The "civil war" thread made me think about the party I'd really like to see, but never will: the Honesty
Party.
The Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).
Am I too cynical on this? Would it be a bad idea?
What kinds of procedures could they have? For instance:
- Make all government-collected data, barring personal information, public.
- When reporting or acting on projections, use the median value of several. (Kind of like in various sports, throwing out the highest and lowest judges' scores.)
- Not take "positions" on anything; only have policies. (Or, if you will, have the principles they state only follow from the policies they enact. So they don't have a "position" on climate change; they have policies which have specific goals and timelines for things like carbon emissions, waste reduction, etc.) No talk of what they are "committed to"; just explanation of what they have done.
- Make policies based on surveys of popular support, rather than ideology. The goal is to represent the most of the electorate, rather than any specific "base". (Of course, for this to work, surveys will need to ask more complex questions, such as balancing short-term and long-term goals. Lowering taxes and/or increasing spending in the short-term will be popular, but long-term increases in the tax burden won't, so surveys have to explicitly and honestly address this.)
Its not a bad set of ideals, but what about the first time one of them has to run for office and do opposition research, and such? I think some people might want to ascribe to these ideals, but they would likely fail in getting representatives who would win elections.
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 17, 2022, 07:48:35 AM
Its not a bad set of ideals, but what about the first time one of them has to run for office and do opposition research, and such? I think some people might want to ascribe to these ideals, but they would likely fail in getting representatives who would win elections.
Of course! What I'm interested in is what ways could politicians act that would be in the best interest of the country and the democratic system, rather than any particular party? (Which would unfortunately prevent them being elected.)
I believe the "ideal" politician for the public good would be worth voting for,
regardless of party affiliation, and the worst aspects of politicians have to do with "getting elected",
rather than their particular ideology. (i.e. The most annoying practices aren't limited to any one party or place on the political spectrum.)
Maybe add, for emphasis, there are very few solutions in life, mostly tradeoffs, and with government that's even more true.
QuoteThe Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).
I think DJT proved you can get elected while appearing to never have met a profession politician handler, which is form of honesty. Some voted for him because his faults made him seem more like a person. Whereas most politicians speak like attorneys.
How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy. A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).
Ben Winters's novel Golden State explores this idea.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 17, 2022, 07:28:09 AM
[...]
- Make policies based on surveys of popular support, rather than ideology. The goal is to represent the most of the electorate, rather than any specific "base".
[...]
Quote from: mahagonny on February 17, 2022, 08:23:59 AM
[...]
How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy. A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).
[...]
I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not
hidden agendas, just "agendas").
Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.
Without
some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?
Or would you be content if it can be shown that popular opinion supports 'woke' policies, regardless of whether you think such policies devalue free speech or meritocracy or anything else 'ideological'?
Quote from: mahagonny on February 17, 2022, 08:23:59 AM
Maybe add, for emphasis, there are very few solutions in life, mostly tradeoffs, and with government that's even more true.
QuoteThe Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).
I think DJT proved you can get elected while appearing to never have met a profession politician handler, which is form of honesty.
But it was decidedly
uninformed, such as when he promised to bring back coal. Even people in the coal industry knew that wasn't going to happen.
So that's not really
honesty as much as just being completely
unfiltered.
Quote
How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy. A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).
This would result in a lot less radical decisions. All kinds of votes to "Get rid of X" can get passed because "get rid of" is vague enough that lots of people can be "for" the idea even when they have completely incompatible visions of what that means (like Brexit). Being able to only discuss
concrete proposals would force much more productive (i.e.
realistic) debate.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on February 17, 2022, 08:59:30 AM
I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").
Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.
Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?
Or would you be content if it can be shown that popular opinion supports 'woke' policies, regardless of whether you think such policies devalue free speech or meritocracy or anything else 'ideological'?
(Apologies for the double post.)
John McWhorter argues that all kinds of woke initiatives actually hurt the people they are supposedly intended to help.
So politicians, businesses, etc. can hide behind their
apparent ideology (wokeness or whatever else) and be hypocritical or completely abandon it the moment it becomes in their interest to do so. The vagueness of what it means to be "anti-racist" or "inclusive" allows a vast amount of wiggle room. On the other hand, a specific policy proposal of "doing X for people who fit criterion Y" will prevent that kind of hedging about what it means to be in favour of some principle.
People have to either be for or against the proposal, and then say precisely why. If the proposal gets defeated, then any new proposal produces a clean slate since people will now have to decide about this
alternative concrete proposal.
There will be a
much smaller range of specific things someone will favour, than what they will imply by their supposed ideology.
There's a difference between saying 'Ideology is insufficient' and 'Ideology should play no part.'
Eliminating discussion of ideology wouldn't make policy debate any more transparent or informative.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on February 17, 2022, 09:22:14 AM
There's a difference between saying 'Ideology is insufficient' and 'Ideology should play no part.'
Eliminating discussion of ideology wouldn't make policy debate any more transparent or informative.
But it gets out of calling people names for their being for or against specific proposals. In the real world, consequences are rarely entirely on one side or the other; evaluating proposals on their merits rather than on the
perceived motivations of the people presenting them would produce much less heat and much more light.
I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).
QuoteI'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").
Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.
Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?
Good point. It may be already too late, since the radical left has twisted words so they are no longer usable. For example, racism gets called antiracism.
I guess there's no solution.
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 17, 2022, 09:56:00 AM
I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).
How about being gabby and scattered, your views contradicting each other. For example, one year Biden is law-and-order and a few years later he's 'looting is patriotic.'
Compared to that, the unfiltered guy resembles a person much more.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 17, 2022, 10:00:48 AM
QuoteI'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").
Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.
Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?
Good point. It may be already too late, since the radical left has twisted words so they are no longer usable. For example, racism gets called antiracism.
I guess there's no solution.
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 17, 2022, 09:56:00 AM
I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).
How about being gabby and scattered, your views contradicting each other. For example, one year Biden is law-and-order and a few years later he's 'looting is patriotic.'
Compared to that, the unfiltered guy resembles a person much more.
You don't mean President Trump with the above, right? He had tons of contradicting views over time.
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.
And this tendency has turned into an agitprop-fueled hysteria, at least in America and, I believe, in Britain.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.
Well, in principle the idea of
national parties means that a party has to consider what's good for the
whole country, whereas if there were no parties everyone would just be out for what was good for
their constituents. Of course, over time parties do develop regional strongholds, but I can't think of a good way to get independent members to place a high priority on the
national interest.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 17, 2022, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.
Well, in principle the idea of national parties means that a party has to consider what's good for the whole country, whereas if there were no parties everyone would just be out for what was good for their constituents. Of course, over time parties do develop regional strongholds, but I can't think of a good way to get independent members to place a high priority on the national interest.
Political parties are no longer a benefit, no matter what their purview should be.
American citizens, at least, are very aware of being "Americans."
I don't think eliminating political parties would erase that.
And the whole problem with political parties is that politicians do exclusively think of
their constituents and are very ready to play on their hysterias and bigotries to stay elected or ramrod though some bit of partisan legislation.
Perhaps we could hear from someone in history or political science on this issue?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 12:12:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 17, 2022, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.
Well, in principle the idea of national parties means that a party has to consider what's good for the whole country, whereas if there were no parties everyone would just be out for what was good for their constituents. Of course, over time parties do develop regional strongholds, but I can't think of a good way to get independent members to place a high priority on the national interest.
Political parties are no longer a benefit, no matter what their purview should be.
American citizens, at least, are very aware of being "Americans."
I don't think eliminating political parties would erase that.
And the whole problem with political parties is that politicians do exclusively think of their constituents and are very ready to play on their hysterias and bigotries to stay elected or ramrod though some bit of partisan legislation.
Perhaps we could hear from someone in history or political science on this issue?
What if there were some sort of threshhold parties would have to reach geographically; e.g. "X percent of members from each of Y regions"?
The Canadian constitution has an amending formula like that requiring a the approval of a minimum number of provincial legislatures. "There must be at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of Canada's population."
If parties could not have certain powers unless they met some criteria like that, then they'd need to broaden their support.
"Honesty Party," like in when you all get together and eat and play 'Truth or Dare' all night?
<<runs off to hide...>>
M.
We already have an Honesty Party. I read it on the internet today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/tech/trump-app-beta/index.html
Everything here will be the Truth. Because "Truth" is in its name.
Quote from: Aster on February 17, 2022, 01:13:38 PM
We already have an Honesty Party. I read it on the internet today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/tech/trump-app-beta/index.html
Everything here will be the Truth. Because "Truth" is in its name.
And on the same day, almost, the democratic party has let us know that they alone believe that black lives matter, echoing the racially oppressive statement from our radical President 'if you haven't figured out whether you're for me or you're for Donald Trump, you ain't black.'
"Black Lives Matter filings reveal prominent Democratic lawyer Marc Elias and another longtime ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have taken on key roles in the charity amid scrutiny over its leadership and finances.
"Elias, best known for his funding of British ex-spy Christopher Steele's discredited anti-Trump dossier while he served as Clinton's 2016 campaign general counsel, appears to be representing the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation through his recently formed Elias Law Group. BLM's national organization repeatedly lists the Elias firm as one of its addresses and states in its short-year 2020 Form 990 that its books were now in the care of the Elias Law Group.
"Additionally, Minyon Moore, a longtime top ally of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, is now listed as part of BLM's board of directors in the charity's filings.
"It's not clear when BLM's relationships with Elias Law Group and Moore began." -Washington Examiner
I expect you've all been following developments: with the founder having split from BLM after amassing a fortune no one would admit to being in charge. That's all changed now. Maybe they should just change the democratic party name to 'the Party That Doesn't Hate BIPOCs.'
Of course, BLM is now more exposed and unpopular than ever, so this could turn out to be a a liability. At a time when a few tepid democrat voices are saying 'uh...Marxism, no...abolish the police and the nuclear family, no' ("a Cry From the Far Middle?" - thank you, P. J. O'Rourke) the democratic establishment says 'yeah, that's us.'
Quote from: mahagonny on February 17, 2022, 09:06:15 PM
Quote from: Aster on February 17, 2022, 01:13:38 PM
We already have an Honesty Party. I read it on the internet today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/tech/trump-app-beta/index.html
Everything here will be the Truth. Because "Truth" is in its name.
And on the same day, almost, the democratic party has let us know that they alone believe that black lives matter, echoing the racially oppressive statement from our radical President 'if you haven't figured out whether you're for me or you're for Donald Trump, you ain't black.'
"Black Lives Matter filings reveal prominent Democratic lawyer Marc Elias and another longtime ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have taken on key roles in the charity amid scrutiny over its leadership and finances.
"Elias, best known for his funding of British ex-spy Christopher Steele's discredited anti-Trump dossier while he served as Clinton's 2016 campaign general counsel, appears to be representing the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation through his recently formed Elias Law Group. BLM's national organization repeatedly lists the Elias firm as one of its addresses and states in its short-year 2020 Form 990 that its books were now in the care of the Elias Law Group.
"Additionally, Minyon Moore, a longtime top ally of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, is now listed as part of BLM's board of directors in the charity's filings.
"It's not clear when BLM's relationships with Elias Law Group and Moore began." -Washington Examiner
I expect you've all been following developments: with the founder having split from BLM after amassing a fortune no one would admit to being in charge. That's all changed now. Maybe they should just change the democratic party name to 'the Party That Doesn't Hate BIPOCs.'
Of course, BLM is now more exposed and unpopular than ever, so this could turn out to be a a liability. At a time when a few tepid democrat voices are saying 'uh...Marxism, no...abolish the police and the nuclear family, no' ("a Cry From the Far Middle?" - thank you, P. J. O'Rourke) the democratic establishment says 'yeah, that's us.'
Wow. You went full Tucker Carlson. Here we have overly broad, manufactured generalizations, which are supported by cherry-picked news snippets that themselves don't actually say anything, are not relevant, or are purely speculative in nature.
If you are trying to somehow link this mismashed series of statements into the thread topic, I do not feel that this is a good way to go about it.
Unless your entire post was total and utter satire. In that case sir, I salute you! That was some A-grade beef.
I nominate Aster to run Black Lives Matter. Here's some information to get you started.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/06/08/black-lives-matter-americans-are-divided-movement
ETA: since BLM has turned out to be like a political hot potato I thought they could use some serious brainpower over there! People are saying things like 'where did all that money end up? And why are people running from it?' And not only conservatives are wondering.
What BLM's friends are saying about BLM: 'Everybody calm down. They don't really believe the things they believe.'
(I don't know that my post was strongly relevant to Marshy's interesting questions in the opening post, but probably about as relevant as your post about Trump.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
Quote from: downer on February 18, 2022, 07:11:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
I can't say as to countries, but in Canada the 3 territories don't have parties in their legislatures. (They also have really small populations, compared to the provinces.)
Quote from: Aster on February 18, 2022, 05:47:03 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 17, 2022, 09:06:15 PM
Quote from: Aster on February 17, 2022, 01:13:38 PM
We already have an Honesty Party. I read it on the internet today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/tech/trump-app-beta/index.html
Everything here will be the Truth. Because "Truth" is in its name.
And on the same day, almost, the democratic party has let us know that they alone believe that black lives matter, echoing the racially oppressive statement from our radical President 'if you haven't figured out whether you're for me or you're for Donald Trump, you ain't black.'
"Black Lives Matter filings reveal prominent Democratic lawyer Marc Elias and another longtime ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have taken on key roles in the charity amid scrutiny over its leadership and finances.
"Elias, best known for his funding of British ex-spy Christopher Steele's discredited anti-Trump dossier while he served as Clinton's 2016 campaign general counsel, appears to be representing the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation through his recently formed Elias Law Group. BLM's national organization repeatedly lists the Elias firm as one of its addresses and states in its short-year 2020 Form 990 that its books were now in the care of the Elias Law Group.
"Additionally, Minyon Moore, a longtime top ally of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, is now listed as part of BLM's board of directors in the charity's filings.
"It's not clear when BLM's relationships with Elias Law Group and Moore began." -Washington Examiner
I expect you've all been following developments: with the founder having split from BLM after amassing a fortune no one would admit to being in charge. That's all changed now. Maybe they should just change the democratic party name to 'the Party That Doesn't Hate BIPOCs.'
Of course, BLM is now more exposed and unpopular than ever, so this could turn out to be a a liability. At a time when a few tepid democrat voices are saying 'uh...Marxism, no...abolish the police and the nuclear family, no' ("a Cry From the Far Middle?" - thank you, P. J. O'Rourke) the democratic establishment says 'yeah, that's us.'
Wow. You went full Tucker Carlson. Here we have overly broad, manufactured generalizations, which are supported by cherry-picked news snippets that themselves don't actually say anything, are not relevant, or are purely speculative in nature.
If you are trying to somehow link this mismashed series of statements into the thread topic, I do not feel that this is a good way to go about it.
Unless your entire post was total and utter satire. In that case sir, I salute you! That was some A-grade beef.
I'm pretty sure
mahoganny is a Russian troll sent here to recruit unhappy adjuncts to the MAGA world by convincing them that the academic world is their enemy. And that their only true friend is the same party that is trying to shut down public education. Not sure how that will work out for the unhappy adjuncts but hey...
Nice BLM support.
Quote from: downer on February 18, 2022, 07:11:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
Regardless, political parties in America have simply become liabilities and are threatening democracy.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 18, 2022, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: downer on February 18, 2022, 07:11:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
Regardless, political parties in America have simply become liabilities and are threatening democracy.
How would you avoid them? (Honest question) It seems to me that informal coalitions would have to form to pass any legislation, and then it gets to informal horse-trading ("If you vote for my Bill X I'll vote for your Bill Y" and so on. Then formalizing the coalition makes it more efficient, etc.
(Now, rules regarding funding, procedures, etc. that favour members of recognized parties is another thing, but people wearing "team shirts" seems inevitable.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 18, 2022, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: downer on February 18, 2022, 07:11:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
Regardless, political parties in America have simply become liabilities and are threatening democracy.
As a registered democrat who's been having a political reckoning in the last several years, I don't agree that the republican party is threatening us. It needs to find out for itself if Trumpism can be assimilated into something broader and more unifying.
All I hear from you, Wahoo, dear boy, is an admission that the democratic party is sick in the head. Congratulations! But your opinion that the republican party is beyond redemption is apparently just a standard hyper-partisan attitude that goes back years. Misery loves company.
Thing is, Trump was necessary, because he figured out (or maybe naturally possessed) a way to stand up to the toxic political correct culture (now called wokeism). I wish there had been a way to stand up to it that I liked better, but I can't think of one, and he filled the role.
If I got to construct a way out of the current mess it would be a young black Reaganesque republican president. Someone who could dispose of the radical democratic ideological bullying junk without sounding mean.
ETA:
Quote
I'm pretty sure mahoganny is a Russian troll sent here to recruit unhappy adjuncts to the MAGA world by convincing them that the academic world is their enemy. And that their only true friend is the same party that is trying to shut down public education. Not sure how that will work out for the unhappy adjuncts but hey...
Long as you brought it up, ciao_yall: I'm sincerely interested. what in your estimate are the current prevailing, commonest attitudes toward the academic world among adjunct faculty?
Quote from: mahagonny on February 19, 2022, 06:56:51 AM
Quote
I'm pretty sure mahoganny is a Russian troll sent here to recruit unhappy adjuncts to the MAGA world by convincing them that the academic world is their enemy. And that their only true friend is the same party that is trying to shut down public education. Not sure how that will work out for the unhappy adjuncts but hey...
Long as you brought it up, ciao_yall: I'm sincerely interested. what in your estimate are the current prevailing, commonest attitudes toward the academic world among adjunct faculty?
I'm sure the ones who would like a full-time job are more focused on trying to grow higher education to create opportunities for themselves. Or deciding it isn't going to work out for them and putting their skills and education to work in ways that will meet their personal and professional goals.
Those who don't wish to make a career in higher education are probably focused on their main careers or other factors outside of their lives, and getting whatever personal benefit they get out of teaching.
Anyone who works in an environment and comes in full of resentment like you,
mahagonny tends to drown in their own miserable bitter stew before long.
That's why I don't think you are for real.
My pet theory is that you are getting paid by some Russian troll farm to get in character and fool around on this board before you go home to a shot of vodka and watch RT to see if you are going to get drafted to invade Ukraine or play on the ROC curling team.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 19, 2022, 06:48:17 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 18, 2022, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: downer on February 18, 2022, 07:11:11 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 17, 2022, 11:32:18 AM
The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.
Are there any countries which have done this, apart from China and Russia?
Regardless, political parties in America have simply become liabilities and are threatening democracy.
How would you avoid them? (Honest question) It seems to me that informal coalitions would have to form to pass any legislation...
Of course.
People will always have political leanings and zealotries. And politicians will always need backing.
And this is 100% hypothetical and, since it will not happen, a somewhat pointless conjecture. But obviously American politics would need to redesign its protocols.
I just think that political parties are now simply divisive. We tend to root for candidates as if we are rooting for a football team. And the Republicans' entire agenda is demonizing Democratic politicians, China, and immigrants. There is tremendous group-think and doublethink going on there.
The system is working, as dismalist says, but it is badly broken. The Democrat / Republican divide is the rupture in the core.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 19, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 19, 2022, 06:56:51 AM
Quote
I'm pretty sure mahoganny is a Russian troll sent here to recruit unhappy adjuncts to the MAGA world by convincing them that the academic world is their enemy. And that their only true friend is the same party that is trying to shut down public education. Not sure how that will work out for the unhappy adjuncts but hey...
Long as you brought it up, ciao_yall: I'm sincerely interested. what in your estimate are the current prevailing, commonest attitudes toward the academic world among adjunct faculty?
I'm sure the ones who would like a full-time job are more focused on trying to grow higher education to create opportunities for themselves. Or deciding it isn't going to work out for them and putting their skills and education to work in ways that will meet their personal and professional goals.
Those who don't wish to make a career in higher education are probably focused on their main careers or other factors outside of their lives, and getting whatever personal benefit they get out of teaching.
Anyone who works in an environment and comes in full of resentment like you, mahagonny tends to drown in their own miserable bitter stew before long.
That's why I don't think you are for real.
My pet theory is that you are getting paid by some Russian troll farm to get in character and fool around on this board before you go home to a shot of vodka and watch RT to see if you are going to get drafted to invade Ukraine or play on the ROC curling team.
If I read you correctly, you think a Russian who's up to no good could think there is a case to be made that the USA academic world is largely anti-American, and I agree. That's just a matter of paying attention.
But you're wrong about who is paying me. Use your imagination. Think of someone really white-supremacist, who hates hip hop, and has lots of free time, and is in a bad mood. You guessed it -- Bill Cosby!
Can you help Black Lives Matter? They're just so misunderstood...
Quote from: mahagonny on February 19, 2022, 11:10:06 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 19, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 19, 2022, 06:56:51 AM
Quote
I'm pretty sure mahoganny is a Russian troll sent here to recruit unhappy adjuncts to the MAGA world by convincing them that the academic world is their enemy. And that their only true friend is the same party that is trying to shut down public education. Not sure how that will work out for the unhappy adjuncts but hey...
Long as you brought it up, ciao_yall: I'm sincerely interested. what in your estimate are the current prevailing, commonest attitudes toward the academic world among adjunct faculty?
I'm sure the ones who would like a full-time job are more focused on trying to grow higher education to create opportunities for themselves. Or deciding it isn't going to work out for them and putting their skills and education to work in ways that will meet their personal and professional goals.
Those who don't wish to make a career in higher education are probably focused on their main careers or other factors outside of their lives, and getting whatever personal benefit they get out of teaching.
Anyone who works in an environment and comes in full of resentment like you, mahagonny tends to drown in their own miserable bitter stew before long.
That's why I don't think you are for real.
My pet theory is that you are getting paid by some Russian troll farm to get in character and fool around on this board before you go home to a shot of vodka and watch RT to see if you are going to get drafted to invade Ukraine or play on the ROC curling team.
If I read you correctly, you think a Russian who's up to no good could think there is a case to be made that the USA academic world is largely anti-American, and I agree. That's just a matter of paying attention.
But you're wrong about who is paying me. Use your imagination. Think of someone really white-supremacist, who hates hip hop, and has lots of free time, and is in a bad mood. You guessed it -- Bill Cosby!
Can you help Black Lives Matter? They're just so misunderstood...
I work for the Illuminati.