http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=2
Thoughts on this? How about any experience with what this article is relating about in a social setting or the work place?
>>43327
i think it's okay to discriminate based off what people think. this is why some people are in prison. because they think wrong
>>43330
So you have to think a certain way?
>>43333
yes. what you think can be horribly wrong. thinking wrong is what enables people to murder, rape, and steal. We all have the ability to control our thoughts. The people who do not control their thoughts are controlled by their desires. They are not good people and can be discriminated against freely
>>43335
Now I understand. I agree with you on that. I just like to see what people think and that's a fair enough answer thanks!
>>43335
>We all have the ability to control our thoughts.
You can no more control your thoughts than you can control your heartbeat.
>>43362
just think about the placebo effect for a minute. We have complete control over our bodies it's just a matter of eliminating doubt.
>>43330
>>43335
There is a definite difference between 'controlled by their desires' and a conservative opinion. To allow for discrimination based on ideology would be preferable in a sense, as bad thoughts go to die, but to be honest, that's simply too idealistic. An ideology, capable of controlling all media, would easily discriminate and destroy opposing ideologies, allowing for a single ideology to survive, which is dangerous for the survival of the state (less intellectual diversity would mean less possible viewpoints to attack a problem would mean possibly less favourable solutions would mean possible mistakes).
The gouvernment (for the sake of 'we, the people'), nor intellectual institutions (for the sake of intellectual diversity), musn't discriminate on basis of ideology, private institutions (companies, shops, baseball clubs, whatever) should be allowed to discriminate against ideology (that includes religion as it is an ideology) freely.
>In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.
Sadly very true. Just got out of a history program, and my God does the conversation still revolve around Marxism and class. Even when the word isn't said, good luck finding a research project that isn't, "Let's take scanty evidence of some little-known sub-section of a society, usually distinguished by race or gender, and see how far we can stretch it."
I mean, I like digging up nuggets too, but nobody wants to do a big sweeping paper about the Carolingian kings and their courts, they want to publish about some tiny fishing village on the Channel that had a large number of women working in the salt flats. It's interesting, but these aren't the people who made history, and it's a shame people care more about the trees than the forest.
>>43395
I was using discriminate with this definition:
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
If an ideology literally has fear/hate mongering in the dogma then yeah it's bad. That doesn't mean you commit genocide. Also i wasn't initially talking about entire ideologies.
>>43395
btw: you literally put 'discriminating against ideology' into my mouth then refuted it.
i was talking about discriminating against simpler more specific thought patterns that lead people to do bad stuff. These people need to be taught what they are thinking is wrong in the same way people need to be taught that cigarettes kill you.
What you intend has an affect on the reality we all experience. There are studies that prove people can change the outcome of random number generators with their intention.
Quantum mechanics sheds a lot of light on the nature of conscious awareness.
also i have no idea what you mean by your first sentence.
>>43330
The US first amendment protects freedom of expression preventing people from being tossed in jail simply because you don't like the way they think. What fascist shithole do you live in comrade?
>>43473
>These people need to be taught
arrogant prick
>people can change the outcome of random number generators with their intention.
bullshit
>Quantum mechanics sheds a lot of light on
abject bullshit
Take a long hard look in the mirror, you pretentious retarded fuck.
>>43335
Now I get it. You're one of those retarded liberals who can't separate thought from action. I can dream about stealing a murdered corpse and raping it, or raping someone in a stolen car then murdering them all day long. This is not 1984. You only get tossed in jail for performing the act.
>>43478
What about conspiracy to commit murder?
>>43479
The must be some action which shows the person is serious in their intention to follow through. Black kids threatened to kill George Bush on Youtube all the time when he was president. It's fairly reasonable to assume they were blowing off steam.
>>43478
if you think it's healthy to have those dreams you are wrong. Carl Jung is really interesting when it comes to dreams. I've had weird dreams too and i know they stem from a deep desire within me that i control. Over the past 3 or 4 years i've drastically reduced my desire for those things and i've stopped having those dreams. Last night i dreamt that i chatted with my grandparents and they told me they'd be sleeping in. they did.
>>43481
That's beside the point. Thinking about it isn't a crime. Nobody gets tossed in jail for bad thoughts.
>>43335
>we all have the ability to control our thoughts
I'd like to introduce you to mental disorders.
>>43327
OpEds/Opinion pieces aren't allowed under the rules of the /news/ sticky.
>>43419
>but nobody wants to do a big sweeping paper about the Carolingian kings and their courts, they want to publish about some tiny fishing village on the Channel that had a large number of women working in the salt flats.
Aside from a single upper level history class I took as an elective, I didn't study history or the humanities, but isn't this exactly the point? A university paper is, what, 10-30 pages? We're talking about a research paper, not a dissertation, right?
Papers of that short length have to be focused. How are you supposed to do a big sweeping paper about the Carolingian kings in 15 pages? Moreover, how are you supposed to really contribute anything new or particularly insightful?
The Republican Party is largely to blame when they politicized and advocated anti-intellectualism on two established scientific facts: Global Warming (not even AGW yet - I'm talking 80s-90s here) and Evolution.
Prior to the 90s, the Republicans held a much larger share of the intellectual elite. Their shift in tone (driven by the Southern Strategy for evolution and corporate shilling for GW) cost them that credibility among the academic class.
In 2-Party American politics, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water, so with the rejection of anti-intellectualism in academia comes the rejection of most of the conservative platform.
>>43527
Although it's labeled as an Op-Ed, it's clearly rooted in fact. The evidence to this hypothesis can easily be seen in the comments section.
Talk about painful irony. Columnist write about arrogance in the extreme left, comments arrogantly explain how they're right and he is wrong/misguided.
And this isn't even my opinion. We have a few comments literally espousing the idea that they deserve to be arrogant.
>>43877
11/10 physicists approve this message. (The extra 1 is probably just experimental noise which according to quantum mechanics should not be unexpected)
>>43877
wow a comic as a response. At this point the only way to refute the results of say the double split experiment would be to perform it yourself.
>>43884
>a comic
>by an actual physicist
Anon you're the most persistent baiter I know but your whole post is bullshit and we all know it
>>43884
>defending quantum hogwash
Literally why, even if you're baiting.
why.
>>43890
because the scientific method has been used to show quantum entanglement is real.
People can't accept it (even those who call themselves scientists) because it shatters their perception of reality.
>>43892
Have fun with whatever this is that you're doing.
>>43330
what if the rules change. They are working on banning any rifle that has a removable magazine in California. You will be a felon if you dont give them your property for free. Effectively changing what is constitutionally correct to the exact opposite, a felony charge. In other words turing law abiding citizens over night into felons.
>>43933
I believe that violates our right to bear arms. I tend to ignore government laws that i don't agree with.
>>43473
As someone who professionally studies QM, I can legally be called upon in court as an expert witness to attest to the fact that what this man is saying is not only bullshit, but irresponsible bullshit.
What The [bleep] Do We Know is new agey hog wash intended only to sell DVDs and let middle school teachers sleep off hang overs in class. There is almost no scientific content in that "documentary" and society will be cleaning up that mess far into the future.
Please stop posting.
>>43475
Fucking this. If you can't stand up for the rights of your enemies, who will stand up for you when you're villified?
>>44690
your lies fuel me
Well, the guy isn't wrong. I've recently to face the fact that I'm something of a conservative liberal and I think that both Republican and Democratic parties have their equal share of positives and negatives, the latter being more radicalized version of said parties who embodies everything wrong about the parties themselves
I think we're in a cultural climate where radical thinking is manditorty and those who disagree are shunned as "ignorant"
>>43864
Then you should tell a schizo to stop hearing things or a bipolar person to calm down.
You're a scientologist aren't you?
