Inserting Politics into STEM

The other day my Chem prof put pic related at the first power-point slide of a lecture, I'm not used to having randomly politics shoved into science, every 3rd lecture he yarns about how Trump is going to ruin everything for Scientists, global warming basically every contemporary issue in modern science is at risk of being sullied by Trump.

What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?

Where does your political compass sit?

Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?

This topics even more relevant now because of the whole Bill Nye gender abacus, ice cream orgy bullocks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3hLwVv-EFvg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Sometimes, yea. There is things that directly affect science such as budgets, permits for proyects and research and public education. Shoehorning your political beliefs to students is just annoying though, but professors can't see where their egos end.

No one should really care about Bill Nye.

I'm a prof and I think others feel like it's not "political" per se because Trump wants to cut their funding. I disagree but I think that's how they feel. Most of them hate Trump for way more reasons than the funding. They just use the funding issue to claim that Trump attacked them.

At the end of the day they're just another group of people whining about how they want money. I want money too but I won't stoop to that

Well politic and science can actually be quite intricated.
Science sometimes need money, large scale and risky project, whi can be granted by politics. It can impact society on such point it become a political problem. Sometime, politics use science to justify a given policy.
In short, there's no hard boundary between those two. Just like with anything and politic, tbqh.

My political compass points to whoever is the most apt to respond to the ecological problems we created.

As i said, it's illusional to think science is hermetics to politics. And yeah, sometimes it's the right thing to do ti bring politics in it. Do you really want to test that new-gen reactor who would wipe th entire country if it fails ? Maybe non-scientist, whose live may be at stakes, have a word in it ?

This topic is relevant, yeah. Bill Nye is not.

Also, regarding your first question ; as a teacher i ALWAYS warn my student about the diverse political ramification of every subject. They're future engineer, they must know that and be able to think critically about what they do. I always make sure to represent all sides of the argument and not dictate thel what to think, but more "how" to think.
That's what i feel every prof should do. Some colleagues hates me for not pushing their agenda tho (on both sides of the political spectrum tho)

i had an economics teacher who taught us, in 2010 or so, that global warming is a socialist hoax designed to undermine capitalism, that liberals are sending diseased immigrant children into our schools to infect our children, and obamacare is going to destroy america.

in the same term, i had an english teacher talking about his life as an ex-christian "fundie" (a hyper religious denomination he was unfortunate enough to be born into), straight white male privilege, etc.

personally i just listened closely recognizing that you don't normally get to hear the opinions of intelligentsia on controversial topics.

also interestingly enough, even though liberals are supposed to be the safe-space snowflakes, the hippie english teacher got tons of anger and pushback from students (including a walk out) while the right-wing econ teacher got none at all

op existing in the world is inherently a political act and "not inserting politics into stem" is just as political as the opposite. stem is not apolitical and people pretending its so have an agenda. a good education must involve political education, i.e. reading marx.

>reading marx

Ideally science ought to be apolitical. In practice it's not, partially because in the modern era a gigantic chunk of funding comes from governments and partially because people are dickheads who can't keep their personal biases out of places they don't belong. There's nothing you can do about this; people will never stop being dickheads and "barring" opinions is a political stance more extreme than what you're trying to block.
However Veeky Forums is an imageboard, not a research group, and 100% of politics that gets brought up here is the second source.
Every politically charged thread is one of the exact same 3 templates recycled over and over by /pol/tard immigrants who can't bottle up their diarrhea when they spend 5 minutes outside their containment board.

i agree OP

politics off my STEM and my Veeky Forums

Daily reminder only brainlet moralfags care about politics, everytime someone bitchs about Trumps its about moralfag HURR HES RACIST OR SEXIST reasons not any rational reason like his budget plan.

Nelson mandella was a terrorist who decided later to become a politician. He for real planted bombs

Heres my political compass. I think politics should always be kept to ones self unless you are with close friends or user on the internet.

My chem dept has weekly seminars where a prof from different uni comes to talk about research but one week we had an alumni who does social work come and talk about social justice and women/POC in science.

That graph really captures the spirit of 4chin

Politics is what we call fighting to see who will control the money. Also, that is why "getting the money out of politics" is stupid.

If he is not speaking to you in binary he should fuck off.

I see a lot of political opinions formed around ill-studied concepts. Where the empirical facts end and policy depends on having those facts, the political ideologies begin to fill the voids in scientific knowledge.

For instance, climate change research is well-documented in terms of the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in global temperature, but no publicly available empirical study has managed to turn up any more than a correlation. As any good scientist or statistician knows, correlation is not causation. They're both rising, but there's scant a study out there giving good evidence that one is a primary cause of the other, and without that, climate change is not a good reason to pour funding into changing our CO2 output. It just so happens that the ones who would receive funding for such efforts also favor one major political party over the other, which further muddies the water. For all we know, it's just a benign conspiracy to take the power of global energy needs out of the hands of a fossil-fuel-rich Middle East that can't handle such power right now. We just don't know, because there's no unbiased comprehensive study out there to displace all the ideologies that are fighting to fill in the gaps right now.

Then, there's racism, for which, there also happens to be no empirical study on how racism happens. Despite this, either side will swear up and down that that it's because of media representation or because of genetics or because of this particular cherry-picked part of a case study. They'd rather fight over the problem than solve it. This is where the actual scientist comes in. If a scientist can test the hypotheses proposed by either side, then the opinions won't matter anymore.

So yes, the scientist has a place in politics, but such a scientist must have integrity and will have a hell of a time getting the facts known since the facts are likely to contradict both major narratives in some way.

>dat compass
Reddit tier political views. KYS commie

>commie

but today's commies are the top left larping as anarchists. this guy's a hippie.

I am pretty Conservative, I would consider myself to be pretty pro-science. I find it irritating when any party, candidate or ideology gets off into the weeds of "woo" and such. I am particularly put off when political entities claim that their set of policy reactions to a science issue shows that they are exclusively "pro science," while the other side's policies in reaction to the issue mean that they are "anti science." But that is more a statement about the politics than the science.

>Politics is what we call fighting to see who will control the money.

I'd amend that -- War is when we fight about who gets the money, politics is how we bicker over who gets the money without fighting. Of the two, I prefer politics.

>Also, that is why "getting the money out of politics" is stupid.

Agreed. Also, compared to how much we spend on other, trivial, shit, the amount of money pent on electoral politics is actually surprisingly low.

>Ideally science ought to be apolitical

That is not possible, unless what you really mean is "not overtly partisan," which I guess would be technically possible.

Politics is the word for how more than one or two of us interact and reach decisions, Politics impacts science funding, as an obvious example, and scientific findings will impact public policy. That is not only inevitable, but seems to me a Good Thing.

>politics should always be kept to ones self

You have no idea of what politics means, do you? If you "keep it to yourself," it is literally not politics.

>I am particularly put off when political entities claim that their set of policy reactions to a science issue shows that they are exclusively "pro science," while the other side's policies in reaction to the issue mean that they are "anti science."
Both major parties have their anti-intellectual fringes. But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.

>compared to how much we spend on other, trivial, shit, the amount of money pent on electoral politics is actually surprisingly low.
that's not the issue with money in politics, though; it's not about how much money is actually spent, but rather about how easy it is for people with deep pockets to influence the political process. whether an official is being bribed (honestly, that's essentially what the current lobbying scheme is) with $50 or $50,000, it's still a corruption of his duty to his constituents.

Politics is really monkeys arguing with other monkeys to make them think the top monkeys dont control everything do.

Democracy was a mistake it causes too much social division, monarchy or an oligarchy by blood oath was the best form of government.

nice pedantry asshat

/pol/ isn't even trying to hide it anymore.

>Acting as if lefty/pol/ hasn't invaded every single board once they got tired of circle-jerking over at Reddit.

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
It destroy's science.
Both in the USSR and nazi Germany science has suffered as the result of being politicized.
It should be every scientists goal that their results are not used to push a certain ideology but as a guidance for everyone.

>Where does your political compass sit?
Moderately right wing, slightly anti-authoritarian. Mostly as a result of the people who are literally communists at my university, they are exactly the kind of people who ham fist their ideology into everything they can get their hands on, especially science.

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
It certainly should be discussed how science relates to political issues. But on the other hand it should never be part of science as a whole to advocate for a particular party or ideology.
Science should be the presenter of facts, the people who talk to ALL politicians so that they can steer the country into the right direction.
Obviously it is also the job of ALL politicians to listen to science, so that their opinions can be as educated as possible.

If scientists decide to push one ideology science itself will suffer immediate consequences. (Take 99% of the humanities as an example)

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
In a near-perfect world (for, no perfect world exists wherein there are also governments), all of our politicians would use science as a means of identifying the best possible policies.

In practise, you get this sick relationship where people use 'science' to justify taking extreme positions, and you have 'scientists' that use politics to try and get tax funding. It's pretty gross.

>Where does your political compass sit?
Pic related.

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
In present western culture, the two should be kept separate.

Which is why it's surprising they never focus their hate on the jews

That's like the opposite of what that post was claiming, dude.

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Well unfortunately the science in the United States will probably get destroyed once the United States is inevitably destroyed as a result of your prof's politics LOL.

>talking points
I'm guessing you swung hard center since you got that compass result.

I don't agree with that. The anti-science crowd on the right does not seem to me to be more in control of the party than their counterparts on the left -- though the fact that the left has generally been more fragmented into different interest groups than the right might make it seem that way.

I am also not sure how quantifiafiable that is.

I'd suggest the left and the right both see to the beam in their own eyes before worrying about the mote in the other side's eye. Though it is of course more fun to get worked up about how those other guys need to change, rather than dealing with how you need to change.


I'd also argue with your idea of what "money in politics" means but that seems to be off topic for the board, so let's just let that one go.

Powerful argument. Powerful.

>complains about politics in science
>posts politics on science board
I guess your school really is shit.

>The other day my Chem prof put pic related at the first power-point slide of a lecture, I'm not used to having randomly politics shoved into science, every 3rd lecture he yarns about how Trump is going to ruin everything for Scientists, global warming basically every contemporary issue in modern science is at risk of being sullied by Trump.

It's unfortunate that he's wasting your time and money by pontificating about a topic he isn't an expert in. You didn't pay/sacrifice an hour of your time to hear his political views, you did these things to learn chemistry from an expert. He can believe what he wants to believe, but he should leave this unrelated interest out of his job. If you paid for a massage and instead got a lecture on politics, you'd be mad, so why is a paid lecture on chemistry exempt?

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science

They can be related, but if it's not in the course syllabus, I don't want to hear it (this is particularly true when it comes from a non-expert). Sure politics can be discussed in relation to science, but if I paid for an Organic Chemistry lecture, I want an Organic Chemistry lecture. Every second he spends discussing politics is a second that could be spent discussing Organic Chemistry (i.e. what the student paid for).

>Where does your political compass sit?

Left

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?

It's fine, but it should be kept outside of unrelated class work.

>This topics even more relevant now because of the whole Bill Nye gender abacus, ice cream orgy bullocks.

Please don't bring up Bill Nye here.

>The anti-science crowd on the right does not seem to me to be more in control of the party than their counterparts on the left
Rejection of mainstream climatology is practically a requirement among Republicans at the national level. The GOP continues to push to allow public schools to teach intelligent design in schools, a vaguely religious brand of pseudoscience with no empirical support. Numerous Republican-led statehouses have passed bills allowing (or even forcing) doctors to lie to their patients when abortion is concerned, or mandating medically unnecessary procedures. The current head of the party is a man who has described climate change as a hoax, believes (apparently in earnest) that vaccines cause autism, has purged scientists from technical review boards, and is currently attempting to slash federal research funding across the board.
What have the Democrats done that could POSSIBLY compare to that wholesale embrace of anti-science ideology?

B-b-b-but muh bathrooms!

The USA was founded by terrorists-turned-politicians, so no one cares.

Yeah and the left wants the populations that create Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil to demographically usurp the United States and vote for which people get control of it's nuclear stockpiles; which exist because the phenotypes that created Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland made them. It is much more dangerous and much more urgent than any pet quackery of the right. Climate change is peanuts compared to this.

Also, the forces on the right that pushed for Trump to win clearly don't care about his religiosity and had to fight as hard as possible against anti-evolution evangelicals for him to win the party nomination.

The worst position that Retardlicans take is anti-abortion because it means more brown people will be born than if abortion were allowed. We should be permitting infanticide lol.

And if brown people take over the United States and all of it's institutions, "anti-vax" positions won't even mean anything anymore because only subsets of white people are concerned about the moral hazards of anti-vaccination. "Climate change" won't mean anything anymore either, because climate treaties aimed at emission reduction are a white-person concern and every other group just emits whatever the fuck it wants in the absence of Europeans pushing for climate agreements.

Many of the environmental concerns that use to be part and parcel of the left in the 1970s are increasingly considered cooky Green Party issues as nogs and beaners take over the democrats and push racial revenge increasingly to the forefront. In 2040, you won't hear a word from Democrats about climate change or anti-vaccination hazards since it will be brown faces screaming for gibs. And Republicans have already made Trumpian concessions that the religious right sort of sucks, so in this trend the "anti-science" will just be dead as more whites with the university consensus on the issues move to the Republican party because they won't be welcome to the brown democratic party anymore.

Not that emissions would be a problem in a century, since if brown people took over the western world then the experiment in individual rights that sprung from the Reinassance would come to an end and the emissions would plummet because niggers and beaners don't know how to make or maintain anything that uses as many emissions as the United States currently demands for it's energy use.

>PERMISSIVE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS ANTI-SCIENCE BECAUSE THEM MEXICANS DON'T SCIENCE HURR
found the acoustic /pol/ack
just watch, he won't be able to resist the compulsion to reply and call me a libtard or tell me to go to tumblr or something.

(by the way, splitting your shitpost into two posts so you get 2x the (You)s? absolutely genius)

>agenda
yes an agenda to not warp empiricism and science/scientific method to the whims of the ideologies of tribalistic dumbfucks.

obviously you can't escape politics, that's not the point of the thread, the point is that time is wasted on specifically shilling something. It's mandatory propaganda when you've paid handsomely for a decent education in a specific field.

also like every other work on economy and/or politics, marx's work is ideology-steeped pseudoscience.

Dude, you went off into a totally different territory.

The fuck are you going into immigration for?

Ayy lmao I also did it and was actually quite surprised by the result. I feel more liberal than I apparently actually am.

I've noticed a lot of Chemists, environmental,
and earth science types tend to be on the liberal side due to their profession often dealing with politicized issues like global warming, and thermodynamics,
the right wing in Murica tends to describe carbon dioxide as fairy dust so they don't touch that shit with a 50 foot pole, physics, engineering and bio people tend to be more mixed politically.

The Bill Nye thing was embarrassing but the guy is a mechanical engineer, all throughout my childhood I thought he was an atmospheric chemist or environmental scientist because the guy brings up global warming at every opportunity.

Some issues are inherently political regardless of whether you try to take the politics out of it energy usage is one, global warming another.

The energy challenge is something engineers will have to deal with and the problems that arise from it will occur in our lifetimes, Nye will likely be dead when India exceeds the U.S GW usage of electricity.

>well thought, well written post
>reply is a two sentence strawman
I think you're the one that needs to go back.

No university level professor is going to teach creationism in the way OP's commie professor did. It just doesn't happen.

The permissive immigration policy is based on the lie of cognitive human equality. It is human creationism and therefore anti-scientific directly.

Terrible grammar, no capitalization, half the post is meme arrow, the other half is more memes, no arguments and no content. You're the one acting like a /pol/tard here. Please leave.

I'm conservative, switched from being a liberal before i knew what i really stood for (protip: not enslaving the population under the yoke of socialism is a good start). got a gay math prof who always takes wisecracks at conservatives for some reason. i think he just goes with whatever the media says is the truth, or the truth from their ideological perspective. brilliant at math though

the redpill about budgets

start it at 29 minutes, it's only a few minutes long from there. comfy talk though if you have the time
youtube.com/watch?v=3hLwVv-EFvg

>others feel like it's not "political" per se because Trump wants to cut their funding
That's literally political.

>that image
>implying it's wrong to throw a terrorist in prison

eyyy

I think he was more talking about discussing it with other people in everyday life, not necessarily the entire political system.

I disagree with that to some extent, but I think you misunderstood him.

>reading comprehension
not my post, but "hasn't" was a critical word there, try again

>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't
Why do we have to do that?

>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.

>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.
Just no.

I did my first semester of uni in what was claimed to be the best engineering university of Ecuador. All the fucking lectures were filled to the brim with politics, it was horrible. I stopped going after two months and did all my paperwork to get the fuck out. I am now in Europe in a comfy city in a university I really like

Oh and no one ever talks about politics here, not even the students

>Oh and no one ever talks about politics here, not even the students
I can not believe that.

Some do, some don't.
My pathological microbiology professor obviously commented about Trump's anti-vaccine shit and the NIH funding cuts (both of which very much apply to that material research-wise, but only time he ever touched on global warming was permafrost melting and the possibility of an epidemic occurring from that.

My genetics professor giggled when two unrelated genes came back with 666bp, but that's all I can think of in terms of religion in the field.

Literally no one. I cant prove it but whatever believe it if you want. There are some feminist posters and shit sometimes but people just dont talk about it inside the university. Im in Madrid

Lucky you. My university is in northern Germany and while the professors show some restraint, the students don't.
Leaflets about current political ""issues"" written from everyone between neo-liberal to full on communists, are everywhere and I haven't been to many of the humanities departments yet.

I believe you, but I was just very surprised that such a place existed.

Is everywhere in Germany like that? My family ancestry is German and I am planning on going back to our "hometown" which is Hamburg when I do my phd. Would you not recommend it?

If your professor isn't praising the omissiah at least 256 times a day and giving you political advise in fucking binary he should fuck off to the moon.

>I am planning on going back to our "hometown" which is Hamburg when I do my phd
Coincidentally I am living exactly there.

I am actually a student at the TUHH, the technical university, there the amount of political fliers is greatly reduced.

But quite often I am at the UHH and even in them math/physics building you will see fliers about all kinds of political shit. (The most current topic is demonstrations against the G20)
There are even "elections" for a "student parliament" and during that voting season (1/2 weeks I believe) some of the "parties" will have stands inside the building.

Aside from that the professors (which I had classes with) completely avoided politics (aside from one harmless joke about "alternative facts in exams").

In conclusion I really don't think you should take this too much into consideration, you can (just like I did) completely avoid everything about politics, it is never forced upon you and from what I have heard and seen I doubt that it will be better anywhere else in Germany or for that matter in all of western Europe.

Ok then, than you! Would you mind sharing somewhere I could contact you to ask you some questions about going there? I understand if you dont though

>I don't like your claim but I don't have any evidence against it, so I'll just dismiss it.
I'm sorry, this is Veeky Forums

>No university level professor is going to teach creationism in the way OP's commie professor did. It just doesn't happen.
There are some! Just look at Liberty """"University""""
But the bigger issue isn't university, but rather public school. The GOP is currently pushing to have creationism and/or intelligent design allowed on middle and high school curricula, where kids are at their most impressionable and vulnerable.

If you really want to, you can write an email to my secondary email account [email protected], but I am afraid that I might not be of much help, especially if you plan on going to the UHH.

I don't think you read their arguments correctly.

>Make a claim
>demand evidence
>HURR DURR YOU have to prove that you are right to make claims

I think it is clear where the burden of proof lies.

>not reading marx

You want to fuck up science and remove any credibility or benefit to society? Mix it with politics.

please see there is ample evidence of anti-science positions becoming mainstream within the GOP. do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party has been comparably co-opted?

>do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party has been comparably co-opted?
it's been presented to you but you ignored it, stupid anime faggot

No, democracy is good if done right, even fucking Socrates of all people bitched about this same thing.

I think academia has gotten a little too cozy with and dependent on government institutions. Hopefully academics and scholars take this as a warning to not unconditionally trust governments and to work more independently of them in the future.

Democracy is only a mistake when it's users have no skin in the game.

Voters exercise power, by voting, and power must be earned via showing that you hold civic virtue, not just given by turning 18.

Don't all you idiots see that left and right are the exact same thing.

Having opinions is the most naive thing one can do.

>Not reading Sowell

If it's appropriate. Politics impacts their jobs and they'd be doing a bad job not to mention some aspects of it. For example, Obama was decreasing red tape for ITAR research, but Trump has shown no indication to follow thru on it, so we are stuck with more delays and paperwork when doing anything ITAR

It's worth it if it keeps the poos and dog-eaters out tb.h

>not reading Rothbard

You just gave an opinion.

>thinly veiled /pol/ thread
This is sure to be a productive discussion.

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
Little to no politics in science, but science should play a role in politics (to an extent).
>Where does your political compass sit?
I'm a minarchist (see Ron Paul)
>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
Only
Only when science is threatened by certain political issues
>This topics even more relevant now because of the whole Bill Nye gender abacus, ice cream orgy bullocks.
Bill Nye ought to keep his mouth shut and leave science popularization to more qualified individuals

>brainlet so small that it's in between the pixels

>he didn't accept my unsupported assertions that blacks and Latinos are innately inferior to whites, and that allowing immigrants into America will result in its total destruction?
>blasphemy!
this is what crossboarding /pol/ degenerates actually believe.

you know, people like you were making the same arguments (about different people) seventy or eighty years ago. if we let in those subhumans, surely we'd be overrun by them and they'd ruin everything! well, those undesirables did just happen to include one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, a Nobel prize winner who helped develop a superweapon with which we won the war.
so when I hear some brainlet bloviating about how their basement-dwelling ass is the Superior Form of Man and we need to keep out people who don't look like them, I treat him with a reasonable degree of skepticism/derision.

holy shit BTFO

"Yuh" Marx & Engels
>Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Tito, Castro, Che Guevara, Chaves, Kim Il Sung, SJWs
"Muh" Adam Smith & Friedrich Hayek
> John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, David Hume, Alexis de Tocqueville, David Ricardo, Rose Wilder Lane, Lysander Spooner, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, Ayn Rand, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises e Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Linda and Morris Tannehill, David Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Robert Higgs, Walter Block, Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein,, Roderick Long, Steve Horowitz, Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, Matt Zwolinski, David Henderson, Brad Spangler, Bryan Caplan, Sheldon Richman

If it's a science professor (one who might know about issues like global warming, not a sciologist...) talking about global warming, then I think that's 100% appropriate in the current climate.

If it's somebody just making trump zingers or yelling about identity politics or telling you how to vote, then they can fuck right off.

>global warming

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
Leftists are degenerates incapable of self reflection. After the soviets helped them overthrow conservative academia they quickly dropped the facade of all their alleged principles.

Education should either be apolitical, or influenced by the politics of the country (not leadership). Meaning for America, liberty and republicanism should be emphasized and focused, with the only wiggle room being debate over the merits of federalism and anti-federalism.

>Where does your political compass sit?
How I act/vote: Conservative libertarian.
How I want to act/vote: Conservative statist libertarian (liberty by force, with considerations for the long term survival and goals of humanity)

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community
Yeah sure, why not.

>should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
If they act as individuals, it's fine. If they try to use their positions of authority to give their views merit/reach, then they deserve public ostracization.
You're professor is a degenerate.


tl;dr
Trump has legitimate faults and shortcomings from a traditional (read: true) American (read: conservative and/or libertarian) viewpoint, but we don't hear them because people are too busy echo-chambering and/or defending him from baseless criticism to listen to the legitimate criticisms.
Also a third of the country thinks that the legitimate criticisms are absurd because they believe that they are good things but are bad because they are done by trump.

>unironically having that gif on your computer
luckily that instantly disqualifies you from passing down your genes

>getting this rustled over a picture from a manga

>diverting attention from your nonexistant sexual life

>ha ha I can't refute his post so I'll just accuse him of having no gf
>I sure hope nobody notices

>Yeah and the left wants the populations that create Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil to demographically usurp the United States and vote for which people get control of it's nuclear stockpiles
Your conspiracy theories aren't going to impress anyone here, kiddo. Provide proof or go back to /pol/.
>which exist because the phenotypes that created Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland made them.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. But please, elaborate, so you can be BTFO.
>Also, the forces on the right that pushed for Trump to win clearly don't care about his religiosity and had to fight as hard as possible against anti-evolution evangelicals for him to win the party nomination.
This is absolutely and demonstrably false. Trump was overwhelmingly supported by evangelical voters; he wouldn't have won the GOP nomination otherwise.
>The worst position that Retardlicans take is anti-abortion because it means more brown people will be born than if abortion were allowed. We should be permitting infanticide lol.
Racism and genocide are not supported by science.

>more counter-factual racist ranting without empirical support.
You do not belong here. You have to go back.

>Leftists are degenerates incapable of self reflection.
Nah, that would be you. For instance:
>Education should either be apolitical, or influenced by the politics of the country (not leadership). Meaning for America, liberty and republicanism should be emphasized and focused, with the only wiggle room being debate over the merits of federalism and anti-federalism.
This is not "the politics of the country". You do not speak for everyone in the United States, and your views are not reflective of the majority in your country, nor the way the country has ever existed. Most Americans are not libertarian---because most people can see it's idiotic---and they're not traditional conservatives. You're a shrinking minority, but of course, you're too pompous to realize that.