Liberal indoctrination in universities?

[CORE]

Liberalism is like the Common Cold.
I guess I am a Germophobe now.

I Love Trumps Hate

I Support Brexit

I Agree with some Liberal Ideals the main problem they always mix lies with Truth.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Trump is more pro Israel than any president before him. Israel vs Palestine is basically white Jews against brown Jews - racially speaking (not in terms of religion). (in other words: Euro-Jews vs Arab-Jews)
In Venezuela he supports the lighter skin people as well and is willing let people starve to death or not get medicine (through sanctions) as long as he gets his way.

Trump is certainly not a purist but would call him racist (based on his actions, not as a particular slur; I think many people are racist including white-haters).

Hope I didn't offend anyone. Not my intention.

 

[zomborg]

He said racist, not anti-Semitic.

From Wikipedia which you are so fond of quoting. The very first sentence under Antisemitism :

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.

 

[Superbronx]

Hey, yes sorry, I've been away for a while. I meant to post more of the article I found in Boston magazine. It pretty much reads word for word what you posted. Even after you posted it, I'm not so sure anybody actually took the time to read and comprehend it.
Now, after seeing all of the liberal side of things here in this thread, I've only noticed 2 or 3 members weighing in for the conservative side. Here's looking at you Maluma, zomborg and Core.

One of the areas I think may be the source of the problems in today's world, especially in America, is that those who profess to be liberal or progressive are not. Let's take a look:


What is Liberalism? Modern American Liberalism is not the same as classical (Jeffersonian) liberalism. In fact it is almost the exact opposite. Modern American liberalism is:

1. The (mistaken) belief that the restriction of Individual Liberty and private property rights can improve society through government efforts to design and manage economic and social structures.
2. The (mistaken) belief that a mob of men can better manage society than core values that protect the individual and his property and enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection of citizens while limiting government and allowing individuals to protect themselves.
3. The (mistaken) belief that social safety nets imposed on the populace are more compassionate than allowing the individual freedom to fail (or succeed) from one’s life decisions.
   
4. The (mistaken) belief that involuntary re-distribution of wealth is moral.

Classical (Jeffersonian) Liberalism (Which is modern conservatism) is a belief in the superiority of the American core values:

1. Individual Liberty
2. The right to self protection
3. The protection of private property rights
4. Equal protection under the law
   
5. Limited government (Self reliance)

With these working definitions we begin to describe why liberalism fails so often:

Political correctness achieves the opposite of its intent-

What is the intent of political correctness? Possibly to achieve less animosity and promote greater harmony among different cultural and racial groups by limiting the publicly acceptable speech in diverse company through collective shaming and disparagement of undesirable thoughts and verbiage in public. The intent being to remove thought and speech offensive to certain groups.


The results of political correctness are that it interrupts positive as well as negative cultural structures. Political correctness creates an atmosphere of fear that pits cultural groups against each other in polarity rather than in cooperation. People are afraid to say the wrong thing because political correctness dictates an air of cultural entitlement to historically submissive cultures and a sense of guilt to historically dominant cultures thus dividing further the intended blend of cultures in a dynamic of fueling the offensiveness of words that could fade with apathy without the politically correct labeling of the speech; giving power and longevity to the negative impact of words that would otherwise remain a remnant of the cultural lexicon.


Political correctness creates an atmosphere of intolerance of other cultures by leaving no flexibility for cross-cultural transition through natural healing and natural interaction, preventing offensive speech that could grow into tolerable speech over time and cultural abstraction and transition of typical cultural vagary.

Redistribution of wealth fails to achieve economic equality and prosperity-

The concept of wealth redistribution by central government planners has been attempted many times and always results in the reverse of its intention. The dynamics of economic interaction cause people to respond positively to income enhancement, but the productivity of those in society with a propensity to succeed economically is proportional to their ability to keep what they earn.

When the productive are punished for their audacity to generate income (through its forced removal by nebulous entities who claim that their earnings are better spent by supporting the unproductive), not only does this cause discontent, but it decreases the desire to produce by reducing the reward. The recipients of those redistributed dollars become complacent and assume its repetition to the point of eventual dependency. Just as removal of earned dollars causes the productive to reduce output when the futility of added production becomes evident; so does the distribution of the un-earned dollars cause the recipient to trend complacent and apathetic toward the need to exert productive behavior while the assurance of new dollars continues.


Now those are only 2 in a rather lengthy list of examples I could give but that's enough food for thought at this juncture.

 

[Whole lotta love]

if anything universities are too conservative, at least here in the states.

for example, only orthodox and heterodox economics are taught in the states seriously in the vast majority of economics departments, whereas marxist economics are only given a tertiary glance. The red scare has had a serious chilling effect on the academy.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Trump is more pro Israel than any president before him. Israel vs Palestine is basically white Jews against brown Jews - racially speaking (not in terms of religion). (in other words: Euro-Jews vs Arab-Jews)
In Venezuela he supports the lighter skin people as well and is willing let people starve to death or not get medicine (through sanctions) as long as he gets his way.

Trump is certainly not a purist but would call him racist (based on his actions, not as a particular slur; I think many people are racist including white-haters).

Hope I didn't offend anyone. Not my intention.

It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.People in this thread are still in denial over the fact that the Wikipedia owners are liberals even after mountains of evidence on the internet that say otherwise.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

if anything universities are too conservative, at least here in the states.

for example, only orthodox and heterodox economics are taught in the states seriously in the vast majority of economics departments, whereas marxist economics are only given a tertiary glance. The red scare has had a serious chilling effect on the academy.

Universities in America are not conservative at all.Now people in this thread are just lying for the sake of lying.

 

[zomborg]

There has been so much talk in this thread on whether Wikipedia is under liberal control (biased).
Let's think for ourselves a moment. Thought I'd give you a few facts to clear up any confusion.
Brace yourselves, it's a lengthy read. People are going to become concerned that I'm the conservative alter ego of Notimp. Lol.

Finding examples of Wikipedia’s bias is not difficult. One need only compare the entries of figures who do the same thing but from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?

There was a similar disparity between the Wikipedia pages of Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann for anyone who would like to research it and there are many other examples.

Perhaps more interesting than the bias itself on Wikipedia are the two factors which enabled it, the first present in the project’s founding DNA, and the second in a policy implemented in 2009.

Wikipedia was originally launched in 2001 as an off-shoot from Nupedia, a similar effort to construct a free online encyclopedia, although in this case written by experts instead of random, anonymous contributors. Developed by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia was an idea whose time had come on an information-driven net whose consumers couldn’t wait for the slow workings of expertise or the cost of proprietary content: a free encyclopedia written by anonymous users supposedly striving for an “unbiased” perspective.

There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s The Wikipedia Revolution, is a libertarian and Ayn Randian Objectivist. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and anarchist thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a utopian ideal that human beings are more prone to altruism rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.

Ira Matetsky, known by his Wikipedia handle as newyorkbrad, is a lawyer and veteran Wikipedian, both an administrator on the site and part of the Arbitration Committee, the council of editors who sort out disputes between editors. In a series of articles at the libertarian group blog The Volokh Conspiracy, Matetsky discussed some of these incidents and described the power of Wikipedia to affect people’s lives:

In the intervening years, though, it’s become more and more clear that malicious or simply thoughtless content added to Wikipedia BLP’s (“Biographies of Living Persons”) can be very damaging. A series of serious and widely reported incidents have brought the problem to public attention. Among these: the [[Siegenthaler incident]], in which an article was vandalized to accuse a completely innocent person of suspected complicity in an assassination, and no one caught the problem for four months; the incident in 2007 in which a Turkish academic was detained for several hours by immigration officials in Canada, reportedly based on an inaccurate allegation in his Wikipedia article that he was a terrorist; the lawsuit brought by a prominent golfer against the person who added defamatory content to his article; the blatant attack page created against a well-known California attorney, allegedly as part of a negative public relations campaign launched on behalf of one of the companies he was suing.

There was no “solution” to these derelictions if Wikipedia were to retain its basic identity as a “democratic” encyclopedia. There was only a trade-off which in “solving” this problem of defamation created a treatment worse than the disease: the birth of a “more equal” class of 20,000 volunteer editors who had greater level of authority to alter and control entries. Their responsibility is to act as guards for all articles about living people, reviewing suggested edits before they go live. The decision was made by the Wikimedia Foundation, the California nonprofit that operates the site, not only to prevent libelous vandalism but also to reduce the threat of lawsuits. Wales and Wikimedia chairman Michael Snow both voiced their support for the new policy, with “benevolent dictator” Wales noting soberly that the great informational power they had created was a “serious responsibility.”

This sentiment is a cousin to Google’s corporate motto “Don’t be evil,” also a manifestation of the utopian hacker ethos. Of course, as with Google’s occasional failures to live up to its values, Wikipedia’s altruism in theory enables malice in practice.

Wikipedia, continually guided by the ideal of universal human goodness, entrusted greater power to its most devoted, loyal user base. By definition, more authority was granted to individuals with the significant free time to devote to a volunteer, utopian endeavor to shape the world’s information into a unified “consensus.” By and large such individuals are more likely to be leftists than the general population. Wikipedia’s own demographic statistics demonstrate this further: Only 13 percent are women. The average age for a contributor is 26.8 and most do not have a girlfriend, wife, or children. So, alone and apparently without a meaningful, fulfilling career, the devoted Wikipedian instead finds excitement in devoting his time to filling Ann Coulter’s entry with 35.6 percent criticism.

The most significant, blatant examples of bias will be found in these living person entries. To see the difference one need only compare Beck’s entry with its 23% rate of criticism to the more antiseptic entry for Beck’s TV show which has far less.

Incidentally, Fontova’s own Wikipedia entry is 826 words, 432 of which are criticism, an unusually high 52 percent. Unsurprisingly, the primary author and watchdog of Fontova’s entry is Redthoreau.

Our political culture today revolves around debate of contested ideological symbols. For better or worse, arguments about the merits of Coulter and Moore, Beck and Olbermann are actually proxy battles in the culture war between the Right and Left. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, because of its decision to create an elite group of “information specialists,” has picked its side in this war and is now fighting on the front lines.

*For these analyses I’m not counting table of contents, bibliographies, or references in the word count – just the introduction and bodies of the entries written by Wikipedians.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

@zomborg - Just gonna give a couple of quick bullet points here:

• Word count is a poor measurement. Not every politician, columnist or other notable person has an equal body of work and an equal body of public statements and is not equally covered with their articles by other media (see: no primary sources). If someone has a bigger section dedicated to "Controversy" than another person, then... a possible case is that a larger number of articles were written about their controversy and their controversy ran deeper than the other person. It doesn't say anything about how controversial a person might be.
  
• The policy you are referring to is described in WP:BLP. WP:BLP specifically states that if there are poorly sourced allegations (and Wikipedia has a whole slew of policies about what a good and a bad source) that are not written from a neutral POV, the allegation can be removed without discussion, especially if it's libelous. There is no such thing as a "more equal class of 20.000 volunteers who manage all Biography of Living Person articles. Instead, WP:BLP states that administrators are allowed to protect (and semi-protect)[1] pages.
• Administrators on Wikipedia are in fact, expressly forbidden from passing any judgement on the content of the articles the site hosts. Their sole purpose is resolving conflicts between users (and given the way WP operates, this usually means that those who can remain calm the longest end up being the ones that the administrator sides with rather than necessarily the correct end to side with).
  
• Vandalism is common on Wikipedia and while bots catch egregious vandalism, tiny factual vandalism (ie. skewing numbers around) can be slipped in by malicious actors and can sometimes be kept for egregious periods and in some cases end up being kept as the fixing of the error is seen as vandalism instead.
• Wikipedia has zero information specialism. This is in fact one of my biggest criticisms of the site. If JohnnyWithABigDick believes that Marx was a lizard space alien who ate out of trash cans, then the person with a historians degree will have to argue with JohnnyWithABigDick that this isn't the case. Someone's academic degree or 30 year research in a subject doesn't matter on Wikipedia, which is... irritating to say the least, given how there's much fewer people with an historical degree than there are JohnnyWithABigDicks on Wikipedia.

[1]: Protect: Make it so that Administrators are the only ones that can edit. Semi-protect: Make it so that any auto-confirmed (has an account for 30 days+ and 10 other edits iirc) user can edit. To my knoweldge, unless it's with particularly egregious articles that are constantly subjected to vandalism, semi-protection is preferred in these cases.

 

[SG854]

Correct me if I‘m wrong but I would assume climate change denial of conservatives is pretty much a US thing. I can’t really remember that position having had any traction in Europe or Germany (Germany has for the most part always been overwhelmingly conservative).

I‘ve also been fortunate enough to have attended debates regarding GMO food between scientists and Green Party politicians to have witnessed left wing denial of science first hand.

The studies you admit the left has a strangehold on will deny the effect of genetics in many aspects for their „everything is a social construct“ shtick to have any resemblance of cohesion.

I‘m not arguing that either side is better or worse but painting things as black and white as you are is just telling half the story. There’s plenty of science denial to go around on both sides.

“The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt” explains Conservative and Liberal thinking.


They did research and found Conservatives were better able to predict how Liberals will vote compared to how Liberals predicted Conservatives. Which means liberals more likely don’t understand the Conservative perspective, they imagine them in a certain way and likely misrepresent arguments.


Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity.

Liberals see the first 3, while conservatives see the whole spectrum. Liberals don’t see the last three because they write off as where racist beliefs and discrimination is created.


The left wants to more equalize things with welfare programs and put regulation on corporate greed they feel the market won’t correct, like toxic waste dump. They right feels too much of this will undermine and destroy the ecology of the family, social cohesion and assimilation, erode classroom authority, and ruin innovation within a restricted market. Too much of he conservative way will lead to things like white nationalism. Conservatives think that a little sacrifice of the individual for better group cohesion is needed to get things done.


It’s not that conservative are dumb or ignorant, like they are too nationalist. Their beliefs lines up with Human nature and is common in history around the world. The U.S. is actually unique and not common. We value the independent person more. Most of the world isn’t like this on Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. Like compared to a few countries or even Asian cultures, they have a huge value for authority and the group. Asian languages has built in different politeness levels depending on social status to address people, more then what the U.S has. And Asian families has better family cohesion compared to other racial groups in the U.S.

 

[Xzi]

From Wikipedia which you are so fond of quoting. The very first sentence under Antisemitism :

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.

That's great, it's still disingenuous to ignore the original intent. Racism is a broad term, and anti-Semitic is far more specific. For the third time: Trump hates brown people, Jewish people are more than white enough by his standards. And his lack of disdain for Jewish people does nothing to excuse his obvious disdain for brown people. The only way being pro-Jewish would prevent him from being racist is if Jewish people were the only race on Earth. Crystal?

 

[Deleted-401606]

That's great, it's still disingenuous to ignore the original intent. Racism is a broad term, and anti-Semitic is far more specific. For the third time: Trump hates brown people, Jewish people are more than white enough by his standards. And his lack of disdain for Jewish people does nothing to excuse his obvious disdain for brown people. The only way being pro-Jewish would prevent him from being racist is if Jewish people were the only race on Earth. Crystal?

Racist dislike Jews more than Brown people.No White Supremacist would ever even consider a Jewish person white to begin with.Hitler hated the Jews more than any other race.I just think it's silly how people do all these mental gymnastics to try to paint Trump as a racist.

 

[Xzi]

Racist dislike Jews more than Brown people.

There is not one specific type of racist. You're grasping at straws, and ignoring mountains of evidence to suit your bias.

 

[Deleted-401606]

There is not one specific type of racist. You're grasping at straws, and ignoring mountains of evidence to suit your bias.

I'm not grasping at straws.It's not a difficult concept to understand in the least.There are websites dedicated to racist and I really think you should read them so you actually get an understanding of what a racist person actually believes.There is one particular website that has forums filled with pages of content.

I've never met a racist in my entire life or on the internet that likes Jews but dislikes Brown people.His daughter is dating a man from Nigeria,you just want to believe Trump is racist at all cost.What's really racist is liberals that look down on minorities and treat them like they need "reparations" or "affirmative action" to compete with white people.I can assure you as a minority,that we can take care of ourselves.Minorities can use their brains and fend for themselves,we don't need a White person to give us handouts to be able to compete.I am not sure white liberals are obsessed with policing what everyone says or thinks.The only conclusion I can come to accept is that some white liberals have an unmitigated sense of self righteousness.

 

[Xzi]

I'm not grasping at straws.It's not a difficult concept to understand in the least.

Apparently it is, since you believe there's some sort of 'racist's guidebook to the galaxy' which makes anti-Semitism a requirement. You can hate just one race. You can hate every race other than your own. Racism has never been about coming to logical conclusions, yet you're trying to apply some ridiculous mental gymnastics to it.

I've never met a racist in my entire life or on the internet that likes Jews but dislikes Brown people.

Bullshit. There's always someone within earshot willing to blame black people or Muslims for all their problems.

As for Trump himself: his disposition toward different races is made clear in how he talks about Bernie Sanders vs how he talks about Barack Obama. He's not anti-Semitic, he's racist.

I can assure you as a minority,that we can take care of ourselves.Minorities can use their brains and fend for themselves,we don't need a White person to give us handouts to be able to compete.

Nobody said you did. It's not about babying you. It's about wanting someone dignified, and someone whose views on race relations aren't so embarrassingly outdated, in the oval office. Our international reputation is in the garbage now thanks to agent orange.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.

We simply have different definition of racism. If sb hates you (I assume you are white?) for being white, isn't that racism? According to your definition, it isn't. Many people actually would agree because whites are supposedly powerful and therefore can not be discriminated against (which is not true as proven by millions of poor white people).
Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Xzi]

We simply have different definition of racism. If sb hates you (I assume you are white?) for being white, isn't that racism? According to your definition, it isn't. Many people actually would agree because whites are supposedly powerful and therefore can not be discriminated against (which is not true as proven by millions of poor white people).
Let's just agree to disagree.

That's dumb. Yes, racism toward whites is a thing. Moreover, there are still DINOs within the Democratic party which have been publicly racist in the past. Joe Biden gave a passionate speech in favor of segregation. Add in his history of being a creep on live TV, and I hardly consider him to be any better than Trump. Like I said, our leaders are too damn old. Bernie Sanders is the one person in politics from that generation who was consistently on the right side of history. Excluding him, we just need to boot out all the fogeys from DC and start electing representatives that are actually...representative of us. People who weren't born a half century before the invention of the internet.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I think Sanders could have won. Not sure he still can. He would be 82 by the end of the next term.

 

[GreatCrippler]

So in other words the media made up that MAGA is racist,and ignorant people passed on the message so that a large percentage of the populace believes that the MAGA slogan is racist.You can't just chose the meaning to a slogan that you did not create,the creator of the slogan gets to chose what their words meant.CNN does not get to decide what Donald Trumps words mean.

You're making a huge leap here. Racists adopt a phrase, and perception becomes that the phrase has negative racial implications. That is a simple truth. It has nothing to do with leftist media, or anyone "Deciding what Donald Trumps words mean." There is nothing inherently racist about the phrase. There is also nothing inherently racist about wearing a sheet over your head, or getting a swastika tattoo. The fact is still that these acts have negative racial connotations because of how they have been used by people with hateful intentions. You don't have to personally agree that the phrase is racist. You can think of yourself as a full blown patriot who really wants to rebuild his great America. You're also just putting your head in the sand if you can't understand why people would think "M.A.G.A." is both negative, and racially motivated.

 

[zomborg]

@zomborg - Just gonna give a couple of quick bullet points here:

• Word count is a poor measurement. Not every politician, columnist or other notable person has an equal body of work and an equal body of public statements and is not equally covered with their articles by other media (see: no primary sources). If someone has a bigger section dedicated to "Controversy" than another person, then... a possible case is that a larger number of articles were written about their controversy and their controversy ran deeper than the other person. It doesn't say anything about how controversial a person might be.
  
• The policy you are referring to is described in WP:BLP. WP:BLP specifically states that if there are poorly sourced allegations (and Wikipedia has a whole slew of policies about what a good and a bad source) that are not written from a neutral POV, the allegation can be removed without discussion, especially if it's libelous. There is no such thing as a "more equal class of 20.000 volunteers who manage all Biography of Living Person articles. Instead, WP:BLP states that administrators are allowed to protect (and semi-protect)[1] pages.
• Administrators on Wikipedia are in fact, expressly forbidden from passing any judgement on the content of the articles the site hosts. Their sole purpose is resolving conflicts between users (and given the way WP operates, this usually means that those who can remain calm the longest end up being the ones that the administrator sides with rather than necessarily the correct end to side with).
  
• Vandalism is common on Wikipedia and while bots catch egregious vandalism, tiny factual vandalism (ie. skewing numbers around) can be slipped in by malicious actors and can sometimes be kept for egregious periods and in some cases end up being kept as the fixing of the error is seen as vandalism instead.
• Wikipedia has zero information specialism. This is in fact one of my biggest criticisms of the site. If JohnnyWithABigDick believes that Marx was a lizard space alien who ate out of trash cans, then the person with a historians degree will have to argue with JohnnyWithABigDick that this isn't the case. Someone's academic degree or 30 year research in a subject doesn't matter on Wikipedia, which is... irritating to say the least, given how there's much fewer people with an historical degree than there are JohnnyWithABigDicks on Wikipedia.

[1]: Protect: Make it so that Administrators are the only ones that can edit. Semi-protect: Make it so that any auto-confirmed (has an account for 30 days+ and 10 other edits iirc) user can edit. To my knoweldge, unless it's with particularly egregious articles that are constantly subjected to vandalism, semi-protection is preferred in these cases.

You make some solid points and I completely understand your point of view. Maybe there really is no equal class of 20,000 volunteers but I'm also skeptical that Wikipedia has no bias. In today's world it is almost impossible to find anyone who is completely neutral on any subject. Everybody has a specific opinion on most topics and would find it extremely difficult to not let that opinion seep through in their editing. For instance, at one time, news reporters were supposed to be fair and unbiased in their reporting. They were just supposed to give you the facts and let you form your own opinion but now it is almost impossible to find reporters who practice that. Also on the internet and social media, people with liberal views outnumber conservatives, which is evident here in our own community.
So anyone would be hard pressed to convince me that it's not the same at Wikipedia.

 

[Whole lotta love]

It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.People in this thread are still in denial over the fact that the Wikipedia owners are liberals even after mountains of evidence on the internet that say otherwise.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Universities in America are not conservative at all.Now people in this thread are just lying for the sake of lying.

Pretty much all universities in Europe reach Marxist economics alongside orthodox and heterodox economics, yet American universities are afraid to teach it.

 

[Deleted-401606]

There's no use in talking politics on libtemp.People just don't li

Pretty much all universities in Europe reach Marxist economics alongside orthodox and heterodox economics, yet American universities are afraid to teach it.

So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?