The sheeps (the majority about 90%) they are less educated, easy to manipulate & very reactionary.
The shepherds (the minority about 1%) they are highly educated, come from generational wealth & want to defend & multiply their wealth by influenving the sheeps.
The sheep dogs (about 9%) they are highly educated & very oportunistic. They don't come from wealth and dream of wealth. Their only goal in life is to be shepherds one day. (Most likely they won't achieve it maybe one will make it to be uaed a champion that it's possible) but they will do everything to achieve it and thus work overtime for the shepherds & influence the sheeps as much aa poaaible.
So yeah, about 10% of the right wingers are educated. The majority still is less educazed and easy to manipulatw.
Believe it or not, there are well educated, intelligent and well intended people in the right wing. Not the majority, by any chance, but I've met these people. I'm not saying they're right, but assuming the only possible causes for their beliefs are either ignorance or ill will/greed just feeds the polarization that's currently destroying western civilization.
What is their answer to "people are hungry and die of starvation or not being able to afford needs, while others have more money than what's possible to spend in hundreds of lifetimes of extreme luxury, what should be done about that?"? Because I can't imagine an educated, well intentioned answer to it, either you're too dumb to understand reality or you're okay with people suffering and dying.
Good video on the topic. TL;DR: They believe it's inevitable and not something you can just fix/that you can only fix very slowly. It's a fucking stupid worldview, but not an impossible one, though it's not hard to see why such worldviews tend to come from positions of privilege.
Common subsets of this category (cynics) I’ve seen or met include those who are (A) opportunists working the corporate funding angle who are allowed or even encouraged to do so by their departments/institutions, and (B) obligate centrists who are so reticent to be identified as leaning in any particular direction politically that they effectively accept or even endorse any and every systemic injustice.
Subgroup A are quite prevalent in journals yet tend to have markedly low-quality contributions comparatively, leading me think they are over-represented in peer review especially, easily a symptom of corruption inherent to private journals.
Subgroup B are IMO the academic version of MLK’s “white moderate” who are simply self-interested careerists. I would say these are by far the most common by number. They aren’t working for the Right directly like subgroup A, but they won’t lift a finger to help if it might jeopardize their position. That is to say, cowards.
If it's someone who is, themselves, very well-off, it goes one of two ways. Either a deontological "property is inviolable and so it doesn't matter", or "this money is fair compensation for just how awesome I am". The latter of which implies they've already done enough for their lessers, so shut up.
"Only Americans are human, so yes, I guess we should help the American poor" is basically the MAGA answer. That also used to be the German answer. Some grifters also use the same logic, but with an even smaller group of people they care about, like just their own family.
Somebody else mentioned "it's the way it's always been/inevitable", but if you're educated at all, you'll know better, because nothing is like it was in 1700. So, that's not an answer to your question.
(You'll notice a common strain, that people tend to pick a worldview that's convenient for them, personally. That actually goes for the left wing, as well)
I don't know what all of their answers are, but as a latin american I can offer you my perspective of hunger and starvation not being exclusive to the right wing and extreme luxury being something many left wing politicians will happily indulge in once elected, while their populace live in misery.
Many of them do believe in different forms of redistribution too. Right wing political stances do not equate to "give every last penny to the rich and private sector". Political perspectives have nuance.
Not who you're replying to, but sounds like Latin Americans are more familiar than the US by far with leftist populist dictators, Fidel Castro types... The cigar smoking kinda guys who inspired the game Tropico.
In the US, we teach that communism is a mortal enemy that only leads to starvation and we elect greedy oligarchs that promise life will get better eventually while they fill their pockets. Socialism is seen as the extreme anti-State solution where no one starves and everyone is educated. And any evidence to the contrary is considered conservative propaganda.
There's little room for nuance in the US. We went so far right that it feels like you have to move all the way left to fix things. And the more they call socialism the enemy, the better it sounds to people. The youth grow up thinking, either they support Trump or they're a socialist... He's probably doing more for socialism than American socialists ever did.
I swear just having free healthcare in the 90s could have prevented all this.
I kinda went on a rant here, lol, but feel free to not read. I have very similar opinions, but wanted to make a few points.
The Fidel types are the more colorful examples, but we have many more. There's also the not-quite-dictators-but-dangerously-close- types, who make use of authoritarianism, media control, persecution of political adversaries, and shady democratic tactics such as Hugo Chavez & Maduro, Juan Domingo Peron, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Christina Kirchner, Lula da Silva (don't have enough info on this guy to put him in the same bag w the rest)... I'm sure some other latinamerican will see this and tell me the alternatives were far worse, and they'll likely be right, but I'd bet money NO latin american will dare tell me any of these were fair ethical leaders with the best interest of their country in mind.
And I fully agree with your point. You guys went so far down right, (and you might hate me a bit for making this point) but your left parties are also the right wing. They might not cater to the same lobbyists, but it seems more and more to me than there is no true will to offer reasonable state services or social security nets for the vast majority of the population by either party of yours. The dems have been as much in bed with your highly toxic financial and pharma sectors as the republicans have for decades now. Your left wing politicians attempt to get elected by sending feel good messages to a comfortable middle class that wants to care but to not sacrifice anything of their own or even worse: to consort/share spaces with actual poor people.
I'm talking the people who have half of the male members of their family in prison. I'm talking people who's entire family is unemployed and unemployable. Generational misery. The people under the bridge. Sex workers, foster care kids, people in trailer parks with no running water and the roughest parts of the ghettos.
The actual poor people, ignorant and naive as they may be in many regards, saw right through charade of policies and philosophies that sound oh-so-humane but don't actually substantially help anyone in their precarious conditions, and said "fuck em", and in their anger, despair, naivete and ignorance went straight into the clutches of "the exact opposite of what I hate" and now we have Trump. I say we, because I consider my country a client/vassal state of the US.
And yeah, free healthcare sounds so foreign and far away nowadays, doesn't it? Yet poorer countries pull it off relatively well. Horrible that we've gotten to this point of brainwashing by big industries/interest groups.
I'm not sharing these thoughts to tell you your left wing is no good and nothing good can come from it. To the contrary. You guys (and we) need a strong, powerful and healthy left wing and I really really hope you can get there. I am, however, warning you against the perils of voting for "OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS" because in latina america we've seen that movie plenty of times and it ends in "so I guess now we have a dictator".
Sorry for the rant. Just felt like sharing my thoughts in this regard.
I truly wish you, your country and the world the very best, and I also think a healthy socialist system is the right path. Hopefully we get somewhere nice without any more atrocities happening.
My left leaning classmate also says that American left is also right. Unfortunately, I never got a popular enough left in my country. All parties are just right and far right.
I agree with most of what you said, but there's one thing we STRONGLY disagree with, and that is Lula. The others you mentioned I either don't know enough to have a strong opinion or (most of them) wholeheartedly agree that are authoritarians with only their own interests in mind. But putting Lula in the same bag as those guys shows that either you don't know enough about him, or that you fell for the misinformation campaigns done by the Brazilian extreme right when trying to get elected.
And I'm case we're not clear, I'm a latin american who lived during most of Lula's governments in Brazil and I think he is a fair and ethical leader with the best interest of its people in mind. And if I were allowed to vote in Brazil I would have voted for him, without a doubt.
So, instead of assuming your information on him and trying to explain all of the policies he created through all of his governments, I'll ask you what makes you think he's like that?
It's very safe to assume you're better informed about him than I am. There was definitely a smudging campaign that we caught a lot of here, and I don't remember the charges he did time for other than them vaguely being about 'corruption'. I think it's pretty safe to assume he was taking more than a little something on the side, as it would be with the vast majority of our presidents, but I won't hold that against him. I vaguely recall something about money laundering and a luxurious apartment. But anyway, that's not my issue with him. He had close ties with Christina Kirchner, which is well known to have had people killed for investigating her, and i remember something about him and her wanting to make some kind of latin american alliance thing which I consider a terrifying idea. There were also stuff about political persecution of the bolsonaro nutjob proteters but I'll take that with a big pinch of salt.
Anyway, I'll take your word over mine and edit my post.
Nah I read it all and fully agree. 🫡 Wishing you the best American sibling wherever you are. I still have some hope things can turn around but it's hard to see the light right now with corruption as rampant as it is.
It's always a reminder to appreciate what you have right now, because I do think things will get worse before they get better. I don't take the relative peace, shelter, running water and electricity for granted, and I similarly shouldn't be terrified of a day coming when all that isn't available. Just good to prep some emergency cash and stuff when you can and ride out the bullshit best you can.
I think I'm just sad that Trump won over as many Americans as he did with hate rhetoric, but can't say we weren't warned that this sentiment was building.
Man, I really hope people read this and take it to heart. Comfortable middle class Westerner who wants “OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS” is the average Lemmy user.
(That's me too, but only half way, and I don't want the complete opposite of anything)
I'm comfortable enough too, compared to how things go for the lower percentiles here, but yeah. People freak out and overreact. Most lemmy people seem to be in a perpetual state of outrage and panic, which, you know, understandable, but the first people to get screwed in any crisis are the ones that panic.
I've been making an effort to try to emotionally regulate the people I come across here the best I can when possible, but man.. it's challenging.
I'm also a latin american, I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist on the left wing, or that they're not assholes who will go crazy with power. Also I'm not saying voting right wing is always the wrong thing to do, for me authoritarian/democratic is much more important than left/right, so if my choices are authoritarian left vs democratic right, I'll vote right.
But fundamentally when asked about inequality the right wing answer is always along the lines of "it is what it is" or "it will be solved very slowly over the next hundreds of years by not doing anything", both of which are either ignorant or evil, and of you're talking about an educated person one of those should be off the table.
Well-intended, sure. Everyone is the protagonist of their own story.
Intelligent, maybe, although that's always going to push a person towards something a bit more nuanced. Other personality defects have to pick up the slack.
Educated, well, that depends on what they studied. Engineers and doctors don't really learn much that prevents you from being a bad person. It's hard to imagine a (modern) anthropologist buying into whatever fascist nonsense, though.
The current US right wing leader is destroying any possibility the sensible right wing concerns get any attention, but just because something took a turn to the dark side doesn't mean there was nothing worthwhile in it to begin with.
Healthy right wing politics often promote the possibilities of small businesses to thrive in ethical ways, not the defense of unholy monopolies or abusive employment conditions. They are also more traditionally concerned with individual freedoms and right to privacy. What we are seeing now in US and global politics is not a balanced representation of right wing any more than pol pot is a fair representation of the left. It's a full blown authoritarian police state kleptocracy, and as us in the third world can testify, these can come from either side.
Well intended towards themselves and their own. By definition there are none who are well intended towards humanity in general, since Conservatism in all its forms relies on in- and out-groups of people.
I'm not sure how you can be on lemmy or reddit and not recognize out-grouping from the left. Groups fundamentally define themselves by what they aren't. And each group will strawman the other to strongarm their adherents into staying within the group.
Communist. Pink haired liberals. Nazis. Fascists. Meaningless boring out-group names that are repeated ad nauseum. But go. Indulge. Join a team and have fun. But don't sacrifice real relationships for some politician. Be smarter than that.
Belief that everyone is part of a camp is tenuous to say the least and leads to a us and them rhetoric that prevents us from properly defining subjects.
Part of this is simply conservativism is a backwards philosophy that looks to reinforce traditional hierarchy. Conservatives might not like this reality, but that is another discussion.
Do you have some examples of sheep dogs? The movement, as I've seen it, seems like a pretty straight continuum from sheep to shepherd. Either you're successfully grifting, a sucker, or both.
It seems possible OP is actually classifying the shepherds/grifters as sheepdogs, and imagining a separate group at the top that doesn't exist.
Andrew Tate is a great example. Obviously, most of his whole persona is fake, and obviously, he made a good deal of money from it, but his background is relatively ordinary. Lots of people in the White House are only marginally different from that.
I know a right wing guy who has a PhD, speaks 5 different languages and is an immigrant. He says that you can tell which immigrants are terrorists by just looking at them and everyone who looks like that should be arrested.
I know another right wing guy who has a PhD in Informatics and owns 20 houses in Amsterdam. He doesn't see the problem. People can just move somewhere else.
Both of them don't just have PhDs, they work as academics, one in Berlin the other in Amsterdam.
Go to any school of economics, comp sci faculty, school of business and dare i say biology and you'll find a lot of em. They tend to be less vocal. Historians too.
I think they're referring to the observed propensity for those who are "really into" world war II history to be right-wing, so 1930s-1940s-ish. This obviously isn't ubiquitous, but having a particular interest in the second world war has definitely taken on a reputation.
Anecdotally, playing Paradox's grand strategy games, Hearts of Iron has more noticeable fascists, or at least players who near-exclusively play fascist nations "because it's just so interesting". I have some cousins who mostly play fascist Germany.
I play Deep Rock Galactic, a game where you're a dwarf in space and are enslaved by a dystopian mining corporation with no hopes of escape. The game is a survival horror mission thing where you go into mines, shoot the hostile wild life and get minerals so the mining corporation can profit. I wonder what that says about me...
I wrote a reply earlier but my app was being futzy and it looks like it didn't send. Apologies if this double-posts.
I wasn't making an absolutist statement on folks' tastes in games (or any media). I don't believe that most Hearts of Iron players are fascists any more than I believe that most Crusader Kings players want to bang their sisters and play eugenics, or that Factorio players want to terraform an alien planet into a concrete and steel wasteland and kill all native life.
You don't need to be a fascist to enjoy playing as a historical "bad guy", but, especially as it concerns real-world politics then and now, media centered or themed around the time during which fascism evolved will naturally attract a greater audience of that leaning than media that doesn't. I personally have a greater interest in the mid 19th-mid 20th centuries than many other points in history due to the rapid sociological, political, and technological advancements of the era -- particularly labor theory and uprisings -- so I get drawn to games like Victoria for those systems.
I've definitely seen several examples of the stereotypes you pointed out in your previous post, too, so no argument here.
The 1800s must have definitely been a wild ride. Interesting study case too. New forms of mass media running wild, automation generating a handful of people unimaginable wealth. Yep yep. Definitely worth looking into.
It operates in many ways. One way is looking at outcomes. For instance, compare abstinence-only to more comprehensive sex-ed and look at what happens to teen pregnancy rates. Reality would favor the liberal policy.
Conservative policy does not care about outcomes, it just cares about preserving the hierarchy, which is why conservatives have to work overtime to discount academics.
Certainly it's not none, but there's a trend where college educated people tend towards leftist ideals purely because they're exposed to more ideas, more people, more things, and that tends to lead to broader acceptance, which is, unfortunately, a polarizing thing. Many right-wing points are grounded in xenophobia, racism and an 'us vs. them' mentality, and it's harder to hold those ideals when folks are put into situations where they have to actually interact with and get to know the people they're "against", rather than them just being faceless boogie men to be feared and hated.
You can find stats showing that support for the Conservatives falls in Canada as education rises. So depending on region and definition, it's not just you.
That being said, that doesn't mean there are zero. Jordan Peterson as a famous example.
It's the same in Germany. Support for our right wing party is dropping as education rises. So if you are more educated you're less likely to vote for them.
Current STEM researcher who also happened to have met a few academics on the right side of the political spectrum... I am very qualified to speak about this I hope. I'll try to use as unbiased language as possible
First of all, you are correct. It is generally true that most academics are left-leaning (obligatory not all, but you get the point)
In general, higher education attainment is associated with being left-leaning: academia is known to have extreme levels of education attainment (many jobs require a PhD). On top of it, academic jobs reward intellectual curiosity, do not tend to pay super well, tend to heavily rely on governmental funding... all of these are traditionally more associated with the political left or left-leaning. Still, there very much are right-leaning academics, they just don't tend to scream around a lot about it
There are notable exceptions however. Economics is quite famous for being politically balanced, although what economics treat as left/right-leaning might be a bit different from the general public. If I remember, business schools (yes there are business professors!) tend to be more right-leaning. This is a smaller field and a bit more anecdotal, but quite a few prominent meta-science researchers are right-wing nutjobs: the "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" guy and the NIH director Bhattacharya guy are both COVID deniers
There are also fringe scientists as some others have mentioned, but most people within their fields don't consider fringe scientists as part of the academia so to speak
Damn, I am right leaning but I do not deny COVID. Interesting though. I also noticed that in Computer Science too, there are a lot of right wing people, especially these days being pro-AI is often a symbol of being right wing.
First of all: you're good! I think there are lots of centrist and right-leaning people in academia who are doing just fine; especially in the US lots of world-class unis are in deeply conservative areas too. Most of academia don't discuss politics that much at all as long as one cares about science. I'd wager the political leaning bias is more from a population bias rather than systematic discrimination of any sort
I could imagine AI researchers being more right-leaning yeah. The stats I got were from personal anecdote and research being done about this a short while back... there might have been an update in the AI age
Being an academic means being open minded because when researching something, the outcome may be different from what you expected. In such cases do you concede that your initial theory was wrong or do you stubbornly continue to believe that you were right and keep trying to prove yourself correct?
No, plenty of scientists and a disturbing number of physician scientists are GOP voters. They tend to be the ones who sleep with their trainees and cheat on their spouses. They don't think sexual harassment is a real thing and don't understand why women complain about anything. They occasionally get fired for their behavior but get hired elsewhere because they can find like-minded individuals who couldn't care less about sexual misconduct at work. Recently there was a lot of noise about hiring a physician scientist and he was just about to start when people started pointing out that he was fired from his last job for surreptitiously filming the women's locker room and bathroom.
OLDer MDs and scientists from the boomer era tend to be conservatives, because to be an MD and scientist in those times require you to be somewhat rich or well off.
Well, he was. I think maybe he gave it up to become a professional right-wing grifter before dropping out of public life. Not only did he have a tenured position at a big university, he was also among the ringleaders of what they called the "intellectual dark web". That brand is pretty much defunct by now, but it was big a few years ago and its function was indeed to bring attention to rabid right-wing lunatics in academia.
There are, but they often kicked out of academia pretty quickly because academic universties dont want to be associated with these people because it discredits the Universities reputation, by providing pseudoscientific beliefs.
J peterson, recently SABINE from youtube, you dint mentioned failed academics too, MDs like she claims she was "ousted from academia in germany, because shes a women" but it was actually are far right views(funded by friends of thiel), and then another one that claims " being a POC played a part why they are not "smart" enough for certian jobs, because they have tendancy towards not being intelligent.
so these people become "influencers" for the far right. when i was in CC, one of my gen bio prof told us that she had a student that was christian, and she was only giving answers on HW/tests as "GOD did it". nevertheless, they had to drop out of COLLEGE.
if there was, they would have to constantly challenge the research, studies out there in academia that contradicts them. theres no way they stay in academia, and thier "own" research is based entirely on assumptions and outdated research.
That's the thing about right-wing populism. It relies on primitive instincts. It's a baseline. It requires no effort.
Rich people are smarter, otherwise they wouln't be rich. No don't tax them, they worked so much harder than anyone else to get there! Taxing them will only punish the imaginative and the resourceful, while incentivising the lazy and the worthless. I blame the immigrants because they work harder and for less money, and it's their fault that I also have to work harder for less! We need one more lane, that would relieve the traffic so much!
These takes always seem super OBVIOUS at first, and if you never bother revising them - you'll just be stuck with them. The longer you live with them, the firmer you'll latch onto them.
That's why it's so crucial for the rightwingers to dismantle the education system. They need you to be ignorant. Take things face-value.
There are a lot of sources beyond universities that do research, including various public policy research institutes or think tanks. They have a spectrum of different ideologies, but a lot of them tend to go more conservative as a lot of them rely on private funding and rich people like having studies which back up their views. If you're a leftist and need a patron to find your research, it is more likely you're going to find a government patron than a private patron. If you're a conservative, you'll probably find more money in private organizations to perform your research.
Yeah, and I guess we've each brought up a point that bears observing: the Right is increasingly synonymous with evangelical Christianity, which does NOT stand up to academic scrutiny. If you want to make someone an atheist, there's no surer way to do so then send them to seminary.
Apart from BYU, rest of them sound like they are just Bible colleges (I know about Wheaton though 'cuz Heliocentric (a youtuber) talked about his experience in Wheaton)
Depends on what you call "academics". If you mistake phrase shifter courses like "business administration", "politics", or "law" as academic, then yes.
I'm sure there are some academics who are right wing and some uneducated people who are left wing. But for the most part it is generally true that academics are more likely to be left wing. To put it rudely, stupid people generally believe right wing talking points. Right wing worldview is full of contradictions an uneducated beliefs. People who are curious and bother to educate themselves about the issues are generally more likely to be left wing. Than again, I am left wing so of course I'm going to be biased towards believing left wing views are smart
There are certainly people who can get doctorates while still being right wing, those are the ones that get paid a lot of money to tell poor people to stop complaining about being poor.
If you want right-wing academics, look at Economics (eg. Milton Friedman School), Classics, History, and CS. Not that any of those fields are dominated by the right, but there are pockets of them in those fields still.
There are far more conservatives in academia than actual leftists. And there are more liberals in academia than both groups combined. See Catherine Liu for an example of an actual leftist in academia who speaks on this dynamic.
its probably because leftists were demonized in the cold war era leaving conservatism relatively untouched, so they arnt outspokemon about it or even become a PHD.
I do this sometimes on Lemmy. “I’m with you on Sony and disc games, but here are the arguments their lawyers would make about it…”
I get annoyed when someone posts a “side” I agree with, but uses a complete zero-thought, easily-defeated argument to defend it. A classic one is “If buying isn’t owning, then pirating isn’t stealing.”
Where I live, it is very rare to see left wing person. One of my classmate is so we just keep on debating on literally everything (I am kinda center-right) and it is the most fun thing I do in my university.
In my urban development class, someone said that clearing junkies out of the subway stations was a form of gentrification, which got nods and finger snaps from the class.
I said that was the dumbest thing i ever heard,which got some tuts from everyone.
The point is, it would have been interesting to hear her debate that point, make some arguments in favour,and then counter those from different perspectives,but the range wasn't there.
They are fewer than those who lean left but they are there. And typically they tend more toward moderation that extremism. Quintessentially, they're moderate to liberal conservatives. Often times you'll find them more in business and economics related fields.
The main reason being that exposure typically gets a person to come out of their highly conservative nature and education as well to better understand how the world operates. It's not a 100% thing as there are occasional reactionaries in positions of scientific note but they're few.
It depends on the country, but there's a self-preservation aspect to academics leaning left. In the USA especially but not exclusively a major right-wing policy point has been defunding academia and publicly-funded research in general. Unless you're in a field that can reliably pull private funding, such as some branches of the oft-mentioned economics, voting and sharing right-wing talking points carries a major risk of getting your funding cut and leaving you without a job.
The correlation is there. It's there more generally for education level - more educated people are usually more left wing. (And richer, which is a bit of a funny situation if you're doing class war)
Obviously, there's exceptions. Somebody mentioned techbros, and economists can fall anywhere. Probably, there's shitty nationalist historians still kicking around, as well.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon, although as more people achieve greater education, it looks a bit different. You'll remember most of the Reich's great scientists ended up working on the Manhattan project.
Theres fewer and fewer, but some avenues of academics a person wouldnt be swayed left/right solely by their knowledge and subject matter expertise that makes them an academic.
Off the top of my head, only economists have a right wing slant. But that's because the wealthy bought off the neoliberals to deregulate everything, and everyone agreed that the only people who knew about the economy, were the ones who said Regeanomics was a step in the right direction.
Everyone else was just called wrong and haven't had a real chance to try on smaller scales that it works.
Mamdani is a great example of someone who just does the easy obvious thing, the difference is him and his administration are actually trying. Doing it in a city with the GDP of most countries, is huge because it's an obvious example of it working.
economists are glorified soothsayers. No better than the astrologists that could kind of sort of tell you when it was a good idea to sow based on the stars of back in the day.
Yes they have some interesting frameworks, have discovered a few noteworthy causal mechanisms and hold some predictive power... but if you take the self-fulfilled prophecy factor into account ("the economy will behave this way because economics and therefore you should behave in this same way which causes...") I'm not so sure it's all that impressive.
Doctors were "modern day clergy" at one point, so we're historians, biologists, scientists, astronomers and almost everything else.
And they can be again.
Or even better none of them can be.
Like, you understand that economies are real things that need managed, and those people should review what works and what doesn't.
The current economists recommending shit that clearly don't work, are a negative to society. If they were gone, there be no negative. But why the actual fuck would you stop there and instead train economists to focus on different metrics than a handful of capitalists high scores.
They could study and determine what would help the most people and ensure basic needs are met.
That's what economists could be doing, and it would be worth way more than paying them to do it costs.
Sorry, I didn't want to come across as confrontational. Was just ranting in agreement.
I understand your frustration regarding the application of the discipline, and couldn't agree more.
The way I see it, and the reason I used the word "clergy" is because there are a few critical elements they have in common with priests and magi, more so than doctors, biologists and astronomers.
1.- They are the official thought-leaders of "what should be done" to reach our notion of "paradise" (in the past: heaven/afterlife; today: financial prosperity)
2.- They are extremely close to positions of political power and leadership of empires (like popes and archbishops back in the day)
3.- They study what society worships (in the past: god(s)/enlightenment/the good life; today: individual choice/wealth/money/power)
4.- They study esoteric mechanisms that are a black box to most ("magic") and have a fuzzy understanding about them themselves.
I think economics is instrumental to the growth of empires and by emergent design does things that don't help most people. Feeds them with everything they need to grow: (a means to get/make) slaves, lies and poison.
With the cheap labor they create through misery, the false promises they sustain through their theories and the monumental amount of poisonous goods and services they tell us we need to "stay productive", the economy is working perfectly fine as far as the most powerful people are concerned.
Maybe it's a stretch. idk. Just my thoughts. What do you think?
I think most of right wing is based on populist politicians. Left does not seem to me doing that much populist politics as many right wing people do. The target audience I think for them are the uneducated or not so much educated people who want a messianic figure to save them.
Generally only older ones who haven't kept up with advances in sociological research. The big issue we have in the US is that we have evidence-based examples of better organized societies that are able to achieve higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens by non-profit investment by the government. Ultimately oligarchs controlling all of the money doesn't create a better society.
Probably people who are curious and want to learn how the universe really is, who climb to the highest levels of Perry's scheme of cognition, who use Sagan's baloney detection kit, rather than supernatural and unfalsifiable excuses, to understand the cosmos. It's part of the scientific method and great to learn new things, not mistakes but data for next experiment, and big claims require big proof, like defending a thesis should require. We are all waves of one ocean made of stardust, observing the universe, conscious elements billions of years old. DNA that survived all the extinctions so far, on the one habitable planet, and nothing to rescue us, but human cooperation.
If you want faith, it must allow room for doubt and mystery, rather than twisted to demand certainty and remain in Perry's low levels overall. They could study the neurochemical ways high-control groups hook people and keep them with unhealthy shame/blame/guilt, threat of exile, conditional belonging, solution for invented problem, punish/reward cycles, and maybe choose to escape. Good luck!
The actual left begins at anticapitalism. American academia is full of liberals, who are right-wingers that believe in capitalism even though the most liberal controlled states proves it doesn't work. (Read: California's massive homelessness problem.)
Well in my country, we only have right wing to vote. We do not have a left (except for a few small parties and some labor unions are ran by communists or socialists). Most of people will either vote what their parents used to vote, or will vote the person most popular on social media. Many people have stopped voting as it is just a sham to portray some sort of democracy otherwise our country is run by army establishment and they mostly follow what US has to say. Most of us save money just to move abroad either to US, UK, and other Western countries or to UAE(especially Dubai), Saudi Arabia, and other Arabian peninsula countries.
Yes, this is a real thing. The "right wing" right now covers both free market ideas, and the nationalist mercantalism thing that's actually succeeding in the polls. There's not much shared between them.
I personally think if you are rich and politically active, you are just going for power. You certainly don't care if your position is true or false as long as it preserves your wealth and power or increase your wealth and power.
You may be interested to read about the scheme of intellectual and ethical development by William Perry. This website has it discussed only in terms of cognitive development, but I think you'll see how it directly correlates to ethical development: https://neurolaunch.com/perrys-theory-of-cognitive-development/
There are plenty of right wing academics but they are a minority. It probably varies by field too. In the core sciences that minority is probably the smallest and is greater in the humanities. My professor was a right wing scientist and we often clashed on values. I felt sorry for him at times because it would be his point of view Vs the entire research group. He is fundamentally a good person that can hold illogical and contradictory opinions that felt like they were emotionally based.
There are NUMEROUS bribed academics who are right-winged. chris hedges and noam chomsky have been sucxessfully bribed for years to be anti-Communist and anti-Anarchistic as two examples.
Most academics are probablty slightly left-leaning though seeing as how most of them see that what Michael Parenti said was correct: "All conservative ideologies justify existing inequities as the natural order of things, inevitable outcomes of human nature. If the very rich are naturally so much more capable than the rest of us, why must they be provided with so many artificial privileges under the law, so many bailouts, subsidies and other special considerations - at our expense? Their "nat urally superior talents" include unprincipled and illegal subterfuge such as price-fixing, mass m%%der, stock manipulation, insider trading, fraud, tax evasion, the legal enforcement of unfair competition, ecological spoliation, harmful products and unsafe work conditions. One might expect naturally superior people not to act in such rapacious and venal ways. Differences in talent and capacity as might exist between individuals do not excuse the crimes and injustices that are endemic to the corporate business system."
I don't remember the charges he did time for other than them vaguely being about 'corruption'.
That's because they were bogus charges, they were only meant to remove him from the election. In short he was accused of money laundering and corruption, because they claimed that he received bribes through renovations on an apartment (that he didn't owned nor lived in), and in short he was arrested before being judged, he served a couple of years in jail having been denied his abeas corpus while the prosecutor charging him gave speeches saying things like "we might not have proof, but we have convictions". Eventually the judge that prosecuted Lula was given a position as the ministry of security in the government he help elect by taking Lula from the election, and a panel of supreme judges ruled he had had no actual evidence to convict Lula and overthrew the conviction.
He had close ties with Christina Kirchner, which is well known to have had people killed for investigating her,
Yeah, that's one of the other ones I know enough to say they're very well put on that list.
and i remember something about him and her wanting to make some kind of latin american alliance thing which I consider a terrifying idea.
It's called Mercosur, it's a very good idea that predates both Lula and Kirchner, it was formally declared in 85 by Sarney and Alfonsín. Lula has been a very strong advocate for a more united Mercosur, wanting it to be similar to the EU, this has nothing to do with left or right wing, Paraguay is a member and Lula has kept good relationships with Peña despite him being right wing, at the same time the Mercosur suspended Venezuela after the election fraud and Lula has criticized Maduro because of his authoritarian regime.
There were also stuff about political persecution of the bolsonaro nutjob proteters but I'll take that with a big pinch of salt.
Yeah, they're calling political persecution to the fact that violent radical protestors enticed by social media who invaded the house of government and destroyed property in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election were given the option to go through an education course and abstain from social media or serve prison sentences, and they chose prison sentences, so now they're in jail (surprised Pikachu face). Some documents also showed that it was part of a plan from Bolsonaro to create confusion while Lula was assassinated, and his answer to that was "it doesn't matter that we planned it and had it all scheduled, the assassin didn't actually do it so we can't be judged for planning something that didn't happened"
Liberalism itself is right-wing, as it supports capitalism. In English speaking, western academia, the dominant opinions are supportive of liberalism and neoliberalism, both right wing. Left academia is usually more common in socialist countries like China.
155 Comments
Kennystillalive@feddit.org · 103 pts · 1d
IMO:There are 3 type of "right wingers":
So yeah, about 10% of the right wingers are educated. The majority still is less educazed and easy to manipulatw.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 1d
Believe it or not, there are well educated, intelligent and well intended people in the right wing. Not the majority, by any chance, but I've met these people. I'm not saying they're right, but assuming the only possible causes for their beliefs are either ignorance or ill will/greed just feeds the polarization that's currently destroying western civilization.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 1d
What is their answer to "people are hungry and die of starvation or not being able to afford needs, while others have more money than what's possible to spend in hundreds of lifetimes of extreme luxury, what should be done about that?"? Because I can't imagine an educated, well intentioned answer to it, either you're too dumb to understand reality or you're okay with people suffering and dying.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 23 pts · 1d
Good video on the topic. TL;DR: They believe it's inevitable and not something you can just fix/that you can only fix very slowly. It's a fucking stupid worldview, but not an impossible one, though it's not hard to see why such worldviews tend to come from positions of privilege.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 16h
Common subsets of this category (cynics) I’ve seen or met include those who are (A) opportunists working the corporate funding angle who are allowed or even encouraged to do so by their departments/institutions, and (B) obligate centrists who are so reticent to be identified as leaning in any particular direction politically that they effectively accept or even endorse any and every systemic injustice.
Subgroup A are quite prevalent in journals yet tend to have markedly low-quality contributions comparatively, leading me think they are over-represented in peer review especially, easily a symptom of corruption inherent to private journals.
Subgroup B are IMO the academic version of MLK’s “white moderate” who are simply self-interested careerists. I would say these are by far the most common by number. They aren’t working for the Right directly like subgroup A, but they won’t lift a finger to help if it might jeopardize their position. That is to say, cowards.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 1d
It varies.
If it's someone who is, themselves, very well-off, it goes one of two ways. Either a deontological "property is inviolable and so it doesn't matter", or "this money is fair compensation for just how awesome I am". The latter of which implies they've already done enough for their lessers, so shut up.
"Only Americans are human, so yes, I guess we should help the American poor" is basically the MAGA answer. That also used to be the German answer. Some grifters also use the same logic, but with an even smaller group of people they care about, like just their own family.
Somebody else mentioned "it's the way it's always been/inevitable", but if you're educated at all, you'll know better, because nothing is like it was in 1700. So, that's not an answer to your question.
(You'll notice a common strain, that people tend to pick a worldview that's convenient for them, personally. That actually goes for the left wing, as well)
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I don't know what all of their answers are, but as a latin american I can offer you my perspective of hunger and starvation not being exclusive to the right wing and extreme luxury being something many left wing politicians will happily indulge in once elected, while their populace live in misery.
Many of them do believe in different forms of redistribution too. Right wing political stances do not equate to "give every last penny to the rich and private sector". Political perspectives have nuance.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 8 pts · 1d
Not who you're replying to, but sounds like Latin Americans are more familiar than the US by far with leftist populist dictators, Fidel Castro types... The cigar smoking kinda guys who inspired the game Tropico.
In the US, we teach that communism is a mortal enemy that only leads to starvation and we elect greedy oligarchs that promise life will get better eventually while they fill their pockets. Socialism is seen as the extreme anti-State solution where no one starves and everyone is educated. And any evidence to the contrary is considered conservative propaganda.
There's little room for nuance in the US. We went so far right that it feels like you have to move all the way left to fix things. And the more they call socialism the enemy, the better it sounds to people. The youth grow up thinking, either they support Trump or they're a socialist... He's probably doing more for socialism than American socialists ever did.
I swear just having free healthcare in the 90s could have prevented all this.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I kinda went on a rant here, lol, but feel free to not read. I have very similar opinions, but wanted to make a few points.
The Fidel types are the more colorful examples, but we have many more. There's also the not-quite-dictators-but-dangerously-close- types, who make use of authoritarianism, media control, persecution of political adversaries, and shady democratic tactics such as Hugo Chavez & Maduro, Juan Domingo Peron, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Christina Kirchner,
Lula da Silva(don't have enough info on this guy to put him in the same bag w the rest)... I'm sure some other latinamerican will see this and tell me the alternatives were far worse, and they'll likely be right, but I'd bet money NO latin american will dare tell me any of these were fair ethical leaders with the best interest of their country in mind.And I fully agree with your point. You guys went so far down right, (and you might hate me a bit for making this point) but your left parties are also the right wing. They might not cater to the same lobbyists, but it seems more and more to me than there is no true will to offer reasonable state services or social security nets for the vast majority of the population by either party of yours. The dems have been as much in bed with your highly toxic financial and pharma sectors as the republicans have for decades now. Your left wing politicians attempt to get elected by sending feel good messages to a comfortable middle class that wants to care but to not sacrifice anything of their own or even worse: to consort/share spaces with actual poor people.
I'm talking the people who have half of the male members of their family in prison. I'm talking people who's entire family is unemployed and unemployable. Generational misery. The people under the bridge. Sex workers, foster care kids, people in trailer parks with no running water and the roughest parts of the ghettos.
The actual poor people, ignorant and naive as they may be in many regards, saw right through charade of policies and philosophies that sound oh-so-humane but don't actually substantially help anyone in their precarious conditions, and said "fuck em", and in their anger, despair, naivete and ignorance went straight into the clutches of "the exact opposite of what I hate" and now we have Trump. I say we, because I consider my country a client/vassal state of the US.
And yeah, free healthcare sounds so foreign and far away nowadays, doesn't it? Yet poorer countries pull it off relatively well. Horrible that we've gotten to this point of brainwashing by big industries/interest groups.
I'm not sharing these thoughts to tell you your left wing is no good and nothing good can come from it. To the contrary. You guys (and we) need a strong, powerful and healthy left wing and I really really hope you can get there. I am, however, warning you against the perils of voting for "OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS" because in latina america we've seen that movie plenty of times and it ends in "so I guess now we have a dictator".
Sorry for the rant. Just felt like sharing my thoughts in this regard.
I truly wish you, your country and the world the very best, and I also think a healthy socialist system is the right path. Hopefully we get somewhere nice without any more atrocities happening.
Naive@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
My left leaning classmate also says that American left is also right. Unfortunately, I never got a popular enough left in my country. All parties are just right and far right.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I agree with most of what you said, but there's one thing we STRONGLY disagree with, and that is Lula. The others you mentioned I either don't know enough to have a strong opinion or (most of them) wholeheartedly agree that are authoritarians with only their own interests in mind. But putting Lula in the same bag as those guys shows that either you don't know enough about him, or that you fell for the misinformation campaigns done by the Brazilian extreme right when trying to get elected.
And I'm case we're not clear, I'm a latin american who lived during most of Lula's governments in Brazil and I think he is a fair and ethical leader with the best interest of its people in mind. And if I were allowed to vote in Brazil I would have voted for him, without a doubt.
So, instead of assuming your information on him and trying to explain all of the policies he created through all of his governments, I'll ask you what makes you think he's like that?
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
It's very safe to assume you're better informed about him than I am. There was definitely a smudging campaign that we caught a lot of here, and I don't remember the charges he did time for other than them vaguely being about 'corruption'. I think it's pretty safe to assume he was taking more than a little something on the side, as it would be with the vast majority of our presidents, but I won't hold that against him. I vaguely recall something about money laundering and a luxurious apartment. But anyway, that's not my issue with him. He had close ties with Christina Kirchner, which is well known to have had people killed for investigating her, and i remember something about him and her wanting to make some kind of latin american alliance thing which I consider a terrifying idea. There were also stuff about political persecution of the bolsonaro nutjob proteters but I'll take that with a big pinch of salt.
Anyway, I'll take your word over mine and edit my post.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 1d
Nah I read it all and fully agree. 🫡 Wishing you the best American sibling wherever you are. I still have some hope things can turn around but it's hard to see the light right now with corruption as rampant as it is.
It's always a reminder to appreciate what you have right now, because I do think things will get worse before they get better. I don't take the relative peace, shelter, running water and electricity for granted, and I similarly shouldn't be terrified of a day coming when all that isn't available. Just good to prep some emergency cash and stuff when you can and ride out the bullshit best you can.
I think I'm just sad that Trump won over as many Americans as he did with hate rhetoric, but can't say we weren't warned that this sentiment was building.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Good thinking on the prepping, and wishing you the best as well. The current state of affairs really is a tragedy, but there is always hope. <3
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 1d
Man, I really hope people read this and take it to heart. Comfortable middle class Westerner who wants “OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS” is the average Lemmy user.
(That's me too, but only half way, and I don't want the complete opposite of anything)
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I'm comfortable enough too, compared to how things go for the lower percentiles here, but yeah. People freak out and overreact. Most lemmy people seem to be in a perpetual state of outrage and panic, which, you know, understandable, but the first people to get screwed in any crisis are the ones that panic. I've been making an effort to try to emotionally regulate the people I come across here the best I can when possible, but man.. it's challenging.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
I'm also a latin american, I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist on the left wing, or that they're not assholes who will go crazy with power. Also I'm not saying voting right wing is always the wrong thing to do, for me authoritarian/democratic is much more important than left/right, so if my choices are authoritarian left vs democratic right, I'll vote right.
But fundamentally when asked about inequality the right wing answer is always along the lines of "it is what it is" or "it will be solved very slowly over the next hundreds of years by not doing anything", both of which are either ignorant or evil, and of you're talking about an educated person one of those should be off the table.
Schmoo@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 17h
Intelligent people have an easier time convincing themselves of falsehoods because they can produce more complex rationalizations.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 1d
Well-intended, sure. Everyone is the protagonist of their own story.
Intelligent, maybe, although that's always going to push a person towards something a bit more nuanced. Other personality defects have to pick up the slack.
Educated, well, that depends on what they studied. Engineers and doctors don't really learn much that prevents you from being a bad person. It's hard to imagine a (modern) anthropologist buying into whatever fascist nonsense, though.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
right wing political policy does not necessarily equate to fascism. jesus.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 1d
It's true.
The version that's going around right now is more like that, though. Reagan is very dead. Free markets are out, blood and soil is in.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
The current US right wing leader is destroying any possibility the sensible right wing concerns get any attention, but just because something took a turn to the dark side doesn't mean there was nothing worthwhile in it to begin with.
Rothe@piefed.social · 6 pts · 23h
Which specific right wing concerns are worthwhile?
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 22h
Healthy right wing politics often promote the possibilities of small businesses to thrive in ethical ways, not the defense of unholy monopolies or abusive employment conditions. They are also more traditionally concerned with individual freedoms and right to privacy. What we are seeing now in US and global politics is not a balanced representation of right wing any more than pol pot is a fair representation of the left. It's a full blown authoritarian police state kleptocracy, and as us in the third world can testify, these can come from either side.
Rothe@piefed.social · 5 pts · 23h
Well intended towards themselves and their own. By definition there are none who are well intended towards humanity in general, since Conservatism in all its forms relies on in- and out-groups of people.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
I'm not sure how you can be on lemmy or reddit and not recognize out-grouping from the left. Groups fundamentally define themselves by what they aren't. And each group will strawman the other to strongarm their adherents into staying within the group.
Communist. Pink haired liberals. Nazis. Fascists. Meaningless boring out-group names that are repeated ad nauseum. But go. Indulge. Join a team and have fun. But don't sacrifice real relationships for some politician. Be smarter than that.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
That missed the point entirely.
In-groups: The law protects these people, but it does not restrict them.
Out-groups: The law restricts these people, but it does not protect them.
This is a core structure of conservatives. There is no similar core structure for the left because the left does not rely on it.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
Hmmm, I bet it's no secret who your team is!
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
You, once again, miss the point entirely.
Belief that everyone is part of a camp is tenuous to say the least and leads to a us and them rhetoric that prevents us from properly defining subjects.
Part of this is simply conservativism is a backwards philosophy that looks to reinforce traditional hierarchy. Conservatives might not like this reality, but that is another discussion.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 22h
That 's why I don't believe in politics.
NABDad@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 20h
I don't believe in air, but damnit, it keeps pressing down on me!
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
Isn't that gravity though
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 pts · 1d
Do you have some examples of sheep dogs? The movement, as I've seen it, seems like a pretty straight continuum from sheep to shepherd. Either you're successfully grifting, a sucker, or both.
davidagain@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
I think they meant to call the unsuccessful grifting suckers sheep dogs. In Andrew Tate world, the word for it is "sigma male".
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 13h
It seems possible OP is actually classifying the shepherds/grifters as sheepdogs, and imagining a separate group at the top that doesn't exist.
Andrew Tate is a great example. Obviously, most of his whole persona is fake, and obviously, he made a good deal of money from it, but his background is relatively ordinary. Lots of people in the White House are only marginally different from that.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 1d
I know a right wing guy who has a PhD, speaks 5 different languages and is an immigrant. He says that you can tell which immigrants are terrorists by just looking at them and everyone who looks like that should be arrested.
I know another right wing guy who has a PhD in Informatics and owns 20 houses in Amsterdam. He doesn't see the problem. People can just move somewhere else.
Both of them don't just have PhDs, they work as academics, one in Berlin the other in Amsterdam.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 13 pts · 1d
Let them
eat cakemove countriesTollana1234567@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 1d
seems like the second is more wealthy, and he likely comes from wealth which are often more conservative.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 1d
Go to any school of economics, comp sci faculty, school of business and dare i say biology and you'll find a lot of em. They tend to be less vocal. Historians too.
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
In my experience Biology not as much, but maybe that differs by country.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website · 6 pts · 1d
Probably depends where the Bayer funding is at.
lemming741@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Historians you say? What decade i wonder...
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
i'm not sure what you mean. of what generation?
igmelonh@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 15h
I think they're referring to the observed propensity for those who are "really into" world war II history to be right-wing, so 1930s-1940s-ish. This obviously isn't ubiquitous, but having a particular interest in the second world war has definitely taken on a reputation.
Anecdotally, playing Paradox's grand strategy games, Hearts of Iron has more noticeable fascists, or at least players who near-exclusively play fascist nations "because it's just so interesting". I have some cousins who mostly play fascist Germany.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 14h
I play Deep Rock Galactic, a game where you're a dwarf in space and are enslaved by a dystopian mining corporation with no hopes of escape. The game is a survival horror mission thing where you go into mines, shoot the hostile wild life and get minerals so the mining corporation can profit. I wonder what that says about me...
igmelonh@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 13h
I wrote a reply earlier but my app was being futzy and it looks like it didn't send. Apologies if this double-posts.
I wasn't making an absolutist statement on folks' tastes in games (or any media). I don't believe that most Hearts of Iron players are fascists any more than I believe that most Crusader Kings players want to bang their sisters and play eugenics, or that Factorio players want to terraform an alien planet into a concrete and steel wasteland and kill all native life.
You don't need to be a fascist to enjoy playing as a historical "bad guy", but, especially as it concerns real-world politics then and now, media centered or themed around the time during which fascism evolved will naturally attract a greater audience of that leaning than media that doesn't. I personally have a greater interest in the mid 19th-mid 20th centuries than many other points in history due to the rapid sociological, political, and technological advancements of the era -- particularly labor theory and uprisings -- so I get drawn to games like Victoria for those systems.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12h
heh yeah, was just making a joke.
I've definitely seen several examples of the stereotypes you pointed out in your previous post, too, so no argument here.
The 1800s must have definitely been a wild ride. Interesting study case too. New forms of mass media running wild, automation generating a handful of people unimaginable wealth. Yep yep. Definitely worth looking into.
Thanks for taking the time to share. :)
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 38 pts · 1d
They exist, but the problem is reality has a liberal bias and academics tend to follow the evidence.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
what is liberal bias
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 16h
It operates in many ways. One way is looking at outcomes. For instance, compare abstinence-only to more comprehensive sex-ed and look at what happens to teen pregnancy rates. Reality would favor the liberal policy.
Conservative policy does not care about outcomes, it just cares about preserving the hierarchy, which is why conservatives have to work overtime to discount academics.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 29 pts · 1d
Certainly it's not none, but there's a trend where college educated people tend towards leftist ideals purely because they're exposed to more ideas, more people, more things, and that tends to lead to broader acceptance, which is, unfortunately, a polarizing thing. Many right-wing points are grounded in xenophobia, racism and an 'us vs. them' mentality, and it's harder to hold those ideals when folks are put into situations where they have to actually interact with and get to know the people they're "against", rather than them just being faceless boogie men to be feared and hated.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
alot of them now are being propped up by right wing billionaires to spread thier message.
goodguys9@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 1d
You can find stats showing that support for the Conservatives falls in Canada as education rises. So depending on region and definition, it's not just you.
That being said, that doesn't mean there are zero. Jordan Peterson as a famous example.
muelltonne@feddit.org · 9 pts · 23h
It's the same in Germany. Support for our right wing party is dropping as education rises. So if you are more educated you're less likely to vote for them.
The_v@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
"A moron with higher education is still a moron."
zlatiah@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 17h
Current STEM researcher who also happened to have met a few academics on the right side of the political spectrum... I am very qualified to speak about this I hope. I'll try to use as unbiased language as possible
First of all, you are correct. It is generally true that most academics are left-leaning (obligatory not all, but you get the point)
In general, higher education attainment is associated with being left-leaning: academia is known to have extreme levels of education attainment (many jobs require a PhD). On top of it, academic jobs reward intellectual curiosity, do not tend to pay super well, tend to heavily rely on governmental funding... all of these are traditionally more associated with the political left or left-leaning. Still, there very much are right-leaning academics, they just don't tend to scream around a lot about it
There are notable exceptions however. Economics is quite famous for being politically balanced, although what economics treat as left/right-leaning might be a bit different from the general public. If I remember, business schools (yes there are business professors!) tend to be more right-leaning. This is a smaller field and a bit more anecdotal, but quite a few prominent meta-science researchers are right-wing nutjobs: the "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" guy and the NIH director Bhattacharya guy are both COVID deniers
There are also fringe scientists as some others have mentioned, but most people within their fields don't consider fringe scientists as part of the academia so to speak
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 14h
There was an HIV denier at NIH in the 90s but no one remembers his name. There are plenty of right wing MDs and scientist in pharma.
Naive@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
Damn, I am right leaning but I do not deny COVID. Interesting though. I also noticed that in Computer Science too, there are a lot of right wing people, especially these days being pro-AI is often a symbol of being right wing.
zlatiah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
First of all: you're good! I think there are lots of centrist and right-leaning people in academia who are doing just fine; especially in the US lots of world-class unis are in deeply conservative areas too. Most of academia don't discuss politics that much at all as long as one cares about science. I'd wager the political leaning bias is more from a population bias rather than systematic discrimination of any sort
I could imagine AI researchers being more right-leaning yeah. The stats I got were from personal anecdote and research being done about this a short while back... there might have been an update in the AI age
deathmetal27@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
Being an academic means being open minded because when researching something, the outcome may be different from what you expected. In such cases do you concede that your initial theory was wrong or do you stubbornly continue to believe that you were right and keep trying to prove yourself correct?
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 17 pts · 1d
No, plenty of scientists and a disturbing number of physician scientists are GOP voters. They tend to be the ones who sleep with their trainees and cheat on their spouses. They don't think sexual harassment is a real thing and don't understand why women complain about anything. They occasionally get fired for their behavior but get hired elsewhere because they can find like-minded individuals who couldn't care less about sexual misconduct at work. Recently there was a lot of noise about hiring a physician scientist and he was just about to start when people started pointing out that he was fired from his last job for surreptitiously filming the women's locker room and bathroom.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 1d
OLDer MDs and scientists from the boomer era tend to be conservatives, because to be an MD and scientist in those times require you to be somewhat rich or well off.
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
what is GOP? I am from another country.
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 1 pts · 14h
Republicans, socially conservative/fascist party
kbal@fedia.io · 13 pts · 1d
Perhaps Jordan Peterson can give you some tips about where to find rabid right-wing lunatics in academia.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
and lecture about why its not good idea to go to RUSSIA to treat your BENZO withdrawals.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 17h
he is academic?? I used to think of him as Christian apologist youtuber. It is new for me to know this aspect of him.
kbal@fedia.io · 2 pts · 16h
Well, he was. I think maybe he gave it up to become a professional right-wing grifter before dropping out of public life. Not only did he have a tenured position at a big university, he was also among the ringleaders of what they called the "intellectual dark web". That brand is pretty much defunct by now, but it was big a few years ago and its function was indeed to bring attention to rabid right-wing lunatics in academia.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
They are all in prison for accidentally misgendering students once. /s
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 1d
There are, but they often kicked out of academia pretty quickly because academic universties dont want to be associated with these people because it discredits the Universities reputation, by providing pseudoscientific beliefs.
J peterson, recently SABINE from youtube, you dint mentioned failed academics too, MDs like she claims she was "ousted from academia in germany, because shes a women" but it was actually are far right views(funded by friends of thiel), and then another one that claims " being a POC played a part why they are not "smart" enough for certian jobs, because they have tendancy towards not being intelligent.
so these people become "influencers" for the far right. when i was in CC, one of my gen bio prof told us that she had a student that was christian, and she was only giving answers on HW/tests as "GOD did it". nevertheless, they had to drop out of COLLEGE.
if there was, they would have to constantly challenge the research, studies out there in academia that contradicts them. theres no way they stay in academia, and thier "own" research is based entirely on assumptions and outdated research.
ddplf@szmer.info · 9 pts · 9h
That's the thing about right-wing populism. It relies on primitive instincts. It's a baseline. It requires no effort.
Rich people are smarter, otherwise they wouln't be rich. No don't tax them, they worked so much harder than anyone else to get there! Taxing them will only punish the imaginative and the resourceful, while incentivising the lazy and the worthless. I blame the immigrants because they work harder and for less money, and it's their fault that I also have to work harder for less! We need one more lane, that would relieve the traffic so much!
These takes always seem super OBVIOUS at first, and if you never bother revising them - you'll just be stuck with them. The longer you live with them, the firmer you'll latch onto them.
That's why it's so crucial for the rightwingers to dismantle the education system. They need you to be ignorant. Take things face-value.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 9 pts · 1d
It depends on the source of academia.
There are a lot of sources beyond universities that do research, including various public policy research institutes or think tanks. They have a spectrum of different ideologies, but a lot of them tend to go more conservative as a lot of them rely on private funding and rich people like having studies which back up their views. If you're a leftist and need a patron to find your research, it is more likely you're going to find a government patron than a private patron. If you're a conservative, you'll probably find more money in private organizations to perform your research.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 9 pts · 1d
There are a whole string of rightwing colleges created so they don't have to listen to liberals and their science. (sorry for the formatting mess)
University Founder / Affiliation Founded
Liberty University Jerry Falwell 1971
Regent University Pat Robertson 1977
Bob Jones University Bob Jones Sr. 1927
Cedarville University Baptist (Ohio) 1887
Biola University Christian Churches 1908
Harding University Churches of Christ 1925
Maranatha Baptist University Fundamental Baptist 1943
Samford University Southern Baptist 1901
North Greenville University Baptist 1924
Grove City College Baptist 1930
Brigham Young University LDS Church 1875
Trinity University Baptist 1840
Oral Roberts University Oral Roberts (Pentecostal) 1963
Texas Christian University Methodist 1873
Wheaton College Christian (evangelical) 1860
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
Where's Pepperdyne on this list? Society's most massive assholes have degrees from there.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
I never said the list was all inclusive. Feel free to add some more.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Yeah, and I guess we've each brought up a point that bears observing: the Right is increasingly synonymous with evangelical Christianity, which does NOT stand up to academic scrutiny. If you want to make someone an atheist, there's no surer way to do so then send them to seminary.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
Or raise them as a catholic, like me.
They shoved so much bullshit down my throat as i was growing up that i consider my self cured of that illness.
knacht1@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Hillsdale college?
The birthplace of conservatism.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
Apart from BYU, rest of them sound like they are just Bible colleges (I know about Wheaton though 'cuz Heliocentric (a youtuber) talked about his experience in Wheaton)
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 15h
Depends on what you call "academics". If you mistake phrase shifter courses like "business administration", "politics", or "law" as academic, then yes.
Naive@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 15h
Nah not that specifically. I meant like in social sciences and humanities (other fields are welcome but my main motive was these fields).
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 47m
Social sciences and humanities are a classic leftist field. And MINT scientists are usually too smart to be right wingers.
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 10h
I'm sure there are some academics who are right wing and some uneducated people who are left wing. But for the most part it is generally true that academics are more likely to be left wing. To put it rudely, stupid people generally believe right wing talking points. Right wing worldview is full of contradictions an uneducated beliefs. People who are curious and bother to educate themselves about the issues are generally more likely to be left wing. Than again, I am left wing so of course I'm going to be biased towards believing left wing views are smart
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 8h
There are fewer right-wingers in academia, and they tend to work at schools with right-wing orientations. Turns out reality has a liberal bias.
dreksob@feddit.online · 7 pts · 1d
Depending on how you define "academic"
There are certainly people who can get doctorates while still being right wing, those are the ones that get paid a lot of money to tell poor people to stop complaining about being poor.
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
Like PhDs teaching other students. I have rarely seen conservative professors online, especially in humanities.
dreksob@feddit.online · 1 pts · 7h
Thats fairly rare.
Even with tenure, professors just dont make that much money generally.
Conservatives arent actually interested in learning, or in science for its own sake.
Without the grift, why would conservatives bother
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 1d
If you want right-wing academics, look at Economics (eg. Milton Friedman School), Classics, History, and CS. Not that any of those fields are dominated by the right, but there are pockets of them in those fields still.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
There are academics in classics and history?? I thought they don't like these things.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 1d
i can see economics being inhabited by conservatives they are after obsessed with wealth, and what better is to produce some pseudoscience.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 6 pts · 1d
There are far more conservatives in academia than actual leftists. And there are more liberals in academia than both groups combined. See Catherine Liu for an example of an actual leftist in academia who speaks on this dynamic.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
its probably because leftists were demonized in the cold war era leaving conservatism relatively untouched, so they arnt outspokemon about it or even become a PHD.
Berlinblades@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 22h
At Uni i sometimes wished for a rightwing person just to debate things. Everyone agreed on most issues,so there we're rarely spicy debates.
Kissaki@feddit.org · 3 pts · 22h
For debate, I'd be willing to take a different position.
Katana314@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 19h
I do this sometimes on Lemmy. “I’m with you on Sony and disc games, but here are the arguments their lawyers would make about it…”
I get annoyed when someone posts a “side” I agree with, but uses a complete zero-thought, easily-defeated argument to defend it. A classic one is “If buying isn’t owning, then pirating isn’t stealing.”
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
Where I live, it is very rare to see left wing person. One of my classmate is so we just keep on debating on literally everything (I am kinda center-right) and it is the most fun thing I do in my university.
Berlinblades@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
In my urban development class, someone said that clearing junkies out of the subway stations was a form of gentrification, which got nods and finger snaps from the class. I said that was the dumbest thing i ever heard,which got some tuts from everyone. The point is, it would have been interesting to hear her debate that point, make some arguments in favour,and then counter those from different perspectives,but the range wasn't there.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 16h
They are fewer than those who lean left but they are there. And typically they tend more toward moderation that extremism. Quintessentially, they're moderate to liberal conservatives. Often times you'll find them more in business and economics related fields.
The main reason being that exposure typically gets a person to come out of their highly conservative nature and education as well to better understand how the world operates. It's not a 100% thing as there are occasional reactionaries in positions of scientific note but they're few.
noodles@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 10h
It depends on the country, but there's a self-preservation aspect to academics leaning left. In the USA especially but not exclusively a major right-wing policy point has been defunding academia and publicly-funded research in general. Unless you're in a field that can reliably pull private funding, such as some branches of the oft-mentioned economics, voting and sharing right-wing talking points carries a major risk of getting your funding cut and leaving you without a job.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 9h
Reality has a left wing bias. They exist though and they're infuriating.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 1d
The correlation is there. It's there more generally for education level - more educated people are usually more left wing. (And richer, which is a bit of a funny situation if you're doing class war)
Obviously, there's exceptions. Somebody mentioned techbros, and economists can fall anywhere. Probably, there's shitty nationalist historians still kicking around, as well.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon, although as more people achieve greater education, it looks a bit different. You'll remember most of the Reich's great scientists ended up working on the Manhattan project.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
In my country, they did not teach about Holocaust and Hitler but I heard that thing.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
"Academics" is huge...
Theres fewer and fewer, but some avenues of academics a person wouldnt be swayed left/right solely by their knowledge and subject matter expertise that makes them an academic.
Off the top of my head, only economists have a right wing slant. But that's because the wealthy bought off the neoliberals to deregulate everything, and everyone agreed that the only people who knew about the economy, were the ones who said Regeanomics was a step in the right direction.
Everyone else was just called wrong and haven't had a real chance to try on smaller scales that it works.
Mamdani is a great example of someone who just does the easy obvious thing, the difference is him and his administration are actually trying. Doing it in a city with the GDP of most countries, is huge because it's an obvious example of it working.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
economists are glorified soothsayers. No better than the astrologists that could kind of sort of tell you when it was a good idea to sow based on the stars of back in the day.
Yes they have some interesting frameworks, have discovered a few noteworthy causal mechanisms and hold some predictive power... but if you take the self-fulfilled prophecy factor into account ("the economy will behave this way because economics and therefore you should behave in this same way which causes...") I'm not so sure it's all that impressive.
They're modern day clergy.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Yeah...
That's what I'm saying.
Doctors were "modern day clergy" at one point, so we're historians, biologists, scientists, astronomers and almost everything else.
And they can be again.
Or even better none of them can be.
Like, you understand that economies are real things that need managed, and those people should review what works and what doesn't.
The current economists recommending shit that clearly don't work, are a negative to society. If they were gone, there be no negative. But why the actual fuck would you stop there and instead train economists to focus on different metrics than a handful of capitalists high scores.
They could study and determine what would help the most people and ensure basic needs are met.
That's what economists could be doing, and it would be worth way more than paying them to do it costs.
Pudutr0n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Sorry, I didn't want to come across as confrontational. Was just ranting in agreement.
I understand your frustration regarding the application of the discipline, and couldn't agree more.
The way I see it, and the reason I used the word "clergy" is because there are a few critical elements they have in common with priests and magi, more so than doctors, biologists and astronomers.
1.- They are the official thought-leaders of "what should be done" to reach our notion of "paradise" (in the past: heaven/afterlife; today: financial prosperity)
2.- They are extremely close to positions of political power and leadership of empires (like popes and archbishops back in the day)
3.- They study what society worships (in the past: god(s)/enlightenment/the good life; today: individual choice/wealth/money/power)
4.- They study esoteric mechanisms that are a black box to most ("magic") and have a fuzzy understanding about them themselves.
I think economics is instrumental to the growth of empires and by emergent design does things that don't help most people. Feeds them with everything they need to grow: (a means to get/make) slaves, lies and poison.
With the cheap labor they create through misery, the false promises they sustain through their theories and the monumental amount of poisonous goods and services they tell us we need to "stay productive", the economy is working perfectly fine as far as the most powerful people are concerned.
Maybe it's a stretch. idk. Just my thoughts. What do you think?
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 16h
I heard from many right wing influencers that Mamdani has failed, many New Yorkers are leaving New York, he had to take loans. Is it all true?
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
Why?
Influencers are lying grifters who just want the ability to influence others. Right wingers oubly so.
Stop listening to them or people who believe them
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 16h
ok but you did not answer my question.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 15h
If you don't understand that me calling them lying grifters didn't answer the question on if you should believe what they say....
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 15h
ok
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 17h
There are many conservative universities and colleges in the US and all of the ones I know about are heavily tied to some religion.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 17h
are u talking about their academics too or just the overall environment in those universities?
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 17h
Both. Those all schools are all about their codes of conduct.
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 18h
Right-wingers care about money and power, the smart ones go into business
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 17h
I think most of right wing is based on populist politicians. Left does not seem to me doing that much populist politics as many right wing people do. The target audience I think for them are the uneducated or not so much educated people who want a messianic figure to save them.
disregardable@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
Generally only older ones who haven't kept up with advances in sociological research. The big issue we have in the US is that we have evidence-based examples of better organized societies that are able to achieve higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens by non-profit investment by the government. Ultimately oligarchs controlling all of the money doesn't create a better society.
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 16h
Yeah the older ones in general.
sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
It really depends on the field. They are more common the "hard" sciences like physics, mathematics, engineering, chemistry, etc. STEM basically.
They also exist in the social sciences like history and athropology but are farrrrr less common
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 16h
Many right wings I saw don't actually like social sciences that much compared to your average leftist.
sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 10h
I've met a few biological anthropologists who had some racist ass views, espeically in regards to indigenous people.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
You're not familiar with techbros?
blargh513@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
They're the first ones to reject universities and accuse them of indoctrination. That's why most of them are "self-made" aka nepobabies.
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
I don't think they really care much about politics. They want power.
Alexfire@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11h
Probably people who are curious and want to learn how the universe really is, who climb to the highest levels of Perry's scheme of cognition, who use Sagan's baloney detection kit, rather than supernatural and unfalsifiable excuses, to understand the cosmos. It's part of the scientific method and great to learn new things, not mistakes but data for next experiment, and big claims require big proof, like defending a thesis should require. We are all waves of one ocean made of stardust, observing the universe, conscious elements billions of years old. DNA that survived all the extinctions so far, on the one habitable planet, and nothing to rescue us, but human cooperation.
If you want faith, it must allow room for doubt and mystery, rather than twisted to demand certainty and remain in Perry's low levels overall. They could study the neurochemical ways high-control groups hook people and keep them with unhealthy shame/blame/guilt, threat of exile, conditional belonging, solution for invented problem, punish/reward cycles, and maybe choose to escape. Good luck!
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 6h
Unaware. Go into accounting to find a bunch.
Endgame@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3h
Are you confusing liberal with leftist?
The actual left begins at anticapitalism. American academia is full of liberals, who are right-wingers that believe in capitalism even though the most liberal controlled states proves it doesn't work. (Read: California's massive homelessness problem.)
zxqwas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Depends on country and context.
Where I live the higher your education the more likely you are to vote right. It's mostly about what income you have.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
Well in my country, we only have right wing to vote. We do not have a left (except for a few small parties and some labor unions are ran by communists or socialists). Most of people will either vote what their parents used to vote, or will vote the person most popular on social media. Many people have stopped voting as it is just a sham to portray some sort of democracy otherwise our country is run by army establishment and they mostly follow what US has to say. Most of us save money just to move abroad either to US, UK, and other Western countries or to UAE(especially Dubai), Saudi Arabia, and other Arabian peninsula countries.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 18h
Oh, they're there. Sadly.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3h
One of physics professors in my uni loved Elon Musk, and has photo with Trump.
(Latter one for a presidential award they won, to give the benefit of doubt)
switcheroo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
You'd have to be fucking stupid to be right wing and generally academically inclined individuals are not stupid, so...
There's probably a small bunch that claim to be right wing because they have a lot of money and greed eclipses intelligence.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 1d
Yes, this is a real thing. The "right wing" right now covers both free market ideas, and the nationalist mercantalism thing that's actually succeeding in the polls. There's not much shared between them.
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 16h
I personally think if you are rich and politically active, you are just going for power. You certainly don't care if your position is true or false as long as it preserves your wealth and power or increase your wealth and power.
Akuchimoya@startrek.website · 2 pts · 1d
You may be interested to read about the scheme of intellectual and ethical development by William Perry. This website has it discussed only in terms of cognitive development, but I think you'll see how it directly correlates to ethical development: https://neurolaunch.com/perrys-theory-of-cognitive-development/
BilboBargains@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19m
There are plenty of right wing academics but they are a minority. It probably varies by field too. In the core sciences that minority is probably the smallest and is greater in the humanities. My professor was a right wing scientist and we often clashed on values. I felt sorry for him at times because it would be his point of view Vs the entire research group. He is fundamentally a good person that can hold illogical and contradictory opinions that felt like they were emotionally based.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
...Its just you.
There are NUMEROUS bribed academics who are right-winged. chris hedges and noam chomsky have been sucxessfully bribed for years to be anti-Communist and anti-Anarchistic as two examples.
Most academics are probablty slightly left-leaning though seeing as how most of them see that what Michael Parenti said was correct: "All conservative ideologies justify existing inequities as the natural order of things, inevitable outcomes of human nature. If the very rich are naturally so much more capable than the rest of us, why must they be provided with so many artificial privileges under the law, so many bailouts, subsidies and other special considerations - at our expense? Their "nat urally superior talents" include unprincipled and illegal subterfuge such as price-fixing, mass m%%der, stock manipulation, insider trading, fraud, tax evasion, the legal enforcement of unfair competition, ecological spoliation, harmful products and unsafe work conditions. One might expect naturally superior people not to act in such rapacious and venal ways. Differences in talent and capacity as might exist between individuals do not excuse the crimes and injustices that are endemic to the corporate business system."
leadore@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
They certainly have a lot of lawyers.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 20h
That's because they were bogus charges, they were only meant to remove him from the election. In short he was accused of money laundering and corruption, because they claimed that he received bribes through renovations on an apartment (that he didn't owned nor lived in), and in short he was arrested before being judged, he served a couple of years in jail having been denied his abeas corpus while the prosecutor charging him gave speeches saying things like "we might not have proof, but we have convictions". Eventually the judge that prosecuted Lula was given a position as the ministry of security in the government he help elect by taking Lula from the election, and a panel of supreme judges ruled he had had no actual evidence to convict Lula and overthrew the conviction.
Yeah, that's one of the other ones I know enough to say they're very well put on that list.
It's called Mercosur, it's a very good idea that predates both Lula and Kirchner, it was formally declared in 85 by Sarney and Alfonsín. Lula has been a very strong advocate for a more united Mercosur, wanting it to be similar to the EU, this has nothing to do with left or right wing, Paraguay is a member and Lula has kept good relationships with Peña despite him being right wing, at the same time the Mercosur suspended Venezuela after the election fraud and Lula has criticized Maduro because of his authoritarian regime.
Yeah, they're calling political persecution to the fact that violent radical protestors enticed by social media who invaded the house of government and destroyed property in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election were given the option to go through an education course and abstain from social media or serve prison sentences, and they chose prison sentences, so now they're in jail (surprised Pikachu face). Some documents also showed that it was part of a plan from Bolsonaro to create confusion while Lula was assassinated, and his answer to that was "it doesn't matter that we planned it and had it all scheduled, the assassin didn't actually do it so we can't be judged for planning something that didn't happened"
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 15h
Liberalism itself is right-wing, as it supports capitalism. In English speaking, western academia, the dominant opinions are supportive of liberalism and neoliberalism, both right wing. Left academia is usually more common in socialist countries like China.
Naive@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 15h
These days, even liberal right wings feel like rare occurrence to see. Most of them are just conservative wanting the Christian sharia.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 15h
Liberalism is right, that's my point.
ddplf@szmer.info · 1 pts · 9h
Don't even bother explaining the americans that liberalism is not the same as socdemocracy.
one_old_coder@piefed.social · -2 pts · 1d
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
All hear is right wing dumb Nazis
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 1d
The majority of academia is right wing.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Hahahahaha.
Oh wait, you're serious.
Let me laugh even harder!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
notSys@lemmy.cafe · -2 pts · 22h
How respectable. Is this how you want to be treated?
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 21h
context link, for the lemmy user who somehow has not seen Futurama
notSys@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 21h
Sorry
Naive@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
Overall or in specific fields?
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 1d
Nope they're all moron's hence well look around fuckin moron's need to hang
wolfeh@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
The only things I see wrong with this statement are the apostrophes. 😉
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Nah I just wanna sed people pay for their crimes, I've sat my time this old no dick havin pedophile needs to pay