If you want to be a teacher here, you need to be qualified to do so. That means having an education in education. For those people, education is their chosen profession.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and posit that your experience of the tech sector may not be entirely indicative of the whole of it, nor the driving forces behind it, Silicon Valley's reputation for ultra-conservative white supremacy aside.

havax's disillusion is setting in hard

STEM fields are occupied by a larger percentage of conservative-minded people, most likely due to the structure of the given work and studies. Same reason these fields are so obviously skewed in gender, too.

Education, art, language etc. attract more liberal minded people, and this is a self-fulfilling cycle. It just is what it is.

much like your rural vs urban USA experiences you were preaching about earlier, im sure.

Be humble not egotistical.

Being humble is a virtue.

no boss. Thats the system of oppression not ensuring that there is equity in the STEM fields. A historically white power structure.

(this is my favorite one by the way, because it applies to pretty much everything :lol:)

Just because someone has the power, doesn't automatically mean there's a greater threat. So your non-answer is why I'm repeating myself. Demonstrate how either the left is a greater threat to society, or the right is less of a threat to society. In what way is this so beyond a perceived power imbalance (which isn't true at all).

Is there somewhere in there where I was claiming to be speaking from experience on that subject?

:worried:

Fringes are bad. Whichever fringe holds more power is the greater threat.

And i'll counter that with silicon valley has dick to do with the other 95% of the tech world in this country

And yet for the last 5 years people have lost their minds at the prospect of Trump having access to our nuclear arsenal

If you take a historical perspective of power imbalance towards the left or right, in general when the imbalance is to the right, greater societal destruction occurs, while an imbalance to the left results in prosperity.

So by that logic, if the 'power' balance was more towards the right, you'd say the right was the threat? So you're advocating strict centristism, that neither left nor right have any power and nothing actually happen, ever.

Because all the really smart people drop out of their high paying fields so they can take a massive cut in pay, work with nowhere near the materials they need

If the right controlled the media, pillars of tech, and education, then the far right would have the potential balance of power and they would be the bigger threat. Abso-****ing-lutely. Its not even up for debate. And no Im not advocating that nothing happens and nobody has the power. I'm stating the obvious truth of the current situation the West is in.

This is why the "threat" of white supremacists and ultranationalists is ****ing hilarious to me. These people, in whatever pathetic numbers they exist, have no clout whatsoever. The west is far FAR more likely to descend into socialism than some sort of repeat of Hitler-esque fascism - which to me isn't even relatable to the modern American conservative ideology.

If the right were the actual threat the last 4 years would have been conservatives lighting fires and destroying property.

But it hasn't

yep

just look at all the cities in america that have been ran by the left for a long while, check out all of that prosperity...

No.

The right leads with its mind
The left leads with its heart

Lets say the country was a life raft surrounded by people in the water. The left wants to take on everyone because its the humanitarian thing to do. The right says we can't or we'll all drown and the left screams about what heartless bastards the right is, even though those actions ultimately benefit all

You're answering his simplistic garbage with more simplistic garbage of your own just FYI

There's a fine line between order and chaos, and this is the reason most societies have a finite life. They lose the balance. You need progressive ideas just as much as you need structured conservative principles to implement and run those ideas.

There's a difference in the concept of the 'threat' here that we're probably diverging a bit on. I'm talking about the threat of the ideologies in themselves. You seem to be focusing on the threat that those ideologies are enacted. You're suggesting that leftism is a greater threat because leftist ideals are (in the current climate) more likely to come to pass, not because of the threat posed by those ideals in themselves. That's the point I was making.

I think we're on different paths, there.