The video and its subsequent response sparked a significant reaction on social media, with numerous users rallying behind Sangwan's statement. However, some others disagreed, asserting that personal opinions should not be shared within classrooms.
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
Yeah no the whole “Universities are leftist brainwashing stations” is the most bullshit take I’ve heard and almost always comes from people who haven’t been within 15 feet of a college.
Literally most of the shit I was taught was literally neoliberal capitalist-friendly stuff mandated by the states requirements for the degree. A ton of it was helpful in terms of building effective critical thinking skills but if anything the only instructors that ever introduced any sort of political slant was usually the right wingers or religious people. Literally had an instructor intentionally frame parts of our philosophy class in a way that made more pro-religious philosophy appear to be the correct answer. Students that spoke out and tried to say they favored things like determinism for instance were often shut down by the instructor trying to make us look at things like free will in a way that was more favorable to religion. Later found out after the class the dude was a former pastor.
And even the few openly left-leaning instructors were usually just generic neoliberal democrat voting cut-outs that for some reason Republicans and other fringe lunatics pretend are leftist-communist-extremist-goblins.
The vast majority of instructors just simply didn’t even make their politics affiliation apparent. There’s tons I couldn’t even remotely gauge just simply because they only taught and talked about class material.
Removed by mod
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
Removed by mod
This is the dumbest comment I’ve seen on lemmy yet.
Well the first part is spot on…
The second part, not so much…
Aren’t most lawyers anyways?
Elaborate?
IIRC most of Congress started as lawyers. Could be wrong.
So apologies for not getting this, but what does that have anything to do with my comment that you originally replied to?
You were responding to someone stating they were history majors.
Does the word “left” mean science to you?
No. It means ‘science, bitch’
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
“Medicine has a clear goal - politics do not. “
This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.
I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.
I think politician has a goal of health of a nation. FTFY.
Your argument is stupid. Stop making yourself look the same.
Why does health of a nation matter? I don’t agree. And what does health of a nation mean?
I’d prefer a politician who let’s a nation collapse but greatly improves the quality of life of many. (Like what Gorbachev could’ve been.)
Lol. I’m sure you would agree that improving the quality of life of many is improving the health of a nation. QED.
Okay so thats how you define it. Again, QoL is not every politicians goal.
Removed by mod
Tell me you don’t know what the work “educated” means in a truly demented political rant without admitting you don’t know what the word means.
Removed by mod
Well, you did what he asked
Yeah no the whole “Universities are leftist brainwashing stations” is the most bullshit take I’ve heard and almost always comes from people who haven’t been within 15 feet of a college.
Literally most of the shit I was taught was literally neoliberal capitalist-friendly stuff mandated by the states requirements for the degree. A ton of it was helpful in terms of building effective critical thinking skills but if anything the only instructors that ever introduced any sort of political slant was usually the right wingers or religious people. Literally had an instructor intentionally frame parts of our philosophy class in a way that made more pro-religious philosophy appear to be the correct answer. Students that spoke out and tried to say they favored things like determinism for instance were often shut down by the instructor trying to make us look at things like free will in a way that was more favorable to religion. Later found out after the class the dude was a former pastor.
And even the few openly left-leaning instructors were usually just generic neoliberal democrat voting cut-outs that for some reason Republicans and other fringe lunatics pretend are leftist-communist-extremist-goblins.
The vast majority of instructors just simply didn’t even make their politics affiliation apparent. There’s tons I couldn’t even remotely gauge just simply because they only taught and talked about class material.
It means it pisses off GOP’s
We have found Tom McDonald’s Lemmy account