Quote :

"if you are instead arguing that the "life is not easy," then tell me how that jives with your statement of "more freedom and independence." If that doesn't make the life easy, then I don't know what does! WHEEE! MORE FREEDOM! YAAAAAAAAY! No boss breathing down my neck every five minutes... WHEEEEEE! MAN that life is hard..."

aaronburro: Whee, wheee. I got owned. I didn't pay any fucking attention, talking about my own shit while people were discussing the topic of the thread. Here's what I'll do to make up for that. I'll pretend that the fact that nobody cared to even review my bullshit means I'm unquestionably right. At the same time, I'll very briefly attempt to make an even more retarded remark, though fortunately this time on the subject. I'll assume that having no immediate boss means an easy life. Because every business owner is automatically a procrastinator.

Quote :

"God, are you a moron!"

Quote :

"You don't know shit."

9/15/2005 5:41:54 PM

IMHO, the reason why Holocaust apologists aren't in academia is because it is a politically unfashionable. It’s a political stance associated with rednecks.

Now being an apologist for Mao or Stalin. Well that is much more high-brow, and hence perfectly acceptable.

9/15/2005 5:45:24 PM

^Interesting point.

9/15/2005 5:46:41 PM

because making moral assessments of communists leaders is EXACTLY the same as arguing, in spite of evidence to the contrary, the holocaust didn't happen.

you'refuckingretarded.

9/15/2005 5:48:14 PM

Speaking of Mao, censorship of acadamia is right up his alley. This whole movement to "hold profs accountable" for what they teach is just as partisan and biased as these people claim the profs are. It all just leads to someone getting watched with the "careful eye", and then fired based on their political beliefs, which, suprise, often come out when people teach a class in a less concrete subject like Political Science or Philosophy or what have you.

9/15/2005 5:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Whee, wheee. I got owned."

yes, yes you did. Because you bloody replied to my assertion that teaching is easy with "have you taught in a university?"[quote] Which means that either you didn't read what I wrote in replying to me, or that you replied to someone who doesn't exist.

9/15/2005 5:55:03 PM

who the hell apologizes for Mao and Stalin these days?

9/15/2005 6:02:44 PM

no one in china, thats for god damned sure

9/15/2005 6:04:09 PM

^^ that was a point i didn't want to get into. Because I can see the conversation unfolding from here.

<Keynes> Well, a friend of mine....

and the rest will be a blur of 3rd person annecdotes.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 6:06 PM. Reason : ``]

9/15/2005 6:05:37 PM

^
?

9/15/2005 6:07:42 PM

Ha! According to the link from Keynes, Philosophy d00ds are smarter than Chemistry d00ds and Industrial Engineering d00ds. And Art History pwns Business and Medicine.

9/15/2005 6:37:00 PM

Quote :

"who the hell apologizes for Mao and Stalin these days?"

Here's a good start:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554724/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-0891157-1239303?v=glance&s=books&n=507846&st=*

9/15/2005 7:34:23 PM

Haven't read the book, but it doesn't look like it says much about Mao's or Stalin's purges, just about the American communist party.

9/15/2005 8:13:55 PM

^yeah, thats what i got

if anything, stalin helped to justify past early-modern purges (Ivan the Terrible comes to mind), but his actions can't be used for any justifications after that.

Mao was just a terrible planner and a good executor. That, and he was pretty dense from what I've read.

9/15/2005 9:54:34 PM

Quote :

"I was speaking under the assumption that many women don’t achieve management positions for the same reason they don’t study science and math and for the same reason conservatives tend not to be anthropologists— they choose not to."

So in effect, you're admitting that you're not comparing liberalism in academia to the women's rights movement, but rather to your convienently chosen strawman representation of the women's rights movement?

Nobody in the women's rights camp says "more women should be promoted to management in spite of their choosing not to"; that may be the reality "on the ground," but it's not the basis of their ideology. So it's both wrong and intellectually dishonest to attribute that viewpoint to them.

Again, I have to ask: what does the women's rights movement have to do with this subject?

Quote :

"As a funny tangent ..."

While that's a nice tangent and all, I still would like to know: why is it wrong to discriminate against people based on their chosen political viewpoints?

Personally I think there's a huge irony involved here. The same conservatives who RAIL against the eradication of all discrimination in favor of "diversity," NOW want to use the same arguments proposed for "diversity" to bolster their own newly-invented protected class of people: those who hold conservative viewpoints.

Since when are conservatives an oppressed minority deserving of protection? Since when is political opinion an innate trait?

Personally I agree that "too many liberals in academia" is a problem (that I've experienced myself), but I also have to admit that the "those poor conservatives, berated by the evil liberal-academic junta" mentality is stupid, too.

Quote :

"Yay, I LOVE that logic. Its typical logic of one who argues for "diversity.""

...

Why do you bother arguing with me at all? The whole thrust of my post was that I think discrimination against political viewpoints is OK. And you're telling me I'm arguing for DIVERSITY?

It's called a rhetorical point. If you don't know what that is by now, then surely our public university system has failed you.

9/15/2005 10:09:42 PM

Quote :

"The same conservatives who RAIL against the eradication of all discrimination in favor of "diversity," NOW want to use the same arguments proposed for "diversity" to bolster their own newly-invented protected class of people: those who hold conservative viewpoints."

except that conservatives usually don't have a problem with diversity. They have a problem with forced diversity, AKA reverse discrimination. To many in the liberal field of politics, "diversity" is having one white, one black, one asian, one hispanic, one... no matter what the population density or actual qualifications of said people are. Its DIVERSITY! GOTTA HAVE IT! Diversity is something that should be inherent in any organization. Promoting diversity means little more than ensuring that discrimination does not happen.

That and the fact that "diversity" pretty much means "not white male" nowadays, and, more often, it means "black." Kind of like how "culture" used to mean "black."

And no, I DONT think that discriminating based on political viewpoints is wrong, and I would defend ANY Neo-Nazi who was being discriminated against based on his beliefs alone. Not necessarily the practicing of his beliefs, especially if they infringe on other people's rights. I mean, there are some stipulations, such as he doesn't have the right to work at a synagogue, obviously...

9/15/2005 10:40:22 PM

Dear Mathfreak,

Wouldn't it have been easier to just save up for an exotic sports car, a huge house, or a trophy wife? I mean all those years of work seem to be a lot just to compensate, but then again, I suppose cases differ in severity. Anyways, keep doing whatever it is you do to keep you from shooting your brains out.

Love,
your #1 fan

9/16/2005 12:15:39 AM

Quote :

"Your #1 Fan"

MathFreak, what did we tell you about posting on other people's names...

9/16/2005 12:50:56 AM

MathFreak
- you didn't answer my direct question. How many classes are you teaching this year?

9/16/2005 7:21:20 AM

I think this might give you an idea (from his web page):

Quote :

" Oleg V. Poliannikov Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Colorado at Denver . . . Teaching Fall 2005 — MATH4792/5792-001 Probabilistic Modeling; Fall 2005 — MATH4810/5310-001 Probability."

Look's like two classes at a different univeristy.

9/16/2005 7:29:55 AM