Real Talk - the 19th

nsacpi said:
what is it i'm supposed to offer a counter to? that you are victim who must tiptoe and whose death would be celebrated by your ideological opponents

how can i counter something like that...except to advise getting a shrink...but that would be an admission of sorts that you need help...which would turn your entire worldview upside down
Click to expand...
Oh a counter to the points made in this thread.

You dismissed them with an accusation that wasn't based in reality. I wanted to reassure you that I dont go around calling the women in my life a bunch dumb commies, and that they are free to seek understanding with opposing viewpoints that dont threaten their intellectual safety.

They choose not to, with me or the other women they socialize with, or their husbands.

But they vote dutifully in one direction while being convinced there is a wage gap.ajd future for them.in hands maid tale dresses.

Maybe they need the shrink
 
Dear Chagpt what would you call someone who can’t answer direct questions without consulting AI or chat gpt?

If someone consistently relies on AI or chat tools to answer direct questions instead of providing their own response, you might call them a dependant or over-reliant user. You could also refer to them as technologically reliant or AI-dependentin a more neutral sense.

If you're looking for something more critical, you could label them a crutch-user, implying they rely too heavily on technology to do something they could otherwise handle on their own. It can come off as a bit dismissive, though, so it really depends on the context and how you want to frame it!
 
Yes, there is substantial evidence from social media platforms, news reports, and documented incidents indicating that a significant number of Americans—primarily left-leaning individuals—publicly celebrated or expressed joy over Charlie Kirk's assassination on September 10, 2025. This reaction was most visible online in the immediate aftermath, with videos, posts, and memes circulating widely on X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, and other sites. While not every celebration involved large-scale physical gatherings, the online activity spanned users from various states (e.g., California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, D.C.), suggesting a distributed response across the country. Below, I'll outline key examples and context.

### Online Celebrations and Viral Content
- **Social Media Videos and Posts**: Numerous videos captured individuals laughing, cheering, or making callous remarks about Kirk's death. For instance, one widely shared clip showed a woman in apparent ecstasy, stating it was "the best day of her life" upon hearing the news, garnering millions of views and thousands of engagements on X. Another video featured a person in a wheelchair in Washington, D.C., using a bullhorn to mock the killing, criticizing the National Guard and claiming the city as "his." A TikTok compilation highlighted dozens of users saying phrases like "live by the sword, die by the sword" while smiling and laughing, with one estimating over 198,000 people engaging positively with such content.
- **Hashtags and Memes**: Posts with celebratory language, such as "good riddance" or "he deserved it," proliferated under hashtags like #CharlieKirkDead. One X post from September 10, 2025, noted that "the left is celebrating Kirk's death on X comments, Instagram, TikTok—everywhere," accompanied by screenshots of joyful reactions. Semantic searches on X revealed over a dozen high-engagement posts (some with 10,000+ likes) compiling these examples, framing them as evidence of widespread glee.

### Specific Incidents and Gatherings
- **Campus and Community Events**: At Stanford University in California, students posted online celebrations insulting Kirk's memory, prompting backlash from conservative outlets. In Los Angeles, a UCLA equity official was placed on administrative leave after sharing posts that mocked the assassination, described as "un-American" in coverage. An Arizona school district in Tucson faced accusations from a state representative of mocking Kirk's death via a shirt design, highlighting regional tensions.
- **Organized Gatherings**: A small left-wing activist gathering in an unspecified urban area (captured in a viral video) explicitly celebrated the event, with participants chanting "We got Charlie in the neck" in reference to the sniper shot. While not nationwide, similar isolated protests or vigils with celebratory tones were reported near Turning Point USA offices in Phoenix and at anti-conservative rallies in New York.

### Scale and Backlash
Reports estimated thousands to tens of thousands of flagged online posts cheering the death, with one analysis identifying over 63,000 critical or celebratory comments in the first 24 hours. This led to significant repercussions: right-wing groups doxxed individuals, resulting in job losses and social ostracism; U.S. Vice President JD Vance called for reporting celebrants to employers; and the State Department revoked visas for six foreigners (though the query focuses on Americans). Florida Congressman Randy Fine urged constituents to report locals celebrating, amplifying the divide.

### Broader Context
These reactions were largely confined to progressive or anti-conservative circles, often tied to Kirk's history of inflammatory rhetoric on guns, politics, and social issues. Conservative voices, including President Trump, emphasized prayer vigils and peaceful mourning, with no reports of riots or violence from the right. However, the celebratory responses drew widespread condemnation as dehumanizing, with outlets like the BBC and Wired noting how they fueled partisan targeting.

In summary, while the celebrations were not universal or organized on a national scale like a holiday, the evidence from digital footprints and isolated events clearly shows a notable subset of Americans expressing relief or joy, predominantly online and across multiple states. This reflects deep political polarization in the U.S. as of November 2025.
 
Yes, there is substantial evidence from surveys, studies, and data analyses indicating that ideological bias—particularly against strongly conservative viewpoints—plays a role in university hiring practices, contributing to the underrepresentation of conservative professors in many fields. However, this evidence is debated: some research attributes the imbalance primarily to self-selection (conservatives opting out of academia due to interests or perceived fit), while other studies find minimal or even reverse discrimination. Below, I'll outline key findings from both perspectives, drawing on academic surveys, representation data, and recent reports as of November 2025. The focus is predominantly on U.S. higher education, especially social sciences and humanities, where imbalances are most pronounced.

### Evidence Suggesting Bias in Hiring
Multiple studies document explicit admissions of discriminatory preferences among faculty hiring committees, alongside stark disparities in political representation that exceed what self-selection alone can explain.

- **Admissions of Bias in Surveys**: A 2011 study by sociologist George Yancey surveyed academics across disciplines and found that about 30% of sociologists would be less likely to support hiring a known Republican candidate, with even higher rates (up to 60%) against evangelicals or NRA members—proxies for social conservatism. Similarly, a 2012 survey of social psychologists by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers revealed that 37.5% would favor an equally qualified liberal candidate over a conservative one in hiring decisions, with bias increasing among more liberal respondents. These findings suggest overt ideological screening during hiring.

- **Underrepresentation Data**: Conservatives comprise about 36% of the U.S. population but only 4-5% of faculty in humanities and social sciences, per a 2007-2012 analysis by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. Ratios at elite institutions are extreme: 132:1 Democrat-to-Republican at Williams College and 72:0 at Bryn Mawr, according to a National Association of Scholars (NAS) report. In elite law schools, conservative/libertarian professors publish more than liberals yet remain underrepresented, implying they must outperform peers to secure positions.

- **Hostile Environments Impacting Careers**: A 2021 Manhattan Institute analysis of eight surveys (U.S., U.K., Canada) found 40% of U.S. academics unwilling to hire a Trump supporter and 20-50% grading right-leaning grant applications lower. One-third of conservative graduate students reported discipline or threats for their views, fostering self-censorship (70% of conservative social scientists hide opinions). This environment deters applications and promotions.

- **Recent Developments (2024-2025)**: An April 2025 NAS report, "Ideological Insistence," documented cases where job applicants faced requirements to affirm partisan statements (e.g., DEI pledges), effectively screening out conservatives. A July 2025 New York Times opinion piece argued that targeted hiring of conservatives could address "liberal bias," citing ongoing underrepresentation. Additionally, state-level pushes (e.g., donor-funded conservative centers) highlight perceived hiring barriers.

These patterns are most evident in social sciences/humanities, where disciplines' progressive orientations may embed biases; hard sciences show less skew.

### Counterarguments: Self-Selection and Minimal Discrimination
Critics argue that low conservative hiring stems more from conservatives' career choices than bias, with evidence showing conservatives thrive when they enter academia.

- **Self-Selection as Primary Driver**: A 2017 review in Inside Higher Ed, synthesizing multiple studies, found no significant hiring bias in a 2011 experiment where fake applicant resumes with Obama vs. McCain affiliations received equal responses from grad program directors. Instead, conservatives self-select into professional fields (e.g., 33% choose business vs. 9% of far-left students) and show lower PhD interest (9% vs. 24%), per UCLA freshman/senior surveys. A February 2025 City Journal article echoed this, urging conservatives to pursue research careers to boost numbers organically.

- **Reverse or Balanced Discrimination**: Eric Kaufmann's 2021 report (surveying U.S. academics) found conservatives/centrists (17%) more likely to discriminate against leftists in hiring than vice versa (14%), with only 4% admitting political grading bias. Only 7% supported repressive actions like firing over views. A 2012 AAUP analysis similarly found just 7% of Republican faculty viewing right-wing discrimination as "serious."

- **Success and Satisfaction of Conservatives**: Interviews with 153 conservative professors (2016 book by Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn) revealed anecdotes of bias (e.g., tenure denials) but overall career success and happiness—66% would choose academia again vs. 56% of liberals. A September 2025 Inside Higher Ed piece noted insufficient conservative applicants to explain imbalances via "rabid" discrimination alone.

- **Recent Critiques (2024-2025)**: A Fall 2025 AAUP article, "Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity," argues that forced ideological balance undermines truth-seeking, framing diversity demands as right-wing tactics. It cites low repression rates in Kaufmann's data to downplay systemic bias.

### Broader Context and Implications
The ideological skew (e.g., 6:1 to 28:1 liberal-to-conservative ratios nationally) reflects deeper polarization, amplified by graduate education's liberalizing effect (Pew 2016). While bias evidence is compelling in surveys of attitudes, causal proof for hiring outcomes is harder—self-selection explains much, but not all, of the gap. Reforms like affirmative action for conservatives (proposed in 2015 Heterodox Academy piece) remain controversial, with 2025 debates focusing on state interventions and donor initiatives to foster "viewpoint diversity."

In short, evidence of anti-conservative bias in hiring exists and is well-substantiated by faculty admissions and disparities, but it's not unanimous or the sole factor. This tension underscores academia's challenges in maintaining ideological openness.
 
For anyone that calls Kirk’s comments inflammatory, they are only referencing an emotional reaction to a contrarian ideal, not the way or tone it was delivered

Like I said garbage in garbage out
 
Tapate50 said:
For anyone that calls Kirk’s comments inflammatory, they are only referencing an emotional reaction to a contrarian ideal, not the way it or tone it was delivered

Like I said garbage in garbage out
Click to expand...
It appeared to me the happiest people about his death were majority women

The same folks sending love letters to Luigi
 
sturg33 said:
Cool. But you've given way more substantive arguments to defend the rights of pedophiles and murderers. I thought id be able to coerce more for innocent women
Click to expand...
This is a case where I find both the premise and the arguments you’re making to support that premise unworthy of debating.

In the case of pedophiles and murderers, I’m generally trying to insert some nuance into a larger discussion of unsympathetic people/situations. In this case, you’ve provided me little that I feel requires a thoughtful response. Your argument rests on a set of your opinions on how a society ought to be and how you view gender within that context. I disagree with a lot of those opinions and simply do not believe the right to vote should be based on where your opinions lead us to.
 
sturg33 said:
Gosh... it appears my statement was based in evidence and reality. Perhaps chatgpt needs a software update
Click to expand...
what can i say...you have presented solid evidentiary basis that you are oppressed and that there is something wrong with people who disagree with you

congrats!!
 
nsacpi said:
what can i say...you have presented solid evidentiary basis that you are oppressed and that there is something wrong with people who disagree with you

congrats!!
Click to expand...
Nah not oppressed, just not stupid. I wouldnt wear a MAGA hat into your department and expect to be offered a job
 
mqt said:
This is a case where I find both the premise and the arguments you’re making to support that premise unworthy of debating.

In the case of pedophiles and murderers, I’m generally trying to insert some nuance into a larger discussion of unsympathetic people/situations. In this case, you’ve provided me little that I feel requires a thoughtful response. Your argument rests on a set of your opinions on how a society ought to be and how you view gender within that context. I disagree with a lot of those opinions and simply do not believe the right to vote should be based on where your opinions lead us to.
Click to expand...
Is it fair to say youre criteria for voting would be "youre alive"

I would imagine you have some restrictions. Like age and criminality. So appears there is room for nuance on who should be shaping our policy
 
The legitimacy of any democratic system depends on the consent of the governed. Cherry picked examples of anecdotal examples or an arbitrary assignment of what ideas deserve to be more valued by a society doesn’t justify disenfranchising 50% of the population.

Women are awesome. They contribute immensely to the workforce, they are caregivers, they are educators (I know it’s fun to rag on teachers, but the ones I had were amazing), and they are THE core to the family unit.

Government policy is much broader than the fiscal policy. They write laws that prescribe family law, education content, healthcare policy (your wife seemed to have strong thoughts on that), and on and on. Women offer a perspective on these issues that men are less likely to have. Both sexes have a duty to become informed so they can debate and vote for the best ideas.

I know so many women (my wife included) that don’t come close to the generalization sturg makes about them. I’d much rather my wife vote than most men I know.
 
sturg33 said:
Is it fair to say youre criteria for voting would be "youre alive"

I would imagine you have some restrictions. Like age and criminality. So appears there is room for nuance on who should be shaping our policy
Click to expand...
Of course there’s nuance on who should be shaping policy. But I’ve read through your responses and while I find some of them thought-provoking, I don’t find it interesting to debate. In my opinion, a lot of what you’re describing can be pretty readily explained by differences in physiology that have historically shaped our culture and society to favor men taking the lead. If you disagree and think these traits are intrinsic to a functioning society, that’s your right. But I don’t think the same way as you, and don’t think societal rights should be determined by the way you think of society and gender roles within them. If someone cares more about Taylor Swift than the bond market, I might question their ability to perform certain specialized roles within our society, but not their right to vote. You’re also seemingly assuming that just because men think about certain things more or debate them more, that their views are more valid in a way I find unjustified.
 
sturg33 said:
Nah not oppressed, just not stupid. I wouldnt wear a MAGA hat into your department and expect to be offered a job
Click to expand...
i'm glad you are manly enough to realize you are not a victim

my department has 2 maga faculty members...and one very thoughtful libertarian
 
If someone cares more about Taylor Swift than the bond market, I might question their ability to perform certain roles within our society, but not their right to vote.
Click to expand...
This.

I’d extend this to include those that care more about Xbox vs PlayStation, does college football need to expand the playoff, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: mqt
chop2chip said:
Women are awesome.
Click to expand...
that's a gross generalization

but i agree!

they are different from men...i happen to think men and women complement each other...the differences make us stronger...i know that sounds sentimental and smacks of woke thinking about the value of different perspectives...but i think it has a basis in reality...there is a saying that i think has some truth: if a job needs to get done give it to a woman...at the business school i teach at we have an associate dean (a woman) and a dean (a man) who I both know pretty well...she runs the place...i'm a bit perplexed about what he does exactly
 
Last edited:
chop2chip said:
The legitimacy of any democratic system depends on the consent of the governed. Cherry picked examples of anecdotal examples or an arbitrary assignment of what ideas deserve to be more valued by a society doesn’t justify disenfranchising 50% of the population.

Women are awesome. They contribute immensely to the workforce, they are caregivers, they are educators (I know it’s fun to rag on teachers, but the ones I had were amazing), and they are THE core to the family unit.

Government policy is much broader than the fiscal policy. They write laws that prescribe family law, education content, healthcare policy (your wife seemed to have strong thoughts on that), and on and on. Women offer a perspective on these issues that men are less likely to have. Both sexes have a duty to become informed so they can debate and vote for the best ideas.

I know so many women (my wife included) that don’t come close to the generalization sturg makes about them. I’d much rather my wife vote than most men I know.
Click to expand...
The point of this thread was to an attempt to start an interesting debate beyond the typical things we bandy about

My 3rd post in this thread is what I am actually most concerned about. The divergence of political preferences between the two sexes seems like a trainereck unfolding to me, and one that needs to be addressed in order to avoid violent conflict down the road.

In reality, I want to create substantial barriers to voting, and those who clear those barriers, I want their voice heard. That includes women. Those barriers would result in a voting populace who values what thesis country represents, freedom and opportunity.

On the other side, Kamala Harris is calling for 16 year old to vote. If we keep moving in that direction, America is done for
 
sturg33 said:
The point of this thread was to an attempt to start an interesting debate beyond the typical things we bandy about

My 3rd post in this thread is what I am actually most concerned about. The divergence of political preferences between the two sexes seems like a trainereck unfolding to me, and one that needs to be addressed in order to avoid violent conflict down the road.

In reality, I want to create substantial barriers to voting, and those who clear those barriers, I want their voice heard. That includes women. Those barriers would result in a voting populace who values what thesis country represents, freedom and opportunity.

On the other side, Kamala Harris is calling for 16 year old to vote. If we keep moving in that direction, America is done for
Click to expand...
The debate prompt in paragraph 3 is more interesting that the one present in the OP. I’d prefer our current system to the one you propose but the intellectual argument for voting barriers is stronger than the one you made to repeal the 19th.

My above post is a critique on the premise of the title of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top