Academia explained by dicentra

November 15, 2006 at 9:50 pm (Blogs, Idiots, Leftist idiocy, The Left, The Right)

dicentra left this as a comment on my post on academia, but I thought it was good enough to be highlighted as a separate post. She kindly posted it on her blog (“Wacademia and Peer Pressure” by dicentra of Dicentra’s Garden).

This is what makes the academic Left who they are:

As S. Weasel said, they’d rather be dead than uncool. Academics think they score extremely high on the cool scale, and in some ways they do. They tend to like high-falutin’ music (jazz, classical), they are into the arts, theatre, and languages, they are capable of engaging in extremely interesting conversations. And they can be quite clever, too. For this reason, I tend to prefer friends who are academically inclined.

However, academics are universally plagued by the overwhelming fear of being thought foolish by their peers, of not being good enough to be in the Cool Smart People Club. Remember, academics were usually the shy, unpopular kids in elementary through high school. They spent their time with their noses buried in books and encyclopedias, soaking up as much knowledge as possible. Their academic skills earned them the praise of their teachers but the scorn of their classmates.

So when they get to college, suddenly they are the only ones on campus. All of the “cool” kids from high school took other paths. Maybe they’re in the sciences or they went to trade school or they got jobs straight out of high school.

At any rate, all of the formerly uncool kids find each other in college, and they are more than happy to dump on all of the “bourgeoisie” who tormented them as children. All of the stuff that interested the uncool kids becomes cool, and they can easily justify their tastes as “better” than those of the masses because the tastes are not as easily cultivated, and they are not as widespread.

If you want to humiliate an academic, accuse him or her of being bourgeois. Or in other words, “common.” Unenlightened, like the rest of those rotters who didn’t have the brains to go into academia.

So of course, the Left makes a point of seeking out those values that are held by Middle America and deliberately embracing their opposite. They do not in any way make an honest evaluation of traditional or common values to decide which to keep and which to discard; instead, they hold it as a truism that common values are a priori wrong and must be destroyed. They hold up the sacred triumvirate of racism, sexism, and homophobia as societal wrongs that prove that they are in the right.

That’s why they call themselves “progresssives”: they believe that human society naturally evolves toward perfection, and that conservatives object to the changes they propose out of old-fashioned bigotry and the desire to maintain social status. Again, they point to racism, especially, as an example of how everybody in a society can believe something that is totally wrong and how it takes the actions of brave “radicals” to change society for the better. Because no one today can argue with the fallacy of racial superiority, they claim the high moral ground.

But like I said, they don’t differentiate between traditional values that are good and those that should go. They are enamored of the idea that they are at the avant garde of social progress because they, and they alone, are smart enough to see injustice. They, after all, are educated. And education makes you moral.

That’s how they see themselves. What they don’t see is the degree to which peer pressure informs their opinions. While I was in academia, I heard the siren song of conformity, but I didn’t heed it because I knew that the only reason for dropping my old beliefs and conforming to theirs would be to escape ridicule. And no one, especially an academic, likes to be thought a fool.

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. geoff said,

    This subject (inherent differences between liberals and conservatives) is of great interest to me. In fact it’s pretty much why I started my little blog. I couldn’t find a venue in the blogosphere to explore those differences with any permanence or coherence. So within the next week I expect to start in on the Lakoff framework for political orientation.

  2. dicentra said,

    So within the next week I expect to start in on the Lakoff framework for political orientation.

    ::holds head in hands::

    Uhhh. Bad memories, bad memories. Like I can ever keep those guys and their loony theories straight…

  3. Ernesto Ribeiro said,

    The ambiguous victory of the democrats

    by Olavo de Carvalho

    The main result of the legislative elections is the consensus, between the republicans, that the party should abandon bushism and come back to good old conservative line of Goldwater and Reagan, that Bush, for moments, pretended to represent.

    In 1975, the American soldiers withdrew of the Vietnam, leaving the free field for the communists, that then promoted the slaughter of 3 millions of civil Vietnamese and Cambodian, the fetidest episode of genocide of the second half of the century XX, exceeding in more from three times the total of dead persons of the war. The result was more than foreseeable, but the loving pacifists that made an effort turn it reality were never charged in the big media by the immeasurable crime that helped to practice. Some, as Noam Chomsky, still did the possible to hide it, and by that are worthy until today like examples of “intellectual uprightness”.

    Another similar moment is announced for soon in Iraq, by hands of the radical leftists of the Democrat Party, drunken by the easy victory in the Chamber and in the Senate, if are going to lead for the pacifist enthusiasm of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and others that such.

    It’s difficult that that arrive it happen, therefore, when had the chance of cause to the practical one the proposal of immediate retreat that advocated of the mouth for outside, the democrats recoiled more than fast. They know perfect that the Iran, at present already the most greatest supplier of recruits for the Iraqi terrorism, is promptly for occupy the territory of the neighboring country or at least for carry out there a slaughter without precedents so soon see the American soldiers gone away. And a thing is speak bad of the government, another one is going sharing of the responsibilities of government. In the time in that the democrats were barely opposition, information as that helped them to squeeze Bush in the wall, obliging him it choose between the risk of ignore the threat and the of take alone an unpopular decision. Now, who is in the wall are they.

    That’s just one of the motives by that, in the most conservative circles, almost nobody is whining a lot the republican defeat.

    By their turn, anti-Americans worldwide are commemorating the double democrat victory in the U.S.A. as went the beginning of the end of the “religious right-wing”, if not of the “abominable American Empire” entire.

    But, if it is truth that American people is even tired of the war in the Iraq, never the international affairs, alone, decided an election in the U.S.A. Nobody doubts of that the Republican Party paid for the sins of George W. Bush, but the national rejection to the president has very less to do with the war than with the attitudes of him regarding public expense, immigration and electoral legislation – and, in those three areas, he did it not against the democrats, and yes with their enthusiastic support. Of them and of that ones called “RINOS” (Republicans In Name Only), as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee.

    The most notorious example was the immigration law. While the entire country claimed for drastic measures against the illegal immigration, the president plotted with the rinos and the democrats a ridiculous plan that not alone amnestied the invaders but gave them more rights than the legal immigrants never had. The proposal awoke so much revolt that the conservative republicans in the Chamber of the Representatives frustrated the plan, working against their own president and suppressing of the law against the illegal immigration the device of amnesty.

    That was in December. Then already there was conservatives openly calling Bush “TREACHEROUS”.

    Bush complicated very his own situation when gave support to a new electoral legislation that limited severely the action of the NGOs not-partisan. Now, those NGOs as by example to National Rifle Association, to American Family Foundation and especially the think tanks like to Heritage Foundation or to Claremont Foundation, the main force of the American conservative movement. It is clear that the democrats, that never obtained to mount a think tank that functioned, worshipped to new rule and the conservatives saw in him an explicit treason of Bush to the cause that professed defend.

    More motive for revolt the president gave when violated at the same time two sacred laws of the conservatism, spending a mint of the government for increase the state-owned interference in the childlike education, with the help, obviously, of the democrats. The repugnance of the conservatives to the excess in the public expense is traditional, but his resistance to the state-owned education, that barely be moderated, if transformed in ostensible hatefulness when became clear that the American schools were becoming centers of doutrination, left-wing oriented… by the UN.

    The worst thing of everything was to sudden revelation of flat secret one of the Council on Foreign Relations in order to dissolve the borders between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico, practically eliminating the American nation as independent political unit. The idea already was old, but when a citizen appealed to the FIA (Freedom of Information Act), obliging the government to divulge the documents about the matter, that’s was uncovered Bush already was formally committed with the governments of Canada and of the Mexico it carry out the plan. The Republican Party, where do there is so many members of the CFR when in the Democrat, did not be able to neither approve an about those neither break openly with the president. Confused and undecided, the Party opted for do itself of dead person, what was the even though ask to the voters that buried it.

    But it’s clear that neither all to fair irritation of the conservatives against Bush would be able to transform-them in left-wingers. What they did was the more intelligent thing to do: chosing the more conservative between the candidates democrats, and voted in them.

    (ER: To even to leader of the tropa-de-choque Nancy Pelosi alone obtained itself reelect when silenced the mouth about ‘impeachment’ and sold to new image of ‘moderated’ and ‘pragmatic’. All the Party Democrat gone to the center, abandoning the left-wing talk. Neither red republican, neither blue democrat. It understood now because the media recognizes that that was the history voting of the voters ‘purple’?)

    In this way, the success of the Party Democrat was not neither a victory of the left one neither a defeat of the conservatism. Was a defeat of a ambiguous president and of his “rinos” allied.

  4. Third Rake Comics said,

    Awesome Post!

    Third Rake webcomic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: