I have never met, known of, or heard of a political science student who was not a raging leftist. It's a false discipline that churns out activists and soldiers - not scientists. Doesn't surprise me that complicit activists in media act to launder and disseminate the partisan findings of academia - that's a journalists job in 2021.
All the PoliSci majors I know were left, as was pretty much everyone I knew in college. I was always independent but even I would have considered myself more to the left. It’s hard not to be when every single fucking thing is somehow to the left from K through 12 and beyond. I’m surprised there’s a right still given that level of indoctrination.
I have never met, known of, or heard of a political science student who was not a raging leftist
I was a boomercon by 14 (my favorite days growing up were school holidays that Rush Limbaugh didn't take off) and eventually grew out of it when I heard some actual moral arguments in favor of liberty.
I knew a few others who weren't Luna-touched leftists, but only a few.
TL;DR:
Because political scientists are all overwhelmingly leftwing the data they use to measure "health" of a democracy are unsurprisingly things they care about. So they are in effect, measuring their own bias.
This is a pretty niche topic for a community that mainly focuses on the regressives' infiltration of popular culture, but I think it's worth posting because it highlights some of the dirty tricks academia pulls to push a far left agenda.
TLDR version: Academic defines elements of the Republican manifesto as "anti-democratic", despite having cross-party support, uses this to assert that despite those elements having majority support, Republicans are anti-democratic for working to implement them.
It becomes a joke after a while. When I talked to Poli Sci majors, I always felt like they had read an article and decided that was now their opinion. They could quote it, but not understand the statements being made.
Case in point, one kept talking about how they looked forward to seeing Africa while in Johannesburg South Africa. I pointed out where he was, and he said this wasn't actually Africa. Only bush people in the wilderness we Africans. He was being paid to help people.
Another kept telling me I didn't know anything about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I showed her a picture of Palestine beyond the wall, and that it was mostly farmland. She said it was cropped. A friend in Israel had taken the picture.
A lot of the soft sciences either have people who assume they already have the answer, so the study is just to confirm it, or people who honestly want to do the research and find out information. But Poli Sci demands the first.
I've never met a single PoliSci major who was actually any good at political science. If you can't navigate through /pol, you don't have political science instincts.
I have never met, known of, or heard of a political science student who was not a raging leftist. It's a false discipline that churns out activists and soldiers - not scientists. Doesn't surprise me that complicit activists in media act to launder and disseminate the partisan findings of academia - that's a journalists job in 2021.
All the PoliSci majors I know were left, as was pretty much everyone I knew in college. I was always independent but even I would have considered myself more to the left. It’s hard not to be when every single fucking thing is somehow to the left from K through 12 and beyond. I’m surprised there’s a right still given that level of indoctrination.
Right wing ideas arise from collisions with reality, and reality isn't going anywhere.
I was a boomercon by 14 (my favorite days growing up were school holidays that Rush Limbaugh didn't take off) and eventually grew out of it when I heard some actual moral arguments in favor of liberty.
I knew a few others who weren't Luna-touched leftists, but only a few.
Meet Matt Christiansen.
TL;DR: Because political scientists are all overwhelmingly leftwing the data they use to measure "health" of a democracy are unsurprisingly things they care about. So they are in effect, measuring their own bias.
Ghosthunter not surprisingly find ghosts.
This is a pretty niche topic for a community that mainly focuses on the regressives' infiltration of popular culture, but I think it's worth posting because it highlights some of the dirty tricks academia pulls to push a far left agenda.
Academics (by definition) have failed at capitalism and are generally bitter and dangerous to society
TLDR version: Academic defines elements of the Republican manifesto as "anti-democratic", despite having cross-party support, uses this to assert that despite those elements having majority support, Republicans are anti-democratic for working to implement them.
The science in political science is one of the biggest lies I have ever seen.
My university didn't even require a statistics course to graduate from the program.
It becomes a joke after a while. When I talked to Poli Sci majors, I always felt like they had read an article and decided that was now their opinion. They could quote it, but not understand the statements being made.
Case in point, one kept talking about how they looked forward to seeing Africa while in Johannesburg South Africa. I pointed out where he was, and he said this wasn't actually Africa. Only bush people in the wilderness we Africans. He was being paid to help people.
Another kept telling me I didn't know anything about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I showed her a picture of Palestine beyond the wall, and that it was mostly farmland. She said it was cropped. A friend in Israel had taken the picture.
A lot of the soft sciences either have people who assume they already have the answer, so the study is just to confirm it, or people who honestly want to do the research and find out information. But Poli Sci demands the first.
I've never met a single PoliSci major who was actually any good at political science. If you can't navigate through /pol, you don't have political science instincts.