofty goals when the university doesn't want to aim that high anymore?

    Well, sort of. What you're not addressing---or acknowledging---is that there has been (for good or ill) a shift in what society expects a university's "core mission" to be. Yes, for a couple of hundred years in this country it was expected to include classical Greek and Latin language and literature. But there is only so much time in a term, and so many terms for a degree, and there has been a general sense that the knowledge that is considered crucial is no longer the same "canon" as it had been. Oddly, I'm on the same page with you, actually. I studied Greek in college (Latin in high school) and I found it immensely useful. It has a salient effect on the writing of English, too, because so much of our vocabulary derives from these sources; some of the silliest mistakes people make in writing or speaking could be avoided with some knowledge of the etymology.

    However, I'm not a young person starting out in a vastly different world than I was raised in, so it is not for me to say what the university's "core mission" should be nowadays. It isn't for you, either.