Political "science"

Well the title does say "1 in 12"

sad truth but I think people do it for the love

I bet if you told a lot of the younger PhDs working on Wall Street that they had an offer for an 80k/yr tenure track position at a decent university, they would quit their jobs on the spot.

don't know why it hasn't been said yet lol

liberals are smarter than conservatives

Yet we all know the cushy academic jobs are at an absolute premium and most profs are making a little more than minimum wage as adjuncts

It's not about maximizing pay per se but
>actually being able to do research
>having some semblance of job security
although adjunct pay is awful, no doubt

There aren't anywhere near as many of those positions as their are jobs on Wall Street trying to rub two dollars together to magic a third into existence. Our society values finance so much more than academia that we're willing to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at Wall Street but scoff at the idea of funding universities and see their budgets as nothing but a piggy bank to raid.

The whole idea behind conservatism is "people from the past knew better so we ought to keep their ways".

Which is really retarded when you think about it.

Honestly it's administrators and bloated bureaucracy that are currently the cancer in academia

they control the money, so naturally they create more of themselves like cancer

I don't completely disagree, but Universities waste a lot of money on administration that could be going to research. People just hire their friends to administrative jobs where they do nothing but make 500k/yr.

It's empirical. You have a certain context that produced a favorable outcome. A lot of "progress" involves radical change without much precedent that could in fact crash the whole system in pursuit of a lofty goal.

You don't have to be dogmatic to be a conservative, just more like a handler or damage control for the eternal progressive that seeks to constantly change everything.

American conservatism isn't even conservative in this sense (damage control) anymore, it is just pandering to religious fundamentalists.

Don't focus on one subset of a very large generalized group. They're losing a lot of pull in mainstream politics with the decline of religion here.

And how does that link with climate change denial? Fossil fuel industrial age was a massive "change" and "progress" that was unproven with regards to consequences (bad for climate as it turns out) yet conservitards guard it with their lives.

The implication of addressing "climate change" means you have to curb industry which sacrifices your competitive ability against other economies

It's an inconvenience that doesn't coalesce with their narrative much like the possibility that women and minorities are inherently dumber than white and Asian men and thus underperforming

Fossil fuels are part of the status quo the conservadicks were born into, for them it would be a change to change energy resources.

But that's all ideological. Practically what really drives them is that sweet, sweet oil money they get from oil companues and pandering to retarded coaltards (why would you work in coal if you have a functional brain?) for their votes.

>white and Asian men
>those two are equal
asian women have higher iq's than white men
asian women underperform only when compared to asian men

i can smell your racial agenda from here

I wasn't being detail specific for a reason, I'm not actually trying to shift the focus of the thread

>racial agenda

Sounds like "climate agenda" to me, all the same if you're a dogmatic tit with your head shoved up your ass

>everyone is equal
>racial agenda
hmm...

>Don't focus on one subset of a very large generalized group. They're losing a lot of pull in mainstream politics with the decline of religion here.
The religious right is winning big in America because they tend to live in rural America and the American electoral system makes rural votes worth more.

>problem is getting worse

I don't get it. What problem? Professors have always been that way. That is what academia is all about after all. If they were conservative, they'd not be sharing papers. "Science" would be more guild-like and they'd be hoarding information.

Religious issues took a strong seat to nationalist ones this past election cycle

One of the last real sticking points is abortion and that has become more of a moral debate than religious one, at least in debate

Lol, it's like saying "Literate people vastly outnumber illiterate ones and the ratio is getting WORSE!"

> It's empirical.

Not really. The idea that there is a single correct answer to the issue of organizing human society and that answer is a specific thing found in the past isn't really supported by evidence. That's the fundamental difference between the conservative worldview and the progressive worldview. Conservatives believe that there is a single correct answer found somewhere in the past that must be adhered to as closely as possible and that any deviation from that just moves you away from the correct answer. Progressives believe that good is a moving target, and that at every step of the way there are incrementally better answers stretching forward in the future.

This is one of the reasons why conservative politics are tied closely to religion while progressive politics are more popular in academia. The conservative worldview meshes well with the idea of timeless truth handed down from the divine, while the progressive worldview meshes better with the idea of new discoveries building upon each other. Neither of these are strictly empirical, but one of them is definitely closer to the way scientific research and development has played out over the years.

>difference between iq in genders is 5 points at most
>difference between asians and whites is about 7 points
do you see the problem with your own bullshit beliefs contradict themselves and basically you need to fuck off back to /pol/

>Religious issues took a strong seat to nationalist ones this past election cycle
Religion and nationalism are fundamentally intertwined for American Christians because many of them view America as God's chosen nation

The nationalist elements are tied in closely with the religious ones, as they often are. Religion is an easy way of carving out a national identity, and this election cycle was no exception. The idea that America is a nation of, by, and for white Christians emerged as the victor. Does Trump actually believe in anything to do with Christianity? No, but in nationalism that's not the point. The point is that it allows you to define who is a part of your tribe, and who is an enemy of the tribe.

forget about my beliefs
which race benefits from everyone being treated equally?

every1

Don't act like Muslims weren't a campaign issue that decided the election.

Is it a single answer, or a "best guess", approximation, "best we can do" kind of situation? I don't think many conservatives think they live in a perfect system, or than any system in the past was perfect. I think it's predicated on an understanding as perfection and ideal as impossible to attain without actually making things worse.

I wish we could define who we're calling liberal and conservative here because the American versions of both are really one huge amalgamation of competing interests that don't really adhere to the historical idea.

It's not just tribalism, many American Christians have a worldview where America is going to hell because of various types of immorality (abortion and homosexuality are the most prominent) and is persecuting Christians, and faces imminent punishment from God if it doesn't change its ways. Despite Trump obviously not being much of a Christian, many Christians adhere to a Providentialist viewpoint where Donald Trump is literally chosen by God to save Christians from persecution and crusade against Islam.

Muslim terrorism, which isn't very salient for any other nation group or religion around the world

It was the fact that Muslims are so fundamentalist that is distasteful, which isn't pro religion imo

That was what dominated the news.

In terms of what dominated policy: complete travel ban on several arab countries.

Huh, now I know why higher education is so shit most of the time.

Because there is literally no organization or vetting for backwards shitholes that are bordering on anarchy

"Abu the 15 year old refugee" could be "Assad the 28 year old IS extremist"

America doesn't have an obligation to potentially sacrifice security for wanton charity, the Nu Concept here is that rich countries are obligated to do that

>I don't think many conservatives think they live in a perfect system, or than any system in the past was perfect
Then what's the fucking point of conservatism? Just to be a contrarian to progressives for the hell of it?

Radical Muslims can be contained in the Middle East, in theory, and we have things like security services to keep an eye on them. Radical Christians are a lot more dangerous because they want to dismantle the entire welfare state and run it through churches instead, millions may die from losing healthcare, food stamps, etc.

>Then what's the fucking point of conservatism? Just to be a contrarian to progressives for the hell of it?
mostly, but it is mainly about either religion or ethnonationalism

Well it's clear they pick and choose which issues to focus on more so it isn't one big stonewall. Think about how (relatively) quietly gay marriage passed in the past decade. Most of Europe still hasn't caught up.

america is obligated to do that since it's america's fault
and saudi arabia or whatever

such countries should just get all the refugees

All of them. First, because it lessens the chance of a race war that will fuck over everyone.

Second, because racial inequality doesn't actually help most of the supposedly supreme race. Consider the pre-civil-war south. Were poor whites made better off by slavery, an institution of enforced racial inequality? No, they weren't. Slavery benefited only a tiny minority of whites, the planter aristocracy, because it turned the entire society into a pure contest of capital for buying more slaves, and the poor whites who could not afford to buy slaves were left with nothing to show for it. Most whites benefited from the abolition of slavery because it removed a massively unfair advantage that favored the planter aristocracy over poor whites.

I'm not going to argue whether it's right or wrong or productive/unproductive to society or whatever, however you can't deny Islam the religion wasn't a part of the arguments and debates during the campaign. Even if the politicians didn't say it explicitly, their constituents certainly had their ideas about Islam.

>Radical Muslims can be contained in the Middle East, in theory, and we have things like security services to keep an eye on them. Radical Christians are a lot more dangerous because they want to dismantle the entire welfare state and run it through churches instead, millions may die from losing healthcare, food stamps, etc.

wat

I'm pretty sure that one just boils down to "stop taxing me this much and giving it to someone else because I don't want that"

why are you conflating terrorism with common political debate, that's just loaded language

> Is it a single answer, or a "best guess", approximation, "best we can do" kind of situation?
Considering a big chunk of conservatives in the US believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and thus inherently perfect, I'd say the number of people who think that there is just a single correct answer is a lot larger than you might think. And even absent Christianity specifically, look at the near deification of the founding fathers. Suggesting that the Constitution as originally written was a flawed document is basically taboo in conservative circles, even though the Constitution as originally written permitted slavery.

Conservatives believe that most current systems are better than whatever they would be replaced with. Not that the current system is perfect.

The issue with conservative ideology is that its reactionary, meaning that eventually, grain by grain, the system erodes away.

Progressive right-wing ideology would be best. But current conservative culture is based on reactionary politics.

[math]\text{ }^{\color{#571da2}{\displaystyle\text{W}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#462eb9}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f47c8}{\displaystyle\text{y}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f62cf}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#437ccc}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b90bf}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#56a0ae}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#62ab99}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#71b484}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#82ba70}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#96bc5f}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a9bd52}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bcbb48}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#ceb541}{\displaystyle\text{n}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dcab3c}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e39938}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e68033}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e3632d}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#de4227}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}[/math]

what are you talking about there's definitely vetting

How was it not? The worst parts of Islam encourage martyrdom, oppression, and war against outsiders. That's not to say other religions don't have elements of this, but there is always going to be one relatively larger than the others, and that's currently Islam.

It clearly wasn't a total religious ban as they omitted the larger and more developed Muslim countries from the list. And left Iran for the lols as usual.

/pol/ == Veeky Forums
deal with it

The existence of vetting =/= adequate vetting

If Somalia can't run a single unified government I doubt they are keeping accurate and thorough records

America does the vetting on people trying to get in

I don't know, as a "young conservative" I really don't experience this anymore among my peers. If you tried to cite the Bible I'm pretty sure you'd just get laughed out even if that's still valid for 60 year old Facebook grandpas.
Religious justification on a faith basis isn't valid for any ideology.

They need reliable information to work with to conduct vetting and background checks.

They don't put someone in a machine and brain scan them to gauge their history and intentions.

>I'm pretty sure that one just boils down to "stop taxing me this much and giving it to someone else because I don't want that"
no, the whole point is that things like state healthcare or food stamps are basically idolatrous - they step on the toes of what should be the responsibility of churches and lead to the disintegration of religious values. When the welfare state was invented there was a lot of talk about this from religious thinkers. There is of course a "fuck my neighbor, he is a leech" element of this because American Christianity mixes the Bible with Ayn Rand and taking benefits is viewed as sinful.

>why are you conflating terrorism with common political debate, that's just loaded language
so bombings by radical Muslims is terrorism, but when radical Christian billionaires try to destroy food stamps or healthcare for poor people, which they are in position to do, it's not terrorism?

Your peers don't give as many votes as the people who actually do that. Guess who politicians will pander to?

>I don't know, as a "young conservative" I really don't experience this anymore among my peers.
Do you live in a major city?

>The adoption of cars will curb our buggy whip-based economy! The sky is falling!
Who is the "alarmist" again?

Yes, also about to graduate from a large school

Regardless I've noticed a decline in religious justification for many issues, Trump put a gay man on stage at the RNC which I'm pretty sure is 100% unprecedented whether the media wanted to formally acknowledge that or not it's a huge step in a positive direction for consistent debate.

>No wonder the "climate change theory" is pushed so hard.

>Considering a big chunk of conservatives in the US believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and thus inherently perfect, I'd say the number of people who think that there is just a single correct answer is a lot larger than you might think.

I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God and perfect for what it is intended to do, I also do not believe it is intended as a science text, and taking the metaphors and parables used to teach spiritual truths as literal teaching in cosmology and biology is an error. We cool?

>And even absent Christianity specifically, look at the near deification of the founding fathers. Suggesting that the Constitution as originally written was a flawed document is basically taboo in conservative circles, even though the Constitution as originally written permitted slavery.

Straw man -- Conservatives believe that you should follow the Constitution as written, or, if you find a part of it that you think is wrong or ill-suited to modern times, you should change it through the amendment process provided by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as opposed to just disregarding what the foundational law of the land says. The disadvantage of just disregarding what it says is that, once you do that, you do not have a foundational law at all in any real sense. That removes the restraints the Constitution places on governments' ability to infringe the rights retained by the people. We cool still?

But he also put a strict ban on immigrants from countries based on the religion they traditionally practiced.

> as opposed to just disregarding what the foundational law of the land says.
You mean exactly what conservatives do with the fourth amendment?

There has never been a terrorist attack from any of these refugees. You're delusional.

Your assertion is contradicted by the fact that he "forgot" to ban 75% of the Muslim world

If you look at it rationally you'll see he put a temporary ban on places with the least amount of infrastructure and/or economic value for the US

anti-islam nowadays is just a word for being anti brown caucasian
nobody actually dislikes bosnians or tatars

>what was the OSU attack a few months ago from a Somalian

He tried to ban travel from Iraq, one of our supposed allies in fighting against ISIS, in the middle of our military trying to cooperate with the Iraqis.

Also, if it's so important that it's temporary, how much good is it actually going to do?

> economic value for the US
i.e. not having Trump specific business interests.
Iran and others are not shit holes.

We should be trading more with them to try influence their politics through McDonalds and the like, not less.

And the narrative he spoke of was to reduce terrorists from entering the country, when some of the worst terrorist countries weren't even banned.

> When goods stop crossing borders, armies will

How many people were killed?

holy shit you're stupid

what exactly is wrong with 'reducing the immigration to minimum from x number countries' without calling it 'muh muslim ban, because fuck muslims and american muslims too'

afaik obama did that, kinda

nobody, but a dozen people were injured
>wow who cares
maybe someone should stab someone you care about, you fucking sperg
I'm so glad you aren't old enough to vote

Then would you kindly explain why banning travel from a nation that you're trying to work with is a good thing?

>we need a death count of X for this to be counted

As a new President I'm sure he needs time to sort out his idea of a thorough system so the temporary part of 120 days makes sense

>

>having an ideology
Ideology = bias
>being a scientist with a bias

Iran isn't, the others are very much so

And we all know why Iran was banned, we've been dogging Iran for decades now

He proposed this literally over a year ago. Back in December of 2015. He couldn't come up with something in that time?

He was probably busy campaigning for the Presidency, I don't know

Why do you think your terms are perfect, would you prefer a permanent ban?

The Republicans have been saying they wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare for seven years, but only got around to actually creating a replacement plan last month. You're assuming a level of foresight that Trump and the republicans clearly do not have.

Modern conservatism =/= what was conservatism when the term was invented. Conservatism by that definition is like Metternich in the 19th century Austrian Empire, modern conservatism in the US is a continuation of small government types at its base who have always been a political faction, literally from the minute the country was founded. For example, federalists v anti-federalists in the Articles of Confederation era, a conservative at that time would have been wanting for aristocracy and probably with federalists if he/she didn't leave the country.

I would prefer some honesty when it comes to public policy. If he wants to say that the ban is vitally important, he should stop hiding behind the fact that it's temporary. And if he wants it to be temporary, he should quit acting like it's actually going to do very much in the way of stopping actual terrorists.

I don't think he's been dishonest about this point at all and as you said a Muslim world travel ban has been in the works but this was simply one issue among many. People knew about and voted for this, national bans are nothing new to this country.

I hate that immigration went from being something people considered a privilege to grant to others and instead turned into some kind of high moral obligation to everyone.

Muh women studies and liberals arts degree

youtu.be/gZo2qR8x_n8
Idealism instead of studying is destroying academia

> modern conservatism in the US is a continuation of small government types
Yet modern conservatives don't actually practice small government. When they cut spending on something like the EPA, they just turn around and pump all of that money into the military so government spending remains the same.

>muh refugees are dangerous
>see one guy was a terrorist and injured people
Pathetic

>we need to call refugees dangerous when they aren't

It's in our best interest to shelter the refugees, because ISIS is good at recruiting. Can't recruit what ain't there.

I never said anything about whether or not they still were real small gov. I was refuting the fact that whichever poster I replied to that conservatism in its current usage isn't looking to the past for answers not status quo.