Discussion in 'Current Events' started by big_arrow_up, Mar 19, 2007.
This will be a good documentary of how liberalism runs rampid in colleges across America.
It looks pretty funny, thanks for the heads up
how liberalism runs rampant? ha, that's a good one. what a wonderful clip on the effects of statements being taken out of context...
Out of context? Now that is worthy of a laugh as well.
I have not seen the film. After seeing the cheap innuendo and comments without context from unidentified speakers in the trailer, I do not intend to waste my time watching the film. It appears to be created with the purpose of inflaming viewers.
I notice that few of the people in the trailer actually state the subject that they are talking about - so we can not verify what it is that they are talking about. Very few of the statements would stand alone. I think this fits the term "out of context".
Watch the trailer again, but think about this: they are talking about what the most-vocal students want. The tie-wearing adults sitting at desks are members of faculty and administration who are complaining about the high level of PC that many students demand. The students are complaining about the student groups and the faculty who have caved in to the demands of their [-]customers[/-] students.
I think this guy watched the movie "PCU", and thought it was all true. He took some footage and cut it to fit his thesis.
Some quotes from the trailer:
"They really believe that this is the only view any reasonable person could possibly hold" could be said of many groups - left, right or any other direction. I can not tell who she is talking about.
"If a professor is comparing one of the students who took his class to Hitler, and to suicide bombers - a student, by the way, from the Middle East - then I think that's a story", says the interviewer. (He does not say whether he has any evidence that it is a true story.) Is the interviewer the one who is trying to be PC? (Where was this guy when Bill O'Reilly compared a Viet Nam vet to Hitler? I imagine that O'Reilly would not invite him to call and arrange a time that he was not already busy.)
If he wants to find someone who compares people from the Middle East to suicide bombers, he might have better luck outside of college campuses.
You are missing the point. Anyone that has attended any university knows that they are under the control, infested you will, by liberal tree huggers. It was definately this way for me. After biting my tongue every day to avoid speaking my mind to those Communists professors, and therefore having my grades suffer, I finally got frustrated enough to speak out. And as I feared my grades declined. And I am talking about classes where the opinions of students are aksed. Context or no....there is not much room for opinions outside of Liberal ideas on campus these days.
As you missed mine. To put my first point more succinctly: this guy appears to be trying the Michael Moore [Fahrenheit 9/11] style of filmmaking, which ends up being editorial content disguised as journalism. The intent appears to be to inflame the viewer, and I do not find it worth my time.
Since I am someone that has attended a university, I can agree that they are infested by liberal tree huggers - in the form of students. Since students have a choice of which college to attend, which field to study and which classes to take, the faculty are selected in a form of free market - controlled by the students. But I think I already tried to make that point.
I think you chose the wrong college. Or chose the wrong professors at the right college. Or you have your own definition of "Communist".
In my experience, the idea behind asking opinions is to get you to back up those opinions with reasoned thought. It is the Socratic method (or something similar).
Yes, it is easiest to give the instructor an opinion and reasons that have already been demonstrated and fleshed out by that instructor, but a good instructor's BS detector will alarm. (A few - bad ones - could not be convinced of any opinion different from their own. These may be used as examples in the film, but they are not rampant. Talking to other students, I learned about instructors to avoid.) It may be that your grades declined because you were unable to convince the instructor of your reasons for your opinions. They expected your preparatory work (i.e. high school) to train you in expository method, so you could use it in college.
I think there is room for all kinds of opinions, but some are a lot more work to maintain. There has never been much room for those who are unable to examine their opinions and how they arrived at those opinions - because that translates into an inability to learn.
You might be interested in some of Noam Chomsky's writings, since he takes the position that our universities are systems of indoctrination. He actually knows how to put together a good line of reasoning, with identifiable sources and evidence. That allows the reader to make his own judgement.
BTW, let me warn everyone about "rampid": DO NOT GO THERE. Here is more info: Rampid Interactive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Please stay away from Rampid's website. DAMHIK.
Noam Chompksy????!!! Nothing but a communist attempting to disguise himself as a "libertarian". No...I'm not interested in what that nut has to say. However, I did find the article below rather interesting.
I wanted to point out that you share Chomsky's opinion that our colleges and universities are institutions of indoctrination. I do not find Windschuttle a trustworthy source. He may be a Socialist attempting to disguise himself as a "conservative".
The trouble with Keith Windschuttle - Gerard Henderson - www.theage.com.au
I still do not find your use of the word "communist" makes any sense.
Rather than write another long post (that probably won't be read), I have decided to use your URL method. I will let the URLs do the talking:
No, I DO NOT say that our colleges are institutions of "indoctrination." That is apparently your belief and since you seem to agree with that Marxist Chomksky then here is something that might make you and him snap to attention........
You are absolutely right. It seemed that you agreed with the position of the filmmaker whose trailer you posted.
Now I see that you have made the same mistake that I did.
The only mistake I've made is to get in an arguement with a Liberal. That is a lost cause no matter what the circumstances.
An argument isn't just contradiction.
I think I now understand: "Communist" (and variations thereof) is your pet name for anyone who points out any weaknesses in your statements or otherwise challenges your tenuously-supported beliefs.
I could say more, but I fear I will only make you more defensive and your denial will only become greater.
Weakness? I'm still waiting on you to submit any proof that I have been wrong about anything. OH my god that such the typical liberal tactic. You all spew out what you think are facts and can't proove anything. AL GORE sounds familiar?
Are you asking the meaning of the word? Please do not expect me to be your dictionary.
If you are doubting that there were weaknesses in your statements, I might agree - because you have not stated much of anything. You have mostly implied things that you have not backed up, and you have ignored those things you are not capable of arguing against (or, possibly, incapable of understanding). I find your arguments lame - but I was trying to make that point with the most recent YouTube link I posted.
I will not wait for you to submit proof that you have been correct about anything, since we are not likely to agree on what constitutes proof. I guess that your limited frame of reference will not allow you to understand anything that might challenge what you already believe.
Not much can be proved by the words in this thread. I dislike criticism of spelling and typography errors on electronic forums, so I'll skip all those.
Your words, "...those Communists professors...", "Nothing but a communist attempting to disguise himself as a 'libertarian'", "...that Marxist Chomksky..." might prove that you see a Communist conspiracy all around you. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference.
Your words, "No...I'm not interested in what that nut has to say" might prove that you resort to name-calling of those with whom you disagree. And it might prove that you are afraid to have your opinions challenged. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference.
What? Which "that" is such a typical liberal [again with the name-calling] tactic? Be careful how you answer this question, in that you do not lay out a tactic you use - that might be a sign that you are a Liberal.
For the most part, I have been giving my opinion. It appears that you view opinions that differ from your own as inherently wrong and contrary to fact. I see mostly opinion in your writing, too. Maybe you believe that your opinions are facts?
Wasn't he the guy who won an award for making a movie out of a slide show with voiceover? It sounds like "The Hellstrom Chronicles" all over again. [Yup, I am that old.] You mean the guy who won the 2000 presidential election, but then lost it due to the actions of the brother of his opponent and an activist court? Maybe some help from Diebold, too? I think I remember that guy. Somewhere, I have a photocopy of a traffic ticket he got for speeding in a rented Lincoln - which I thought worthy of a laugh.
Your defensive, broken-record posts, along with the unwillingness or inability to address [or understand?] most of my points, makes me reluctant to continue this thread. I should have been as smart as those who pointed out the laughability and the out-of-context quotes of the "Indoctrination U" trailer. They made their statements and got out. Maybe they know you are a lost cause, or maybe they fear the uncontrolled rage expressed in your writing.
A wise man once said, "Never argue with a fool, he'll just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".
Something is wrong with you. SERIOUSLY! I presented a link to a movie that shows what anyone that's attended a university before can vouch for and I get your obsessive compulsive rants about...well...nothing. Seek help.l Mentally. I'm not sure our insurance will foot the bill but I wouldn't let that stop you. Man your ranting is so annoying. It's funny, yet, irritating at the same time. This has developed into yet another example that just proves that Michael Savage was right...Liberalism IS a mental disorder.Well, have fun dividing this one up into pieces and ranting at each one. I'm through with you. I have a strong feeling though that you aren't even close to being through with me. HAPPY RANTING!
Does that mean he left? Can we disrespect the trailer some more now?
I attented a university and didn't find any of that. huh. sorry i've been in Europe for a while and just got around to reading this. Now I'm just laughing mein arsch off. I think they call such 'rants' with support and a list of references 'essays' in those communist universities.
you know, if they were communist, maybe it wouldn't be so damn expensive to get an education.
it reminds me of something one of my sociology professors said. Societies used to be small enough where they could sustain themselves on the food they collected. they worked together and all had enough to live. they lived as a community; therefore, they were commun-ist. when they started building up a surplus, someone had to be in charge of dividing it up, thus creating an inequality in power. Thus, he who had more had the opportunity to capitalize.
Ah, but alas, this is no place for such a topic. i'll go back to recycling and hugging that nice pine tree outside.
So apparently nothing one says on an internet chat board can be true anymore unless they post links. Ok. I'll go along with that.
Separate names with a comma.