Good News Thread

dad4 said:
Who said it’s a conspiracy?

The peer review process in the humanities leads to conformity. That conformity isn’t healthy for the Academy, and there a pushback.

Logically, sociologists ought to be writing papers and teaching classes which compare the religious conformity of 1600-1800 academic institutions to the political conformity of modern academic institutions. It‘s a reasonable comparison: Harvard’s sociology department is not going to promote a conservative, in the same way that Harvard’s divinity school in 1670 was not going to hire a rabbi.

But, if you want sociologists who are capable of talking about that comparison, you aren’t going to find them within the current structure.

The question is whether they can succeed at creating a genuinely open model. Worst case, they create yet one more heavily partisan institution like Fox News or university sociology departments.
Click to expand...
Don’t reply to that poster. It’s a true rabbit hole of utter insanity. Responding to Espola makes more logic as much as anyone cringes to it.
 
LASTMAN14 said:
Don’t reply to that poster. It’s a true rabbit hole of utter insanity. Responding to Espola makes more logic as much as anyone cringes to it.
Click to expand...
“cringes to it.”? You sound hurt. Dad wasn’t even replying to that post of mine as much as making a statement that seems to have alluded you. Maybe someone else could explain it to you? Maybe.
 
LASTMAN14 said:
Don’t reply to that poster. It’s a true rabbit hole of utter insanity. Responding to Espola makes more logic as much as anyone cringes to it.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of the opposite of my point. We need more talking and listening to each other, not less.

No one is learning much if each of us only listens to those we already agree with.
 
dad4 said:
That’s kind of the opposite of my point. We need more talking and listening to each other, not less.

No one is learning much if each of us only listens to those we already agree with.
Click to expand...
I usually just ignore whose post it is and just read, all ya all look the same to me anyhow. If I keep seeing the same negative messages from the same posters, or lunacy, then I put them on ignore (lessens the time sifting through the unnecessary). There use to only be 6 or 7 regulars in here, the majority on the right, so it was easy to know who is who. Now there are a few more infrequent guests which should be a good thing, but as many seem to simply parrot each other me feels some are just the same people (I always suspect the ones that accuse others of such as the real culprits, Roy Cohn 101).
 
dad4 said:
That’s kind of the opposite of my point. We need more talking and listening to each other, not less.

No one is learning much if each of us only listens to those we already agree with.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But that’s not the kind of conversation you will have. Which is why I mentioned E as an example.
 
dad4 said:
That’s kind of the opposite of my point. We need more talking and listening to each other, not less.

No one is learning much if each of us only listens to those we already agree with.
Click to expand...
I agree but it's a bit different online. I regularly engage with you when I don't agree with you about COVID. The problem to me is the "talking and listening to each other". I tend to use the same approach as I would in face-to-face conversation. If an "alias" doesn't engage civilly, I don't engage. The other problem I see is the "each other" when I find it likely that an individual is using multi-aliases. I wouldn't engage with someone that used a different name every time I met them, pushed a specific agenda, and used one of their other aliases to support it. That's trolling. We had a few other posters earlier that I disagreed with on COVID but engaged - KM2 and one or two others. I haven't seen them in a while.

Everyone has their own approach when engaging online. That's mine and it has nothing to do with disagreeing.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
If an "alias" doesn't engage civilly, I don't engage. The other problem I see is the "each other" when I find it likely that an individual is using multi-aliases.
Everyone has their own approach when engaging online. That's mine and it has nothing to do with disagreeing.
Click to expand...
Excellent points brother. EVERYONE has their own approach to engaging assholes online. Dom, I will put Soccerhelper away for now but he might need to come back because EJ might get suspended again. One good thing with my approach is I'm honest when I change allies. Love you bro. I will go back to EJ for now. Happy New Years from the Helper.

1641657847540.png
 
Soccerhelper said:
Excellent points brother. EVERYONE has their own approach to engaging assholes online. Dom, I will put Soccerhelper away for now but he might need to come back because EJ might get suspended again. One good thing with my approach is I'm honest when I change allies. Love you bro. I will go back to EJ for now. Happy New Years from the Helper.

View attachment 12614
Click to expand...
Agreed - in your case there is no attempt to mislead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top