Thread: Clueless liberal discussing economics

A sampling of the brilliance behind Occupy DC
AVTM gets an economics lesson at #OccupyDC - YouTube

FYI:
QE = Quantitative Easing (AKA printing a few billion dollars and flooding economy with cash)

Inflation would be irrelevant in banking example given, they still earn same ROI

Inflation is bad for people on fixed incomes (retires) because their checks don't increase but prices do

When he says "drop your false consciousness" he is spouting Marxist philosophy False consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wesleyan costs $56,341 a year and admission to Wesleyan is among the most selective in the United States.

Originally Posted by andy3000

A sampling of the brilliance behind Occupy DC
AVTM gets an economics lesson at #OccupyDC - YouTube

FYI:
QE = Quantitative Easing (AKA printing a few billion dollars and flooding economy with cash)

Inflation would be irrelevant in banking example given, they still earn same ROI

Inflation is bad for people on fixed incomes (retires) because their checks don't increase but prices do

When he says "drop your false consciousness" he is spouting Marxist philosophy False consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wesleyan costs $56,341 a year and admission to Wesleyan is among the most selective in the United States.

Don't give him your brain space

From Wikipedia
The idea of false consciousness has also been used by Marxist feminists and radical feminists in regard to women's studies.

Its sad that women's studies has become more about pushing a political agenda and ideology than on the real study of female humans.

Originally Posted by ryoder

From Wikipedia
The idea of false consciousness has also been used by Marxist feminists and radical feminists in regard to women's studies.

Its sad that women's studies has become more about pushing a political agenda and ideology than on the real study of female humans.

At work, I am currently assigned to a Psychology of Women class which has, literally, nothing to do with the psychology of women. A more appropriate title for the course would be Indoctrination Into Social and Political Liberalism. The lessons so far have mostly been about how feminism rocks and how conservatives are evil, but certain lessons take an even weirder, darker turn. Leaving with a comprehensive message from the course is quite difficult, but there are two points that have been remarkably salient.

• Homosexuality is 100% biologically, socially and psychologically natural. We don't need to prove this because only bad people ask questions about it.
• Heterosexuality is not biologically, socially and psychologically natural. It is a social construct invented by heterosexist societies. There is no proof at all that men and women are complements to one another.

I'm sure it sounds like I am exaggerating, but I promise you that I am not. This is, nearly verbatim, what they have been "learning" in the classroom. Of course, no student ever objects to it because the professor knows everything and no administrator ever objects to it for fear of losing his or her job.

The class isn't completely useless- there have been a few lectures on the history of women's rights in the United States. However, at the half way point in the semester, the students have yet to see a single nugget of information related to psychology.

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

At work, I am currently assigned to a Psychology of Women class which has, literally, nothing to do with the psychology of women. A more appropriate title for the course would be Indoctrination Into Social and Political Liberalism. The lessons so far have mostly been about how feminism rocks and how conservatives are evil, but certain lessons take an even weirder, darker turn. Leaving with a comprehensive message from the course is quite difficult, but there are two points that have been remarkably salient.

• Homosexuality is 100% biologically, socially and psychologically natural. We don't need to prove this because only bad people ask questions about it.
• Heterosexuality is not biologically, socially and psychologically natural. It is a social construct invented by heterosexist societies. There is no proof at all that men and women are complements to one another.

I'm sure it sounds like I am exaggerating, but I promise you that I am not. This is, nearly verbatim, what they have been "learning" in the classroom. Of course, no student ever objects to it because the professor knows everything and no administrator ever objects to it for fear of losing his or her job.

The class isn't completely useless- there have been a few lectures on the history of women's rights in the United States. However, at the half way point in the semester, the students have yet to see a single nugget of information related to psychology.

I've no doubt your assessments are on target. I took the TESC course "management of stress and tension" which you wouldn't THINK would be a big liberal agenda class...HA! How wrong I was. Actual message was an anti-marriage rant. Of course I was one of only 2 people MARRIED in the course. The "mentor" was also single. The authors of the text were single. You might think (as a married woman for nearly 2 decades) that I'd have an opinion on marriage. HA! Nooooooooo the mentor -literally- almost kicked me out of class for having an opinion that conflicted with the message of the course.
A person would think, at a "no-professor-college" like TESC, that you'd be getting mostly canned curriculum, thus no real faculty agenda. I found that to be the case about half the time. I hardly made it through a team-taught "Contemporary Social Problems" class taught at my local CC....but that's another story.

Originally Posted by cookderosa

Don't give him your brain space

What bothers me is the American University system produces thousands of these guys every year, and a lot of them end up working in the government. I am also annoyed that any legitimate problem in society is co-opted for use in liberal politics.

MC - I do not think you are exaggerating. There have been forces out there trying to marginalize the role of men in the household and in relationships with women for years. Look at public policy for an example. How hard is it to get on gub mint aid when you are married? But if you have a child and the dad doesn't live with you, you get an instant revenue stream.
The basic policy agenda is that the government wants to break up the family unit so that the people are wholly dependent on the government for all of their needs. Why would the government want that type of control over people? Because the government is made up of people and people have ambitions. Power is like a drink. Given a sip of it, one wants more and more. The Constitution is there to protect us from these people.


Oh no I went on a rant about limited government again in an education forum

Just a public service message that there are feminists, liberals, progressives, etc., who DEPLORE professors, TAs, teachers - any educator, who should owe their loyalities to learning and inquiry, and to their students - pulling the sort of thing Maniac and Jennifer describe.

For whatever it's worth, I consider myself feminist, liberal and progressive. I trust your accounts, and I'm sorry that you had to or you're having to deal with this.

Originally Posted by ryoder

MC - I do not think you are exaggerating. There have been forces out there trying to marginalize the role of men in the household and in relationships with women for years. Look at public policy for an example. How hard is it to get on gub mint aid when you are married? But if you have a child and the dad doesn't live with you, you get an instant revenue stream.
The basic policy agenda is that the government wants to break up the family unit so that the people are wholly dependent on the government for all of their needs. Why would the government want that type of control over people? Because the government is made up of people and people have ambitions. Power is like a drink. Given a sip of it, one wants more and more. The Constitution is there to protect us from these people.


Oh no I went on a rant about limited government again in an education forum

Well, I wouldn't take the conspiracy as far as you would, but I did note that your assessment of our government is STRIKINGLY similar to the agenda of The Party in Orwell's 1984.

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

Well, I wouldn't take the conspiracy as far as you would, but I did note that your assessment of our government is STRIKINGLY similar to the agenda of The Party in Orwell's 1984.

Where is the "shifty eyes" little emoticon guy when you need him?!?!