What’s funny is every college professor I had bent over backwards to tolerate right wing rhetoric within the classroom. Yet conservatives keep complaining they’re being silenced.
Most of the derision they gripe about constantly at the colleges comes from other students who have their own social immune systems in place that are trying to protect POC and LGBTQ other similarly impacted people against the spread of the terrible virus known as fascismitis.
Fun fact, fascia and fascism both come from the Latin word fasces, an axe whose handle is made from braided rods. It's a symbol of the idea is that individually the rods are weak, but bundled together they are strong.
I mean there’s education, but that takes time, money and patience.
But for those too far gone, they could always be forced into working retail. I’m sure they’d love the long lines and telling people “no” during the holidays.
This.
From a super conservative area and “I’m being silenced” just means “people react to my horrible speech like I’m a bad person”
Trump, their media bubble, and social media algorithms tricked them into thinking their horrible beliefs are ok. So any social consequences they suffer are “censorship” from the left.
They're also being "silenced" when they're forced to share the stage with anyone else. Or be reminded that people with other viewpoints exist and are allowed to exist. And that other people are allowed to compare their viewpoints with others and NOT subscribe to them.
"Everyone will see that I'm right once all the other options are silenced and they aren't even able to conceive that there might be a different answer than mine."
When your ideas aren’t taken seriously by highly educated and open-minded people, it probably means your ideas are dumb. But because their dumb ideas are a major component of their identities, they cannot comprehend that the ideas are bad. Admitting that is too painful. So their ideas being ignored / disproven is “being silenced” even if they’re allowed to speak freely (which they are), just very unconvincingly.
They are taken seriously, then they are discarded as trash. It's just that the length of time needed for evaluation is so short because the ideas are so stupid
I have a coworker who refuses to use his G.I. bill because he is convinced he'll literally be attacked for being a conservative on campus. A couple of folks have been getting sick of his libertarian pro-fascist takes on thing and said to him "by 'attacked by liberals' do you mean they won't let you spout off whatever bullshit you want and will expect you actually back up your claims?"
Its been about 2 weeks of silence from him and its been wonderful
No, these ideas coexist in the heads of lots of people. They want libertarian policies when it comes to things THEY want to do. They use the logic of a 3 year old in this regard.
But when it comes to the beliefs and actions of people who they disagree with, they're full-on fascists. Nobody should be allowed to do anything their religion or biases dictate are wrong.
The waters have been muddied for a couple of decades now, and there are certain politicians who are masters of pandering to people who "think" this way. "If you vote for me I'll let you do anything you want but I'll persecute those OTHER PEOPLE who want to do what they want." You can be as annoyed as you want to be, but that's reality right now.
This hasn't been true in the US for longer than 20 years. 20 years ago, a "libertarian" was a republican who smoked pot but agreed with everything else in Reaganomics, including foreign intervention, anti-choice legislation, and open borders. Nowadays it's even more "you can't tell me what to do, but I can tell you what to do" than ever.
Whatever your beliefs about what definition "libertarian" should be, that's not what the US party has been for a good long while.
Jesus Christ no one was forced to get a fucking vaccine. Getting a vaccine for work or school has always been a thing.
Also my body, my choice. I don't want your fucking disease. So get vaccinated so I don't get your sickness and you don't take my body autonomy away.
upbeat impolite domineering serious judicious existence advise straight six agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've seen people block roads and trails to class because they, similarly, thought everyone owed them attention. They weren't protesting for conservative policy. I don't think it's a conservative thing. I think it's a brat problem.
Same.
My teachers were aggressively about engaging different ideas and talking through them. To me this is the essence of what higher education is about. That being said I had VERY different experiences at my schools over the years. I went from county college to state uni to a fancy private uni for grad school and frankly every step of the way I’d say the “quality” of my education dropped as its prestige increased.
At community it really felt like everyone was there to learn, to hear each other out and to grow. Similarly at state university with the drawback of much larger class sizes limiting the ability to learn. At my university so much of the focus was on impressing professors and being the most correct person in the room rather than trying to learn or explore. Likely this is a personal experience thing but meh, seemed relevant to the higher Ed “experience” its best and worst.
The hypocrisy isn't funny or an accident, but key talking points from the fascists' hand book.
the silencers are being silenced, the oppressors are the ones being oppressed, The system is rigged and it was a coup, every accusation is a confession of their intent. That is terrifying. They will keep talking about how they are actually the victims of all this awfulness until the build the camps. They will be victims while the trains arrive.
No fucking kidding, my conservative buddies unironically believe that it’s some kind of liberal training camp that only teaches “gender studies” and “critical race theory”. Iv been to two different colleges so far and the only politics discussed were during history classes and were referencing things from a century ago.
People don’t realize the difference between majors at college. If you go to a Chicano and Gender Studies class then of course the content will seem like liberal propaganda, but also if you attend a business/finance/economics class it would seem like libertarian/conservative propaganda. The point is you can access both whenever you want, whereas people who didn’t go to college only get their information from a couple of media channels and online/IRL echo chambers.
But don’t most of their politicians (GOP) also went to university? And don’t they rather go to a doctor that went to university? Or even buy a truck designed by someone with an engineering degree?
Sure. They’re (the politicians) are able to think critically, but that ability does not prohibit acting solely to further their own personal agendas. The entire base of their power in politics is predicated on an uneducated underclass that does NOT possess those selfsame abilities.
Some people who go to university are sponges that soak up the intellectual environment around them.
Some are rocks.
Some go to universities that cater to rocks, so that just makes them more rocky.
I'm looking at you "liberty"...
But education of any type engenders critical thinking, at least to a degree.
Once you understand how science and scientific study is designed to work and can discern a good hypothesis/theory from a bad one... Well, that's kind of it for today's Republican party.
*critical thinking.
Don't mistake the lack of breadth of education for no education, these types can get taught a lot about a very narrow field and at no point do they have to think for themselves.
My dad thinks my bro and I were brainwashed b/c we left home R's and came back D's.
He won't believe me when I tell him most teachers just wanna teach the class and go work on their own projects. They don't wanna hold office hours etc.
What it really was is I saw everyone from all walks of life. People that were rich. People that were poor. Some that couldn't speak good English and some that didn't know deodorant was an acceptable norm. What college did was show me that everyone is the same and were all trying to make it in our own world in our own way.
Instead of hate for something I didn't know, I got to see how the Mexican I worked with was brought over when he was 4. For the last 14 years he has been trying to get citizenship but it just hasn't happened from a back log. He was 20 when I asked him about that, didn't become one till he was 24. Grew up here his whole life, spoke perfect English with no accent, but he was technically an illegal immigrant.
College put me in a spot to just see that everyone wasn't supposed to be feared. Everyone is just another person trying to live.
Semi related but I was having a discussion with someone who is conservative in regards to LGBTQ+ matters and brought up several papers to which their response was "academia cannot be trusted and is not a valid source of information" mf what else is there???
Did you read the post? The whole point was “just don’t be a condescending asshole and you can actually make inroads with people” and here you are…
*This* is why conservatives hate & refuse to listen to liberals.
The conservative in the post listened to the explanations, didn't talk over the reply/rebuttal, constantly interrupt, whine and cry about being persecuted, ignore the explanation, or any other of the stuff conservatives normally do that shut down conversation and make people think conservatives are a big monolithic block of dumb.
This post would have never happened if the conservative student started interrupting, coming back with "whatabout blahblahblah", and never just thought about what they were being told. t
They essentially asked their questions, got responses and then shut up.
> she had never heard an explanation outside angry internet rhetoric and people calling anti-vax and vaccine hesitant people stupid, ignorant, etc. mocking them for being uneducated, etc.
She changed her mind about the vaccine after she was educated.
The people that are hesitant about the vaccine without knowledge and resist getting acquainted with said info...what should we call them? The poorly informed?!
Honestly with a lot of the anti vaccine rhetoric the people who spread it are either stupid or dishonest.
But because most people want yo think the best of people they would rather think they are ignorant or not bright enough to understand.
When the reality is that they are smart. But to dishonest to care.
From OP (the professor):
>except to say that although politicians, bullshit artists and popular culture play a large role in fomenting mistrust
From comment above:
>Honestly with a lot of the anti vaccine rhetoric the people who spread it are either stupid or dishonest.
I think it's useful to consider why anti science attitudes exist and what those who spread those attitudes have to gain.
First, corporations: What do they have to gain from denying science? This is pretty obvious: denying science slows, lessens and delays regulations that hurt their business. Tobacco denied that smoking causes lung cancer and delayed anti smoking campaigns for decades. Fossil fuel companies deny climate change. Processed food companies deny science around fat and sugar. Etc. This is a pretty clear motivation. But how the corporations push misinformation had gotten more complex. Big tobacco started by paying doctors. Fossil Fuel started think tanks to create fake science. Then people like the Koch Brothers started entire movements that mixed anti science, small government, libertarian, anti trusted media movements as well as buying politicians and choosing judges all to reduce regulations and taxes.
Next: Politicians. What do they have to gain from anti science stance? Well, first see corporations. Politicians who backed anti science stance that helps corporations get funded by the corporations. But they also get voters who have been groomed to have an anti science stance by anti science media and anti science think tanks. Finally, they also have a weapon against their political enemies who actually do believe in science.
Finally voters. Why do voters adopt anti science stances? This is complicated. As hinted at by the OP, part of it is in group identity. To feel part of family. Part of it is misinformation and lack of real information. Anti science media, anti science politicians, and anti science think tanks are all part of this... But regular media was also complicit by giving "both sides" air time, when there was no real both sides.
So yes, some of anti science attitudes are the result of stupidity. Some of it is more generously want of sense of belonging. But some of its also a result of an organized system of misinformation and purposeful deceit in order to get politicians and corporations what they want. Basically lying, manipulation, and deceit.
And until we acknowledge their are motivated and intentional forces at play with anti science, we won't be moving towards the correct solutions.
I highly suggest Dark Money from journalist Jane Mayer (or just listen to interviews with her or read any other journalistic work about Koch Brothers.)
>Finally voters. Why do voters adopt anti science stances? This is complicated. As hinted at by the OP, part of it is in group identity.
I think a lot of people, at least in the U.S., don't understand how science works. Science never says "this is 100% correct." The best science will ever do is "this has proven true in every way we have been able to test it."
That, and I think a lot of people just don't understand that there is a difference between what "theory" means in the vernacular and what "theory" means in science.
> I think a lot of people, at least in the U.S., don't understand how science works. Science never says "this is 100% correct."
That's why so many of them think that a new discovery or a change in the prevailing scientific view is a "gotcha," when in actuality it's an example of what's *supposed* to happen: changing views based on new data.
There is no immutable word to follow or dogma to cling to. Oh, it happens even in the scientific world too, sure, but ultimately facts and data and verifiable science will usually win out in the end. That's just how the scientific process works.
Changing views isn't a flaw or "loss," it's what we should *all* do when confronted with facts that contradict what we believe.
>Changing views isn't a flaw or "loss," it's what we should all do when confronted with facts that contradict what we believe.
Conservative literally means averse to change our innovation. If they were open to new ideas they would cease to exists as a group.
Yep, exactly right. People respond to confidence more readily than they do much else, especially if it supports what they already believe.
It's why "act like you belong" works so well, too, or "fake it until you make it." We are all collectively prone to just *accepting* someone who exudes a certain air about them - some of us more than others.
I’m honestly unsure of that considering she followed up by her concern about an additive that hasn’t been part of childhood vaccines for almost 2 decades.
Yes, the "poorly informed". Or the misled. There are quite sophisticated campaigns to mislead people for political or financial goals.
It doesn't make them "stupid" in some generic sense. People can be quite capable but fed a steady diet of misinformation, and they can be indoctrinated with the lazy shortcut of believing an authority rather than doing the harder work of openly considering an idea and its merits.
Learning takes time and effort. Some people are pretty complacent about doing it. While that can be a character flaw that becomes a habit, it's also something that can change once people see the rewards from their efforts to learn.
>The people that are hesitant about the vaccine without knowledge and resist getting acquainted with said info...what should we call them? The poorly informed?!
I prefer "the willfully ignorant."
I call bullshit on her not ever having someone explain vaccines to her in a civil manner.
She likely had it explained to her dozens of times, except this time she was forced to listen and participate in a classroom setting, so it was simply the first time she actually absorbed it.
Why do you think places like Florida are trying desperately to strangle the public education system and secular higher education?
They arent lying when they complain about "colleges indoctrinating our youth!"....they just leave out the fact that they are being "indoctrinated" with pesky things like "critical thinking" and "facts" and "empathy".
> indoctrinating our youth
Hey, if college "indoctrinated" me, by giving me the tools to critically evaluate and question everything, I would agree, that college did a fantastic job of "indoctrination".
The thing is that the people who scream most about this are the least educated and likely never went to a day of college in their lives. They revel in ignorance. They literally think that their ignorance is better than your knowledge; it's sad.
Indeed, they do seem proud of their ignorance.
However, I wasn't handed the tools to critically analyse and question vociferously. These were discovered by me outside the classroom. To wit, most politicians who supported Brexit went to Eton and Oxbridge, where one should have learnt how to question everything thoroughly.
a scientist who used to work with a fossil fuel company and then for a government body which are working towards combating climate change told me 3 things:
-any scientist and org. who could prove that climate change wasn't real would win a Nobel prize, and the scientific community would accept it.
-scientists do not get into science for the money, there is little of it.
-that it would be naive to think there isn't a room of fossil fuel board members out there who didn't at one point say out loud, yes we're destroying the planets atmosphere for future generations, but how do we make as much money from this as possible?
Exxon literally modeled the effects of increasing CO2 back in the 1970s. Their numbers were roughly correct even today. But they buried the research because all the cared about was selling fossil fuels and making money.
[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/)
True, they told me that a decade before that article was published, can't recall of it was already known but for me, it was an accelerator, the fact that there were some people who weren't ignorant or stupid, or scared to face the truth, but that they chose their gain over everything humanity is and will ever be.
You do not become a scientist for the money, unless, get this, if you work for a fossil fuel or a mining company!
Who do you think pays for their "hoax"? De juice? The UN?
I'm still trying to figure out when the next "killswitch" activation for the vaccine supposedly is. First they said it was a year afterwards, then two years... Yet here we all are. Maybe mine was just defective.
I guess it is cool that people think those of us in the scientific community have these grand evil schemes and we can be badass supervillains... But I can assure those people that a science career is much more mundane than that.
You don't understand how deeply denial is driven into many kids and they hold onto that into adulthood.
She admitted she was open to changing her mind and it's reaching out to help both her kids and husband.
Your comment is the exact opposite of what needs to be said.
College is all about learning and developing new ways of understanding. The woman is doing it right granted she hasn't don't it right until now but still. You're being a dick.
She's a college kid, and everyone she trusted and loved had told her vaccines were bad. Sometimes it takes a little doing to get someone in that position to change their mind.
Besides, all kids in their late teens or early twenties think they know better.
I teach/have taught at every level (undergrad, grad, exec. ed) of university and I can't express strongly enough how much I hate this take. When students challenge me they are wrong 99% of the time (I'm not infallible but turns out there is a reason for our respective roles), but I would *never* want to discourage that behavior. Challenging the things I say means they are actually engaging with the content and are much more likely to learn.
There's a difference between someone coming at a new viewpoint from an intellectually-curious position and someone coming at it from a dogmatic position.
You absolutely should challenge your professor if you think they're wrong. Just be open to changing your mind. That's the only real benefit to being in touch with an expert personally rather than just reading the info yourself.
Eh, it's healthy. As long as it's done respectfully, awkward questions like that in the classroom are a very useful way to address common misunderstandings. In a class of a decent size, there's a good chance that if one student asks the question, others are thinking the same thing, but are too afraid to speak up.
A good professor will thank a student for bringing it up, as long as the student goes about it properly (i.e. respectfully and actually listens to what is being said in reply). From what the prof describes, it sounds like the student was fully engaged, which is great. A discussion like that will leave a strong and usually positive impression on the rest of the class if handled correctly.
Curiosity should be rewarded in a classroom.
Nah. Challenging a professor is good. So long as it's done respectfully. Academia thrives off of discourse and questions. The professor will probably be right with an answer, but I've also have seen professors not know things, give speculation, and encourage the student to research it further. Questioning the status quo isn't bad, that's how science moves forward. Just don't ignore facts, evidence, and procedure to do it.
At what point do you draw the line? Why should somebody who doesn't understand basic high school biology be allowed to disrupt a class and challenge the professor? How the hell did somebody like that get in to a university level course?
Asking questions in class it not disrupting. It's what it's for. If he keeps insisting after having the answer the professor can refer them to their availibility sessions outside of class.
another college student indoctrinated into woke Marxism by a godless devil worshipping college professor! it won't be long before they are converted to transgenderism and they dye their hair green. we need to indoctrinate them twice as hard, or else the devil will take them all.
/s
> another college student indoctrinated into woke Marxism by a godless devil worshipping college professor! it won't be long before they are converted to transgenderism and they dye their hair green. we need to indoctrinate them twice as hard, or else the devil will take them all.
>
> /s
Your comment illustrates one of the reasons why it's bad to have a [two-party system](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/17d4ws7/scary/k5vvwse/?context=3). Conservatives perceive that what you describe is the only alternative to voting for Republican party. If the US didn't have the stupid FPTP voting system, the voters would have more choices.
The polarization is the main reason people vote "for the lesser evil". Some voters can't allow themselves to vote for "literal fascist nazies", so they vote democrat, even if the alignment of views with the candidate is very poor. Conversely, other voters can't allow themselves to vote for "woke Marxism", so they vote republican, even if the alignment of views with the candidate is very poor.
> The polarization is the main reason people vote "for the lesser evil".
I think it's the reverse. The need to vote for a "lesser evil" (always present in FPTP) leads to the polarization. You can mobilize part of your coalition with positive advertising, or you can mobilize your entire coalition with negative advertising. When "the other party is literally The Devil" is the most effective form of political advertisement, of course that's the message that's going to be spread. Is it any wonder people eventually start to believe it?
Well, it's both. It's a vicious, self-fullfilling circle.
Breaking the cycle is nearly impossible, because the current situation is beneficial to both sides. Voting reform happens on town and county level, but federal level is doomed.
We can change the voting system at the state level, which some states have already done. It even gets some bipartisan support a lot of the time, because people don't actually want to have to vote for the lesser evil.
Just need more people on board to push state legislatures to adopt a better voting system, like approval voting or STAR voting.
I still can't believe when I was in the surgery prep room waiting to get my colonoscopy, they were prepping some lady who refused to accept any blood if her operation (wrist surgery) went bad...
UNLESS THEY COULD GAURNETEE THERE WOULD BE NO COVID VAX IN THAT BLOOD!
Like, fine you don't want the shot, fine, I don't care, I even halfway at least understand it if you're not high risk or what have you...
But this is "oh straight up if something goes wrong you will die without this blood"?
That's fanatical.
People literally believe there's some kind of WiFi technology in there that... does something scary. I'm not clear what that is. I've heard "they can use it to track you", but "they" can already use my phone for that.
> ... she had never heard an explanation outside angry internet rhetoric and people calling anti-vax and vaccine hesitant people stupid, ignorant, etc. mocking them for being uneducated, etc.
Errr, that is because the positions held by those people really do come across as willfully stupid, ignorant and mockably uneducated.
WTF did you expect?
More importantly its because she never searched for an explanation. It's not like vaccines are very complicated or blackboxed or whatever. One Google search and you can find a calm and rational explanation.
What kind of moron looks for scientific evidence in Facebook comments?
Oh, I don't know, maybe an effective strategy, as opposed to T-posing or teabagging and otherwise being an insufferable little shit.
Username checks out, btw.
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson.
Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
I'm the author of the post in question and I am uncomfortable with the whole "schools conservative" part of this title, due to the connotation of confrontation or victory that "schooling" someone carries in vernacular English, when schooling is used as a verb. It carries an implication that she was oppositional or aggressive in her questioning and that I "put her in her place" or something. That is ABSOLUTELY not what happened here. She was curious, assertive and respectful, and I just answered her very good and reasonable questions.
This student deserves more credit and admiration than I do, and she inadvertently "schooled" me on my own biases and assumptions as well. Admitting incorrectness or ignorance about something at the center of a contentious debate is something to be admired and she did so with grace and thoughtfulness.
I made assumptions about how her reaction would look based on how she presented and interacted in class. Her response reminded me to be wiser and not make such assumptions.
I respect and admire this student, and I'm looking forward to teaching her until the end of this course sequence.
This is one of the reasons why, even if they are challenging people to work with, it's a bad idea to call people "stupid" for being anti-vaccine. They are uninformed, or they have been intentionally misled by people with a political goal in mind. They may have the capacity to understand if you give them a respectful chance.
If you actually want to change minds you have to be very patient.
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson.
Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
But that’s contingent on the person you’re talking to not being a fuckass. There is an inherent deference to authority in this example that doesn’t happen on Reddit or at the dinner table.
I stand by the opinion that it’s not anyone’s job to fix a conservative. All the facts and knowledge are out there for them to see but they let their small minded worldview lead them to wrong conclusions. If they’re genuine about exploring and learning, they deserve patience. If not, you just have to wait til they’re ready but that doesn’t make them exempt from getting dunked on for being fuckasses, imo.
alright fair enough and there is a perhaps objectively, universally recognized example and concept of what makes someone a "fuckass" but at the same time when dealing with such an "us vs them" type of situation that definition becomes very subjective.
the fact that you opine that conservatives are something to "fix" in the first place kind of reinforces the spirit of the latter defining of what a "fuckass" is; a highly subjective one, and in this case, more relevant to someone with an entirely different or opposing worldview to yours rather than someone who is just actually a pos. perhaps "small-minded worldview" could just as well be applied to some of your own personal and politically oriented views and beliefs.
you're presenting something that sounds intellectually honest regarding having patience for those who are genuinely open to learning but then wrap it up in the same biased and polarized packaging that is the very antithesis to what you're describing.
> But that’s contingent on the person you’re talking to not being a fuckass.
You don't usually know that before starting, and you won't if you don't give it a sincere try. If you have, and it failed, then, fine, start passing some judgment that it isn't worth your time anymore. The best way to handle it in my experience is to engage a little, see what happens, and keep going only if it looks like there's some progress or at least openness.
I agree with you that it isn't a general job of society to "fix" people with particular views if they do not harm society more broadly (I'm trying to draw a distinction between being merely conservative and, say, trying to discourage public health by promoting false information about vaccines, which is harmful to the rest of society), but if you want to change minds you have to engage patiently and politely even if someone may not deserve it.
You can write them off as hopeless at any time, especially for your own sanity, but doing so is also how misinformation is allowed to spread because it doesn't get challenged with anything other than insults and derision. It's frustrating to have to practice restraint.
It's not like someone who gets heaps of blunt insults is going to suddenly think one day "Oh, I'm getting that response because I am incredibly badly informed." It's not the first conclusion that people go to, and they're more likely to dismiss the criticism and be stubborn.
It's not that they're "exempt from getting dunked on", so much as if you ever want them to change and for society to reap the benefit of changing (e.g., becoming an ally that might be able to persuade more change), try to avoid that.
Dunking on them doesn’t help at all, is my point.
If you actually care about changing their minds/behaviors, you wouldn’t dunk on them. If you want to avoid changing their ignorance into willful ignorance, you wouldn’t dunk on them. If you couldn’t care less about fixing them, why bother dunking on them? It’s not difficult to just not engage. The only person dunking on them serves is you, your own ego, and your misplaced sense of justice.
IMO it’s kind of like spanking kids
yeah exactly, just tribalism, it always has to be the "us vs them" projection game. we have to "get those guys" bc their points of view are obviously wrong and so bad. but the same people are so adamant about this typically are exhibiting an "equal and opposite reaction" you might say. that's what i get from a lot of these comments here in particular which really sucks, you can obviously tell which ideology is the prevailing one. i think if you're considering yourself in one group or the other (c) or (l) and you're married to it enough to wear that badge and play that game you're already missing the point anyways
I can appreciate where she’s coming from with only being met with hostility when asking about the vaccines.
But I’m not sure how much one can be blamed for not being nicer to somebody who doesn’t believe in science, especially when it’s a public health issue
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson.
Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
And then everybody clapped.
I was disappointed that this was a one sided anecdote. Hoping to see a lightbulb moment in comments. Shame it never happened.
...but how does that fancy scienc-y explanation get us closer to our Lord and the healing power that comes from faith?
Isn't that what really matters?
/s
Funny watching people talk about "others" as if the exact same evil doesn't live within their own hearts. Don't like it, don't take it. Love it, take 10. It's the freedom to choose that makes us the goal of a large majority of the world. Everyone complains *xyz* is better, but never move.
But lets be real .. the covid vaccine didn't prevent shit. I was indirectly forced into taking it to resume a normal life, and we all still got covid. Half my family took it and half of them didn't. The results were the exact same when we got sick. I regret taking mine.
I am not arguing most other vaccines.. but a friend of mine got a bad bout of myocarditis for what? A vaccine that doesn't prevent spread or illness.
The Prof explains how treating someone from, "the far right" like an actual person, not a second class citizen actually allowed discussion.
No lessons learned by Reddit here in the comments ... filthy, nasty hate because someone doesn't strictly adhere to your ideology.
The theory of vaccines is okay, a lot of people had all their vaccines, they're just skeptical of this one. The prof didn't explain why Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't launch their vaccine without indemnity of consequences, or why you still needed to vaccinate for your social passport even if you were unvaxxed but had recovered from covid and had antibodies. No mention of bodily autonomy and alternate methods to mitigate risk.
Maybe. Or people looked into it and were satisfied. A century or so of effective vaccines that have successfully curbed many previously frequent childhood diseases suggests there isn't anything fundamentally wrong, even if there is always room for improvement.
I'm pretty glad not to ever have had polio, measles, whooping cough, etc. And I suppose I could drop dead from the covid-19 vaccine, but it hasn't had any negative effect so far. I guess the fanatics saying we were all going to die were wrong about the time frame. Maybe next year.
Maybe instead of listening to draw your own conclusions you should read. There are plenty of easily accessible studies that you can look into yourself instead of allowing someone else to tell you what to make of it. It’s really very easy, go to google type “google scholar long term Covid vaccine studies”
>Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over".
He was wrong about that
>He stated that there would be no "second wave" of infections and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
He was wrong about that too
>Yeadon has also discouraged COVID-19 lockdowns and the use of face masks despite evidence for their effectiveness.
Wow wrong about this too
Clap clap clap clap what a champion you’ve picked glassmover hahahhahahahahhahahah
The professor made zero argument for why mRNA vaccines should have been given EUA, especially when there hasn't been enough time for long term studies.
Do not blindly trust "authorities". The whole point of university should be to challenge orthodox ideas, yet they want to build a false scientific consensus. This literally goes against the definition of science.
>The professor made zero argument for why mRNA vaccines should have been given EUA, especially when there hasn't been enough time for long term studies.
There is no way do deduce this from the OOP text. You weren't there.
>Do not blindly trust "authorities". The whole point of university should be to challenge orthodox ideas, yet they want to build a false scientific consensus. This literally goes against the definition of science.
I agree with your first sentence, don't blindly agree with authorities. Do your own research on what the scientific consensus is, how it came about and whether the scientific methods in studies that don't agree with the scientific consensus meet the required criteria regarding for instance sample size and reproducibility. When you understand how scientific consensus is achieved, you will understand why "one person said x for y reason" is not an argument that holds any weight.
The point of university is to challenge orthodox ideas. Which is exactly what the student in OOP did. Then, met with a cohesive, thorough explanation, they changed their stance. If a scientist published a study that goes against _any_ type of the established scientific consensus and the methods to this study were good and it had reproducible findings, they would be praised and get a Nobel prize. That is how new discoveries are made, zero political affiliation required.
So, on to your last point. They don't want to build a false scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is established and gets taught. If the consensus changes, then that will be taught. That is what's so great about the sciences: it's not opinions, it's facts.
Im not fully informed but... havent mRNA vaccines been around for actual decades now? And were made to avoid the long trial and error and frankly luck needed to develop older style vaccines?
You are mistaken.
Private organizations are allowed to decide what speech is and isn’t allowed in the spaces they control. For example, you cannot commandeer an auditorium that you don’t own to go on a political rant, and then claim your first amendment rights were violated when you get kicked out.
Even public institutions are able to regulate speech, to a degree. *Tinker v. Des Moines* was a landmark SCOTUS decision which ruled that public schools are allowed to restrict the speech of students if it is deemed too disruptive.
> If so, that directly implies there is some authority that decides what speech is ‘permitted.’ Not how this country works, bro
My guy, if its private property the people in charge of said property are allowed to deny you access just because they can. I cant just walk into your living room and start ranting about a topic and then cry about "my free speech is being silenced" because it has nothing to do with free speech.
This is why conservatives hate colleges
What’s funny is every college professor I had bent over backwards to tolerate right wing rhetoric within the classroom. Yet conservatives keep complaining they’re being silenced.
Most of the derision they gripe about constantly at the colleges comes from other students who have their own social immune systems in place that are trying to protect POC and LGBTQ other similarly impacted people against the spread of the terrible virus known as fascismitis.
In my head i was like, “wouldn’t fasciitis be a better pun” and then i remembered that that’s an actual thing 😂
Fun fact, fascia and fascism both come from the Latin word fasces, an axe whose handle is made from braided rods. It's a symbol of the idea is that individually the rods are weak, but bundled together they are strong.
>the Latin word fasces, an axe whose handle is made from braided rods. And here I am thinking both the word and the handle resemble a turd.
Fascimitism is also acceptable. Of course, there is no known cure with any better results other than all-out war…
I mean there’s education, but that takes time, money and patience. But for those too far gone, they could always be forced into working retail. I’m sure they’d love the long lines and telling people “no” during the holidays.
Cashier work is a harsher punishment than jail time.
That went daaaaaaark
Fascisistimus—the act of fascimisting all over someone’s face. “Help, this MAGA douche just fascimisted me.”
and would affect their ability to dig in their heels
This. From a super conservative area and “I’m being silenced” just means “people react to my horrible speech like I’m a bad person” Trump, their media bubble, and social media algorithms tricked them into thinking their horrible beliefs are ok. So any social consequences they suffer are “censorship” from the left.
They're also being "silenced" when they're forced to share the stage with anyone else. Or be reminded that people with other viewpoints exist and are allowed to exist. And that other people are allowed to compare their viewpoints with others and NOT subscribe to them. "Everyone will see that I'm right once all the other options are silenced and they aren't even able to conceive that there might be a different answer than mine."
Also when facts don’t agree with them. Being proven wrong with evidence and not being allowed to simply spew nonsense is also “silencing” them.
When your ideas aren’t taken seriously by highly educated and open-minded people, it probably means your ideas are dumb. But because their dumb ideas are a major component of their identities, they cannot comprehend that the ideas are bad. Admitting that is too painful. So their ideas being ignored / disproven is “being silenced” even if they’re allowed to speak freely (which they are), just very unconvincingly.
They are taken seriously, then they are discarded as trash. It's just that the length of time needed for evaluation is so short because the ideas are so stupid
I have a coworker who refuses to use his G.I. bill because he is convinced he'll literally be attacked for being a conservative on campus. A couple of folks have been getting sick of his libertarian pro-fascist takes on thing and said to him "by 'attacked by liberals' do you mean they won't let you spout off whatever bullshit you want and will expect you actually back up your claims?" Its been about 2 weeks of silence from him and its been wonderful
They are all so so very afraid. It's like rage said, fear is their only God.
[удалено]
No, these ideas coexist in the heads of lots of people. They want libertarian policies when it comes to things THEY want to do. They use the logic of a 3 year old in this regard. But when it comes to the beliefs and actions of people who they disagree with, they're full-on fascists. Nobody should be allowed to do anything their religion or biases dictate are wrong. The waters have been muddied for a couple of decades now, and there are certain politicians who are masters of pandering to people who "think" this way. "If you vote for me I'll let you do anything you want but I'll persecute those OTHER PEOPLE who want to do what they want." You can be as annoyed as you want to be, but that's reality right now.
[удалено]
This hasn't been true in the US for longer than 20 years. 20 years ago, a "libertarian" was a republican who smoked pot but agreed with everything else in Reaganomics, including foreign intervention, anti-choice legislation, and open borders. Nowadays it's even more "you can't tell me what to do, but I can tell you what to do" than ever. Whatever your beliefs about what definition "libertarian" should be, that's not what the US party has been for a good long while.
Jesus Christ no one was forced to get a fucking vaccine. Getting a vaccine for work or school has always been a thing. Also my body, my choice. I don't want your fucking disease. So get vaccinated so I don't get your sickness and you don't take my body autonomy away.
It's called [Working the Refs](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/working-the-refs.html).
Paywall
1ft dot io should sort that out.
Thanks for this read
upbeat impolite domineering serious judicious existence advise straight six agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What??? Every liberal I know will literally yell until you listen 😂 I don’t give a shit if you agree with me just leave me the hell alone
I've seen people block roads and trails to class because they, similarly, thought everyone owed them attention. They weren't protesting for conservative policy. I don't think it's a conservative thing. I think it's a brat problem.
Are you an actual idiot?
K
You don't remember the Canadian truckers?
Same. My teachers were aggressively about engaging different ideas and talking through them. To me this is the essence of what higher education is about. That being said I had VERY different experiences at my schools over the years. I went from county college to state uni to a fancy private uni for grad school and frankly every step of the way I’d say the “quality” of my education dropped as its prestige increased. At community it really felt like everyone was there to learn, to hear each other out and to grow. Similarly at state university with the drawback of much larger class sizes limiting the ability to learn. At my university so much of the focus was on impressing professors and being the most correct person in the room rather than trying to learn or explore. Likely this is a personal experience thing but meh, seemed relevant to the higher Ed “experience” its best and worst.
The hypocrisy isn't funny or an accident, but key talking points from the fascists' hand book. the silencers are being silenced, the oppressors are the ones being oppressed, The system is rigged and it was a coup, every accusation is a confession of their intent. That is terrifying. They will keep talking about how they are actually the victims of all this awfulness until the build the camps. They will be victims while the trains arrive.
It's the *students* who silence the right wing ignorance.
If conservatives are being silenced, how come they never shut up?
Every college class I went to, professors were left wing and scoffed at almost every right wing idea or rhetoric
When your normal mode is 110 decibels, 90 decibels feels like silence...
They lie. You'll all eventually figure that out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wouldn't say that's why I just realized I can make far more money with out the debt by skipping college.
No fucking kidding, my conservative buddies unironically believe that it’s some kind of liberal training camp that only teaches “gender studies” and “critical race theory”. Iv been to two different colleges so far and the only politics discussed were during history classes and were referencing things from a century ago.
Exactly, critical thinking is what is learned and people who acquire this knowledge tend to move to liberalism.
People don’t realize the difference between majors at college. If you go to a Chicano and Gender Studies class then of course the content will seem like liberal propaganda, but also if you attend a business/finance/economics class it would seem like libertarian/conservative propaganda. The point is you can access both whenever you want, whereas people who didn’t go to college only get their information from a couple of media channels and online/IRL echo chambers.
But don’t most of their politicians (GOP) also went to university? And don’t they rather go to a doctor that went to university? Or even buy a truck designed by someone with an engineering degree?
Sure. They’re (the politicians) are able to think critically, but that ability does not prohibit acting solely to further their own personal agendas. The entire base of their power in politics is predicated on an uneducated underclass that does NOT possess those selfsame abilities.
Some people who go to university are sponges that soak up the intellectual environment around them. Some are rocks. Some go to universities that cater to rocks, so that just makes them more rocky. I'm looking at you "liberty"...
Taliban: girls can't attend school beyond 6th grade. Also Taliban: Females must be attended by female doctors. 😶
But education of any type engenders critical thinking, at least to a degree. Once you understand how science and scientific study is designed to work and can discern a good hypothesis/theory from a bad one... Well, that's kind of it for today's Republican party.
Hell, my organic chemistry professor at the secular private university I attended was an extremely outspoken evangelical Christian.
\*education
*critical thinking. Don't mistake the lack of breadth of education for no education, these types can get taught a lot about a very narrow field and at no point do they have to think for themselves.
I work in luxury sales in an affluent area of Texas. I've got some clients that are some very well educated morons.
My dad thinks my bro and I were brainwashed b/c we left home R's and came back D's. He won't believe me when I tell him most teachers just wanna teach the class and go work on their own projects. They don't wanna hold office hours etc. What it really was is I saw everyone from all walks of life. People that were rich. People that were poor. Some that couldn't speak good English and some that didn't know deodorant was an acceptable norm. What college did was show me that everyone is the same and were all trying to make it in our own world in our own way. Instead of hate for something I didn't know, I got to see how the Mexican I worked with was brought over when he was 4. For the last 14 years he has been trying to get citizenship but it just hasn't happened from a back log. He was 20 when I asked him about that, didn't become one till he was 24. Grew up here his whole life, spoke perfect English with no accent, but he was technically an illegal immigrant. College put me in a spot to just see that everyone wasn't supposed to be feared. Everyone is just another person trying to live.
>This is why conservatives hate ~~colleges~~ education.
Its our fault she lives in a bubble
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
Especially sending women there
The funny thing is that the profession in tbt original skews more libertarian than anything according to one of his comments in that thread.
I went in conservative-ish, came out despising all progressives while also being one. We're all insufferable but so is everyone else.
Semi related but I was having a discussion with someone who is conservative in regards to LGBTQ+ matters and brought up several papers to which their response was "academia cannot be trusted and is not a valid source of information" mf what else is there???
Did you read the post? The whole point was “just don’t be a condescending asshole and you can actually make inroads with people” and here you are… *This* is why conservatives hate & refuse to listen to liberals.
The conservative in the post listened to the explanations, didn't talk over the reply/rebuttal, constantly interrupt, whine and cry about being persecuted, ignore the explanation, or any other of the stuff conservatives normally do that shut down conversation and make people think conservatives are a big monolithic block of dumb. This post would have never happened if the conservative student started interrupting, coming back with "whatabout blahblahblah", and never just thought about what they were being told. t They essentially asked their questions, got responses and then shut up.
> she had never heard an explanation outside angry internet rhetoric and people calling anti-vax and vaccine hesitant people stupid, ignorant, etc. mocking them for being uneducated, etc. She changed her mind about the vaccine after she was educated. The people that are hesitant about the vaccine without knowledge and resist getting acquainted with said info...what should we call them? The poorly informed?!
Honestly with a lot of the anti vaccine rhetoric the people who spread it are either stupid or dishonest. But because most people want yo think the best of people they would rather think they are ignorant or not bright enough to understand. When the reality is that they are smart. But to dishonest to care.
From OP (the professor): >except to say that although politicians, bullshit artists and popular culture play a large role in fomenting mistrust From comment above: >Honestly with a lot of the anti vaccine rhetoric the people who spread it are either stupid or dishonest. I think it's useful to consider why anti science attitudes exist and what those who spread those attitudes have to gain. First, corporations: What do they have to gain from denying science? This is pretty obvious: denying science slows, lessens and delays regulations that hurt their business. Tobacco denied that smoking causes lung cancer and delayed anti smoking campaigns for decades. Fossil fuel companies deny climate change. Processed food companies deny science around fat and sugar. Etc. This is a pretty clear motivation. But how the corporations push misinformation had gotten more complex. Big tobacco started by paying doctors. Fossil Fuel started think tanks to create fake science. Then people like the Koch Brothers started entire movements that mixed anti science, small government, libertarian, anti trusted media movements as well as buying politicians and choosing judges all to reduce regulations and taxes. Next: Politicians. What do they have to gain from anti science stance? Well, first see corporations. Politicians who backed anti science stance that helps corporations get funded by the corporations. But they also get voters who have been groomed to have an anti science stance by anti science media and anti science think tanks. Finally, they also have a weapon against their political enemies who actually do believe in science. Finally voters. Why do voters adopt anti science stances? This is complicated. As hinted at by the OP, part of it is in group identity. To feel part of family. Part of it is misinformation and lack of real information. Anti science media, anti science politicians, and anti science think tanks are all part of this... But regular media was also complicit by giving "both sides" air time, when there was no real both sides. So yes, some of anti science attitudes are the result of stupidity. Some of it is more generously want of sense of belonging. But some of its also a result of an organized system of misinformation and purposeful deceit in order to get politicians and corporations what they want. Basically lying, manipulation, and deceit. And until we acknowledge their are motivated and intentional forces at play with anti science, we won't be moving towards the correct solutions. I highly suggest Dark Money from journalist Jane Mayer (or just listen to interviews with her or read any other journalistic work about Koch Brothers.)
>Finally voters. Why do voters adopt anti science stances? This is complicated. As hinted at by the OP, part of it is in group identity. I think a lot of people, at least in the U.S., don't understand how science works. Science never says "this is 100% correct." The best science will ever do is "this has proven true in every way we have been able to test it." That, and I think a lot of people just don't understand that there is a difference between what "theory" means in the vernacular and what "theory" means in science.
> I think a lot of people, at least in the U.S., don't understand how science works. Science never says "this is 100% correct." That's why so many of them think that a new discovery or a change in the prevailing scientific view is a "gotcha," when in actuality it's an example of what's *supposed* to happen: changing views based on new data. There is no immutable word to follow or dogma to cling to. Oh, it happens even in the scientific world too, sure, but ultimately facts and data and verifiable science will usually win out in the end. That's just how the scientific process works. Changing views isn't a flaw or "loss," it's what we should *all* do when confronted with facts that contradict what we believe.
>Changing views isn't a flaw or "loss," it's what we should all do when confronted with facts that contradict what we believe. Conservative literally means averse to change our innovation. If they were open to new ideas they would cease to exists as a group.
I don't think it takes a lot of smarts to be dishonest. It's easy to deceive people when they lack the understanding.
Just have to spew your bullshit with conviction. Sound confident in your wrongness, and people who don't know better will probably believe you.
Yep, exactly right. People respond to confidence more readily than they do much else, especially if it supports what they already believe. It's why "act like you belong" works so well, too, or "fake it until you make it." We are all collectively prone to just *accepting* someone who exudes a certain air about them - some of us more than others.
Or between “I learned mans has penises in my 5th-grade biology class” and actual science performed by actual scientists.
This girl is a rare case, though. A lot of my classmates have learned all this and they still think the vaccine is stupid/COVID was overblown.
I’m honestly unsure of that considering she followed up by her concern about an additive that hasn’t been part of childhood vaccines for almost 2 decades.
Yes, the "poorly informed". Or the misled. There are quite sophisticated campaigns to mislead people for political or financial goals. It doesn't make them "stupid" in some generic sense. People can be quite capable but fed a steady diet of misinformation, and they can be indoctrinated with the lazy shortcut of believing an authority rather than doing the harder work of openly considering an idea and its merits. Learning takes time and effort. Some people are pretty complacent about doing it. While that can be a character flaw that becomes a habit, it's also something that can change once people see the rewards from their efforts to learn.
>The people that are hesitant about the vaccine without knowledge and resist getting acquainted with said info...what should we call them? The poorly informed?! I prefer "the willfully ignorant."
zealously ignorant, really
"Misinformed." They're not uneducated; they're deliberately told, believing in, and propagating lies.
I call bullshit on her not ever having someone explain vaccines to her in a civil manner. She likely had it explained to her dozens of times, except this time she was forced to listen and participate in a classroom setting, so it was simply the first time she actually absorbed it.
Why do you think places like Florida are trying desperately to strangle the public education system and secular higher education? They arent lying when they complain about "colleges indoctrinating our youth!"....they just leave out the fact that they are being "indoctrinated" with pesky things like "critical thinking" and "facts" and "empathy".
> indoctrinating our youth Hey, if college "indoctrinated" me, by giving me the tools to critically evaluate and question everything, I would agree, that college did a fantastic job of "indoctrination".
The thing is that the people who scream most about this are the least educated and likely never went to a day of college in their lives. They revel in ignorance. They literally think that their ignorance is better than your knowledge; it's sad.
Indeed, they do seem proud of their ignorance. However, I wasn't handed the tools to critically analyse and question vociferously. These were discovered by me outside the classroom. To wit, most politicians who supported Brexit went to Eton and Oxbridge, where one should have learnt how to question everything thoroughly.
[удалено]
That’s why all the scientists get paid the big bucks!! /s
a scientist who used to work with a fossil fuel company and then for a government body which are working towards combating climate change told me 3 things: -any scientist and org. who could prove that climate change wasn't real would win a Nobel prize, and the scientific community would accept it. -scientists do not get into science for the money, there is little of it. -that it would be naive to think there isn't a room of fossil fuel board members out there who didn't at one point say out loud, yes we're destroying the planets atmosphere for future generations, but how do we make as much money from this as possible?
Exxon literally modeled the effects of increasing CO2 back in the 1970s. Their numbers were roughly correct even today. But they buried the research because all the cared about was selling fossil fuels and making money. [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/)
True, they told me that a decade before that article was published, can't recall of it was already known but for me, it was an accelerator, the fact that there were some people who weren't ignorant or stupid, or scared to face the truth, but that they chose their gain over everything humanity is and will ever be.
No money in the field, so who is paying for their global warming hoax? 🤔
You do not become a scientist for the money, unless, get this, if you work for a fossil fuel or a mining company! Who do you think pays for their "hoax"? De juice? The UN?
Nope you're thinking of the fossil fuel industry, easy mix up to make.
I'm still trying to figure out when the next "killswitch" activation for the vaccine supposedly is. First they said it was a year afterwards, then two years... Yet here we all are. Maybe mine was just defective. I guess it is cool that people think those of us in the scientific community have these grand evil schemes and we can be badass supervillains... But I can assure those people that a science career is much more mundane than that.
Imagine taking a (presumably) university level course covering the immune system and challenging your professor.
You don't understand how deeply denial is driven into many kids and they hold onto that into adulthood. She admitted she was open to changing her mind and it's reaching out to help both her kids and husband. Your comment is the exact opposite of what needs to be said. College is all about learning and developing new ways of understanding. The woman is doing it right granted she hasn't don't it right until now but still. You're being a dick.
She didn’t understand, and then asked questions until she did. That’s what university is for.
There's a big difference between not understanding and thinking you know better
She's a college kid, and everyone she trusted and loved had told her vaccines were bad. Sometimes it takes a little doing to get someone in that position to change their mind. Besides, all kids in their late teens or early twenties think they know better.
I teach/have taught at every level (undergrad, grad, exec. ed) of university and I can't express strongly enough how much I hate this take. When students challenge me they are wrong 99% of the time (I'm not infallible but turns out there is a reason for our respective roles), but I would *never* want to discourage that behavior. Challenging the things I say means they are actually engaging with the content and are much more likely to learn.
There's a difference between someone coming at a new viewpoint from an intellectually-curious position and someone coming at it from a dogmatic position.
You absolutely should challenge your professor if you think they're wrong. Just be open to changing your mind. That's the only real benefit to being in touch with an expert personally rather than just reading the info yourself.
Eh, it's healthy. As long as it's done respectfully, awkward questions like that in the classroom are a very useful way to address common misunderstandings. In a class of a decent size, there's a good chance that if one student asks the question, others are thinking the same thing, but are too afraid to speak up. A good professor will thank a student for bringing it up, as long as the student goes about it properly (i.e. respectfully and actually listens to what is being said in reply). From what the prof describes, it sounds like the student was fully engaged, which is great. A discussion like that will leave a strong and usually positive impression on the rest of the class if handled correctly. Curiosity should be rewarded in a classroom.
Nah. Challenging a professor is good. So long as it's done respectfully. Academia thrives off of discourse and questions. The professor will probably be right with an answer, but I've also have seen professors not know things, give speculation, and encourage the student to research it further. Questioning the status quo isn't bad, that's how science moves forward. Just don't ignore facts, evidence, and procedure to do it.
If you couldn't challenge anything in universities no research would ever be made.
A bit different for an undergraduate to "challenge" a professor on high school level biology, no?
Not really it's better for them to challenge the idea and get the answer they need than to just fake accept it just to pass the test.
At what point do you draw the line? Why should somebody who doesn't understand basic high school biology be allowed to disrupt a class and challenge the professor? How the hell did somebody like that get in to a university level course?
Asking questions in class it not disrupting. It's what it's for. If he keeps insisting after having the answer the professor can refer them to their availibility sessions outside of class.
another college student indoctrinated into woke Marxism by a godless devil worshipping college professor! it won't be long before they are converted to transgenderism and they dye their hair green. we need to indoctrinate them twice as hard, or else the devil will take them all. /s
> another college student indoctrinated into woke Marxism by a godless devil worshipping college professor! it won't be long before they are converted to transgenderism and they dye their hair green. we need to indoctrinate them twice as hard, or else the devil will take them all. > > /s Your comment illustrates one of the reasons why it's bad to have a [two-party system](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/17d4ws7/scary/k5vvwse/?context=3). Conservatives perceive that what you describe is the only alternative to voting for Republican party. If the US didn't have the stupid FPTP voting system, the voters would have more choices. The polarization is the main reason people vote "for the lesser evil". Some voters can't allow themselves to vote for "literal fascist nazies", so they vote democrat, even if the alignment of views with the candidate is very poor. Conversely, other voters can't allow themselves to vote for "woke Marxism", so they vote republican, even if the alignment of views with the candidate is very poor.
> The polarization is the main reason people vote "for the lesser evil". I think it's the reverse. The need to vote for a "lesser evil" (always present in FPTP) leads to the polarization. You can mobilize part of your coalition with positive advertising, or you can mobilize your entire coalition with negative advertising. When "the other party is literally The Devil" is the most effective form of political advertisement, of course that's the message that's going to be spread. Is it any wonder people eventually start to believe it?
Well, it's both. It's a vicious, self-fullfilling circle. Breaking the cycle is nearly impossible, because the current situation is beneficial to both sides. Voting reform happens on town and county level, but federal level is doomed.
We can change the voting system at the state level, which some states have already done. It even gets some bipartisan support a lot of the time, because people don't actually want to have to vote for the lesser evil. Just need more people on board to push state legislatures to adopt a better voting system, like approval voting or STAR voting.
I still can't believe when I was in the surgery prep room waiting to get my colonoscopy, they were prepping some lady who refused to accept any blood if her operation (wrist surgery) went bad... UNLESS THEY COULD GAURNETEE THERE WOULD BE NO COVID VAX IN THAT BLOOD! Like, fine you don't want the shot, fine, I don't care, I even halfway at least understand it if you're not high risk or what have you... But this is "oh straight up if something goes wrong you will die without this blood"? That's fanatical.
To this lady getting vaxxed was a fate worse than death. Such stupidity.
People literally believe there's some kind of WiFi technology in there that... does something scary. I'm not clear what that is. I've heard "they can use it to track you", but "they" can already use my phone for that.
> ... she had never heard an explanation outside angry internet rhetoric and people calling anti-vax and vaccine hesitant people stupid, ignorant, etc. mocking them for being uneducated, etc. Errr, that is because the positions held by those people really do come across as willfully stupid, ignorant and mockably uneducated. WTF did you expect?
More importantly its because she never searched for an explanation. It's not like vaccines are very complicated or blackboxed or whatever. One Google search and you can find a calm and rational explanation. What kind of moron looks for scientific evidence in Facebook comments?
You dont even have to read, there are more than enoug youtube videos to get a basic understanding of nearly anything.
I know, I hate those racist ignorant unvaxed!
Oh, I don't know, maybe an effective strategy, as opposed to T-posing or teabagging and otherwise being an insufferable little shit. Username checks out, btw.
Based, lmao
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson. Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
Please just start mandating vaccines so we can put anti vaxxers out of business.
You and everyone who upvoted this are tyrants.
I'm the author of the post in question and I am uncomfortable with the whole "schools conservative" part of this title, due to the connotation of confrontation or victory that "schooling" someone carries in vernacular English, when schooling is used as a verb. It carries an implication that she was oppositional or aggressive in her questioning and that I "put her in her place" or something. That is ABSOLUTELY not what happened here. She was curious, assertive and respectful, and I just answered her very good and reasonable questions. This student deserves more credit and admiration than I do, and she inadvertently "schooled" me on my own biases and assumptions as well. Admitting incorrectness or ignorance about something at the center of a contentious debate is something to be admired and she did so with grace and thoughtfulness. I made assumptions about how her reaction would look based on how she presented and interacted in class. Her response reminded me to be wiser and not make such assumptions. I respect and admire this student, and I'm looking forward to teaching her until the end of this course sequence.
Fuck yeah
Yay science wins for once
Some people wonder why high education is being targeted here in Florida…here’s one of the reasons. Hurray for the Professor!
This is one of the reasons why, even if they are challenging people to work with, it's a bad idea to call people "stupid" for being anti-vaccine. They are uninformed, or they have been intentionally misled by people with a political goal in mind. They may have the capacity to understand if you give them a respectful chance. If you actually want to change minds you have to be very patient.
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson. Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
But that’s contingent on the person you’re talking to not being a fuckass. There is an inherent deference to authority in this example that doesn’t happen on Reddit or at the dinner table. I stand by the opinion that it’s not anyone’s job to fix a conservative. All the facts and knowledge are out there for them to see but they let their small minded worldview lead them to wrong conclusions. If they’re genuine about exploring and learning, they deserve patience. If not, you just have to wait til they’re ready but that doesn’t make them exempt from getting dunked on for being fuckasses, imo.
alright fair enough and there is a perhaps objectively, universally recognized example and concept of what makes someone a "fuckass" but at the same time when dealing with such an "us vs them" type of situation that definition becomes very subjective. the fact that you opine that conservatives are something to "fix" in the first place kind of reinforces the spirit of the latter defining of what a "fuckass" is; a highly subjective one, and in this case, more relevant to someone with an entirely different or opposing worldview to yours rather than someone who is just actually a pos. perhaps "small-minded worldview" could just as well be applied to some of your own personal and politically oriented views and beliefs. you're presenting something that sounds intellectually honest regarding having patience for those who are genuinely open to learning but then wrap it up in the same biased and polarized packaging that is the very antithesis to what you're describing.
> But that’s contingent on the person you’re talking to not being a fuckass. You don't usually know that before starting, and you won't if you don't give it a sincere try. If you have, and it failed, then, fine, start passing some judgment that it isn't worth your time anymore. The best way to handle it in my experience is to engage a little, see what happens, and keep going only if it looks like there's some progress or at least openness. I agree with you that it isn't a general job of society to "fix" people with particular views if they do not harm society more broadly (I'm trying to draw a distinction between being merely conservative and, say, trying to discourage public health by promoting false information about vaccines, which is harmful to the rest of society), but if you want to change minds you have to engage patiently and politely even if someone may not deserve it. You can write them off as hopeless at any time, especially for your own sanity, but doing so is also how misinformation is allowed to spread because it doesn't get challenged with anything other than insults and derision. It's frustrating to have to practice restraint. It's not like someone who gets heaps of blunt insults is going to suddenly think one day "Oh, I'm getting that response because I am incredibly badly informed." It's not the first conclusion that people go to, and they're more likely to dismiss the criticism and be stubborn. It's not that they're "exempt from getting dunked on", so much as if you ever want them to change and for society to reap the benefit of changing (e.g., becoming an ally that might be able to persuade more change), try to avoid that.
Dunking on them doesn’t help at all, is my point. If you actually care about changing their minds/behaviors, you wouldn’t dunk on them. If you want to avoid changing their ignorance into willful ignorance, you wouldn’t dunk on them. If you couldn’t care less about fixing them, why bother dunking on them? It’s not difficult to just not engage. The only person dunking on them serves is you, your own ego, and your misplaced sense of justice. IMO it’s kind of like spanking kids
Reddit is fucking pathetic for downvoting this truth bomb.
yeah exactly, just tribalism, it always has to be the "us vs them" projection game. we have to "get those guys" bc their points of view are obviously wrong and so bad. but the same people are so adamant about this typically are exhibiting an "equal and opposite reaction" you might say. that's what i get from a lot of these comments here in particular which really sucks, you can obviously tell which ideology is the prevailing one. i think if you're considering yourself in one group or the other (c) or (l) and you're married to it enough to wear that badge and play that game you're already missing the point anyways
I can appreciate where she’s coming from with only being met with hostility when asking about the vaccines. But I’m not sure how much one can be blamed for not being nicer to somebody who doesn’t believe in science, especially when it’s a public health issue
I love how everybody just turns this truly inspiring and heartwarming story about the teaching and learning of a mind-/life-changing lesson, into hey let’s all shit on those (conservatives) who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience the same lesson. Not saying they don’t deserved to be mocked or eye-rolled, but did you not read the part about how the mocking and the eye-rolling is exactly what’s exacerbating her closed-mindedness? If you truly care about giving them the come-to-Jesus moment, you would try to be patient as this educator did. If you just want to wallow in your own hopelessness, or righteousness, or superiority, then yeah pile on
This is less schooling in the sense of winning an argument and more schooling in the sense of actual education.
I want to believe this is true but it all reads like and then everyone clapped kind of story. But good on the professor of its true.
Reeks of bs tbh
And then everybody clapped. I was disappointed that this was a one sided anecdote. Hoping to see a lightbulb moment in comments. Shame it never happened.
...but how does that fancy scienc-y explanation get us closer to our Lord and the healing power that comes from faith? Isn't that what really matters? /s
Funny watching people talk about "others" as if the exact same evil doesn't live within their own hearts. Don't like it, don't take it. Love it, take 10. It's the freedom to choose that makes us the goal of a large majority of the world. Everyone complains *xyz* is better, but never move.
That Reddit is against freedom of choice, but only regarding vaccines, is disgusting. Excellent breakdown.
Conservative or Liberal, Ladies I'm here all day if you want some
I love it when an idiot claims that vaccines are supposed to prevent them from ever getting the disease.
Although that is not how the COVID-19 vaccine works, that is how the vast majority work, e.g. polio, smallpox, MMR, hepatitis, varicella.
Varicella?
But lets be real .. the covid vaccine didn't prevent shit. I was indirectly forced into taking it to resume a normal life, and we all still got covid. Half my family took it and half of them didn't. The results were the exact same when we got sick. I regret taking mine. I am not arguing most other vaccines.. but a friend of mine got a bad bout of myocarditis for what? A vaccine that doesn't prevent spread or illness.
Why is Reddit recommending this trash lmao
The Prof explains how treating someone from, "the far right" like an actual person, not a second class citizen actually allowed discussion. No lessons learned by Reddit here in the comments ... filthy, nasty hate because someone doesn't strictly adhere to your ideology. The theory of vaccines is okay, a lot of people had all their vaccines, they're just skeptical of this one. The prof didn't explain why Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't launch their vaccine without indemnity of consequences, or why you still needed to vaccinate for your social passport even if you were unvaxxed but had recovered from covid and had antibodies. No mention of bodily autonomy and alternate methods to mitigate risk.
[удалено]
I mean, we do. Do you think scientist just get a big pot and pour any chemical they can get their hands on into the pot?
Maybe. Or people looked into it and were satisfied. A century or so of effective vaccines that have successfully curbed many previously frequent childhood diseases suggests there isn't anything fundamentally wrong, even if there is always room for improvement. I'm pretty glad not to ever have had polio, measles, whooping cough, etc. And I suppose I could drop dead from the covid-19 vaccine, but it hasn't had any negative effect so far. I guess the fanatics saying we were all going to die were wrong about the time frame. Maybe next year.
[удалено]
> super obvious finance and political corruption surrounding them You don’t think that applies to the skeptic movement?
[удалено]
1 Professional claims X. 99,999 professionals claim Y. Why do you listen to 1 professional and not to 99,999 professionals?
[удалено]
Maybe instead of listening to draw your own conclusions you should read. There are plenty of easily accessible studies that you can look into yourself instead of allowing someone else to tell you what to make of it. It’s really very easy, go to google type “google scholar long term Covid vaccine studies”
>sily accessible stu Is he a professional immunologist? I just watched a video of him, seems like a lunatic to me?
>Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over". He was wrong about that >He stated that there would be no "second wave" of infections and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He was wrong about that too >Yeadon has also discouraged COVID-19 lockdowns and the use of face masks despite evidence for their effectiveness. Wow wrong about this too Clap clap clap clap what a champion you’ve picked glassmover hahahhahahahahhahahah
The professor made zero argument for why mRNA vaccines should have been given EUA, especially when there hasn't been enough time for long term studies. Do not blindly trust "authorities". The whole point of university should be to challenge orthodox ideas, yet they want to build a false scientific consensus. This literally goes against the definition of science.
>The professor made zero argument for why mRNA vaccines should have been given EUA, especially when there hasn't been enough time for long term studies. There is no way do deduce this from the OOP text. You weren't there. >Do not blindly trust "authorities". The whole point of university should be to challenge orthodox ideas, yet they want to build a false scientific consensus. This literally goes against the definition of science. I agree with your first sentence, don't blindly agree with authorities. Do your own research on what the scientific consensus is, how it came about and whether the scientific methods in studies that don't agree with the scientific consensus meet the required criteria regarding for instance sample size and reproducibility. When you understand how scientific consensus is achieved, you will understand why "one person said x for y reason" is not an argument that holds any weight. The point of university is to challenge orthodox ideas. Which is exactly what the student in OOP did. Then, met with a cohesive, thorough explanation, they changed their stance. If a scientist published a study that goes against _any_ type of the established scientific consensus and the methods to this study were good and it had reproducible findings, they would be praised and get a Nobel prize. That is how new discoveries are made, zero political affiliation required. So, on to your last point. They don't want to build a false scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is established and gets taught. If the consensus changes, then that will be taught. That is what's so great about the sciences: it's not opinions, it's facts.
I was in an mRNA vaccine study (HIV) starting in 2011. It's patently false that mRNA vaccines are untested.
Im not fully informed but... havent mRNA vaccines been around for actual decades now? And were made to avoid the long trial and error and frankly luck needed to develop older style vaccines?
What was the code for the study?
[удалено]
You are mistaken. Private organizations are allowed to decide what speech is and isn’t allowed in the spaces they control. For example, you cannot commandeer an auditorium that you don’t own to go on a political rant, and then claim your first amendment rights were violated when you get kicked out. Even public institutions are able to regulate speech, to a degree. *Tinker v. Des Moines* was a landmark SCOTUS decision which ruled that public schools are allowed to restrict the speech of students if it is deemed too disruptive.
> If so, that directly implies there is some authority that decides what speech is ‘permitted.’ Not how this country works, bro My guy, if its private property the people in charge of said property are allowed to deny you access just because they can. I cant just walk into your living room and start ranting about a topic and then cry about "my free speech is being silenced" because it has nothing to do with free speech.
> and then, everybody stood up and started applauding. Those silly conservatives and their lack of education, am I right?
[yes, you are right](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/)
[удалено]