The article was going along okay until it become an attack on the right and conservatives. While it is obvious right-wingers often speak aggressively, it's no different on the left. The left get away with it because they disguise their tirades under banners like "equality," "social justice," "humanitarianism" and the like. Beneath this veneer is a rage equal to anything the right possesses.

"there must be nothing likely to incite hatred against, or serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, any person or group of persons because of age, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, transgender status or disability."

If the above was applied stringently, most universities, particualarly in Humanities departments, would have about 98% of their doctors and professors jailed or fined. Whole courses are based upon the degradation, ridicule, and contempt for Western Civilization; whites and males quite often the target of such attacks. Of course, the tricky and deceptive left get anyway with such hate by disguising it as "critique," or "knowledge," or "social justice."

You can't fool me, Ken. This is one of the things I mostly dislike about leftists, their deception. They never appear to be who they say they are.

The educated left aren't deliberately trying to fool people. Why would you think that? Intellectuals don't realise that many people simply don't understand their reasoning.

Surely you can accept that you don't have the capacity to understand theoretical physics so why would you think you can understand the complex reasoning and research that goes into the ideas that the left come up with. One really needs a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand the nuances of such wanky theories.

The ideas you seem to object to so vehemently and emotionally are abstract ideas and perhaps you are a concrete thinker? http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html

I blame the conservatives for the idea that having a high IQ means one is better than those with a lower IQ. They used this argument to show that black people are inferior to white people.

Jnutter My PhD was in psychology - is this a left faculty? But I failed a Vis Arts degree I undertook later. I failed because I opted out of any class taught by postmodern 70's feminists - of any age - and stuck to the practical classes.

Mollydukes
"The educated left aren't deliberately trying to fool people. Why would you think that? Intellectuals don't realise that many people simply don't understand their reasoning."

Many people don't understand it, that's why they're fooled into believing them. For example, slogans like "equality" might sound nice and present itself as a helper of the less fortunate, but very often the primary motivation is a resentment against the strong, the successful, the wealthy, and the talented. Resentment drives ideas like equality, not compassion as the left want you to believe.

Mollydukes
"Surely you can accept that you don't have the capacity to understand theoretical physics so why would you think you can understand the complex reasoning and research that goes into the ideas that the left come up with. One really needs a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand the nuances of such wanky theories."

I am fully cognizant of the theories of the left. I was a leftist, I was educated largely by leftists, and I once was a tutor in a course that required me teaching various leftist ideas. I lived it, breathed it, and ate it. Which is why I consider myself an authority on what leftists stand for.

Mollydukes
"The ideas you seem to object to so vehemently and emotionally are abstract ideas and perhaps you are a concrete thinker? http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html."

Both the left and right have a socio-political project that has "abstract ideas" and "concrete thinking." Whatever the socio-political project, ideas come first, then their enforcement in concrete. The left likes to parade itself as possessing supposed superior intellects, yet for all their convoluted, "complex," and textual meandering, their morality is quite simple: support the underdog and attack those in power. So for all the supposed intellectual superiority of Derrida and Foucault, they both are essentially doing little more than rallying against power structures. Essentially, this no different from a cranky, rebellious teenager.

Aristocat

As I said, very few people are capable of understanding fully the so-called left ideas. I don't understand why you consider them to be 'left' ideas and I don't understand why you are so personally angered by the ideas. Perhaps you confuse the ideas with the necessarily flawed individuals - hypocrites and charlatans - who espouse them?

I came across a number of people at Uni who taught 'post-modernism' without understanding it so your claim to have taught it does not meed the standard of proof required. Perhaps, there aren't enough high IQ people around to fill these posts.

I blame the capitalist system for the faults of the Universities. It is the need for everything to make a profit, and be 'efficient' that has destroyed the quality of our Universities and allowed cheap and nasty postmodernists to have so much air space and degrade the ideas.

I used the term concrete and abstract thinking in psychological terms - nothing to do with right or left. You see a dicotomy between these ideologies that doesn't really exist. People's views are far more diverse than can be adequately described or encompassed by left and right.

And surely, it is the case that some of us don't have a high IQ and most of us don't have an IQ that would allow us to understand Foucoult or what he intended to do - assuming of course that he did want to do anything except put his thoughts down in a book.

Is it polically incorrect to point out that some people, like Alan Jones are just not intelligent and do not understand what they are railing against? Is it politically incorrect to suggest that he has a personality disorder and therefore should not have access to vulnerable, easily impressed, low IQ people who are negatively influenced by his disordered thinking.

Hi Molly,

Yes you learning is apparent and impressive.
I agree with what you say about Jones but would add it applies equally with many of the persons in the media. Especially the identies of the ABC and many in the Canberra Press Gallery. In fact it could probably be applied to any commentator who addresses any issue, at any or all the time, from a distinctly idealogical viewpoint.

There are some, very few, in the media these days who, while having past political ascossiations are indeed unbiased and can present logical and for the most part uncoloured material.

I also agree the left/right label is not reflective of the attitudes today and in many cases cannot be applied to many individuals however it is no mere coincidence many left and right commentators simply line up with the current Liberal or Labor position. Which by the way these days I think also the parties blurr the distinction between left and right on many issues. eg Free Trade and Protectionism.

I don't follow your reasoning on the demise of our Universities. Surely there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere in the academic mess that has arisen.

Regards

Jnutter,

My high IQ is not something I can be proud of. I have 'Asperger Syndrome' and this type of brain is good at academic thinking. The obverse is poor social skills; I don't know how to behave in social situations.

In my early life, I couldn't keep a job or a relationship. It was a leftie, hairy legged - female social worker in the Department of Social Security who pointed out to me that in return for my sole parent benefit I had an obligation to return something to society.

She encouraged me, when I was in my late 30's to go to Uni and 'participate'; to give something back to society. I thrived there in a wonderful psycology department of a regional Institute of Advanced Education.

Then along came Dawkins and the idea that all higher institutes of learning were to be Universities. That was when the rot started, I reckon. The 'left' in those days had taken up the idea that 'effeciency' was 'the' answer.

But I haven't really thought fully about the issue and I admit that I am trying to be disengenously 'clever' in 'blaming' things. It really isn't helpful to apportion blame.

But one thing I saw was that the need to keep fee-paying overseas students played hell with the idea of objective marking. Impossible to both maintain the high standards of scholarship we in the dept knew and loved while keeping admin happy about the numbers of foreign studens we failed.

Off thread and too much personal infomation? Blame the Aspergers?