Liberal professors admit to openly discriminating against conservative peers

The article quoted in the OP is so blatantly incorrect that's it's laughable...

Just like sink testing in a chem lab, isnt it.. no need to do any testing, we could see the result as it came in the door... that kind of 'laughable'.

Maybe the liberals at Uni discriminate against conservatives because they are tired of hearing how evolution is a religion, how atheism is a religion, how same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, etc.

And maybe, with that logic, companies should go back to asking if you, as a liberal, belong to:
1) any communist organizations
2) NAMBLA
3) Do you have any sexually transmitted diseases (esp HIV) that will cause normal employees to pay for your high priced meds

You see how discrimination can go for or against you, and the best choice is not to!

If I thought hiring someone meant I'd have to listen to that shit all day, I'd discriminate too. I don't suffer fools well.

So stereotypical beliefs should be reason for prohibiting you from being an employee, because only conservatives are fit employees. Or perhaps I should simply let my police department profile liberals because they all hang out with anarchists.

Do you even know any conservtives? have you ever even listened to a conservative before? Have you ever even listened to yourself? You're a bit of a Neanderthal, after all!

Among those things that our 'smartcar' brethren think they are better suited for in the mental department, we have those who think:
1) borrowing to fund endless entitlements is 'smart', even when there's not enough money left to fund military, fire and police needs
2) buying only 'organic' food is better, when no food is based on anything but carbon (yes, evil carbon)
3) trees have feelings!
4) banging a drum and marching in somebodies yard with a bullhorn makes you smarter
5) living in a tent and not taking a bath while complaining about the workplace makes you smarter
6) shitting on a police car makes you smarter

But then, you 'don't suffer fools well'!
 
Last edited:
As usual, you didn't read the article, the sequence or the thread but feel expert enough to jump in and speak as if you did.

Thanks for the response anyway.

You're welcome.

I've notice that "you didn't read..." has become your go-to response when challenged in any way, shape or form.

Tell me, do you bind stock responses to keyboard macros like AJ does?
 
You're welcome.

I've notice that "you didn't read..." has become your go-to response when challenged in any way, shape or form.

Tell me, do you bind stock responses to keyboard macros like AJ does?


If you want something better, try posting a comment that is relevant to the topics at hand rather than straight ad hominem. As long as you choose to attack people and sources without regard to what those people or sources said, I will respond with the simple statement of truth that you obviously aren't reading the material.

It isn't personal, it is my minor and rather pathetic quest to try to turn you away from a life of being a pointless internet troll and to get you back to the person who was capable of posting something like the "Wrewview".
 
If you want something better, try posting a comment that is relevant to the topics at hand rather than straight ad hominem. As long as you choose to attack people and sources without regard to what those people or sources said, I will respond with the simple statement of truth that you obviously aren't reading the material.

It isn't personal, it is my minor and rather pathetic quest to try to turn you away from a life of being a pointless internet troll and to get you back to the person who was capable of posting something like the "Wrewview".

My comment was trenchant, relevant and absolutely on-point.

It did, however, take issue with your apparent double standard, so of course your reflexively responded with the usual "you didn't read..." boilerplate.

Now you are nattering about "truth", an all-too-common attempt to declare victory unilaterally (see also: EllieTalbot). Sadly, I must reject your interpretation of "truth", and I sincerely hope you won't take this personally.

Please understand that I like you, I really do.

Double standards 'n all.
 
My comment was trenchant, relevant and absolutely on-point.

It did, however, take issue with your apparent double standard, so of course your reflexively responded with the usual "you didn't read..." boilerplate.

Now you are nattering about "truth", an all-too-common attempt to declare victory unilaterally (see also: EllieTalbot). Sadly, I must reject your interpretation of "truth", and I sincerely hope you won't take this personally.

Please understand that I like you, I really do.

Double standards 'n all.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are so wrapped up in proving "double standards" and "hypocrisy" that your posts may as well be done with a macro.

You started with "Derp" you posted a bad source! When indeed, I did nothing of the kind. I snarked off at Mercury for yelling "No source" when indeed it took only 2 seconds to follow the OP to a source. It wasn't my source.

I know you did not bother reading the thread or the article, because you jumped on 'my source' even though I have not posted a single word in this thread dealing with the 'source' or the OP. You attacked based on "conservative OP, Orfeo = Liberal, anyone arguing with him must be on other side."

By now, you may well have read the thread and are simply derping in order to save face. But you and I both know that you jumped without looking again.
 
Even though I said I don't suffer fools well, I'll respond to this one.
Just like sink testing in a chem lab, isnt it.. no need to do any testing, we could see the result as it came in the door... that kind of 'laughable'.
Plus a lot blah blah ramblings and other idiotic statements
Obviously I have to break it down in very simple terms for you.

From the article:
found that liberal professors admitted they would discriminate against openly conservative peers in both hiring and in advancement.
The implication, quite obviously intended, is that it applies across the board at universities (even though the study included people who weren't at university)

From the study:
all 1,939 members of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology's electronic mailing list

There are two possibilities
1. The article is inaccurate as I stated
2. There are only 1,939 professors total in universities and they all belong to the Society of Personality and Social Psychology
 
Last edited:
Just like sink testing in a chem lab, isnt it.. no need to do any testing, we could see the result as it came in the door... that kind of 'laughable'.
Plus a lot blah blah ramblings and other idiotic statements
That's a 'quote hack'... and you know what that means. You may now write to yourself, or to your 'friends', but my correspondence with you is finished...
 
I know. I covered that in a couple of later posts.

You feigned academic interest, then later admitted it was purely an interest in trying to trash the article and the topic, and finally breaking down in a name calling tantrum when that didn't work out for you. That's what you covered in a 'later post', and you can thump your chest for your fellow sub-primates all you desire now.

And MENSA seems to be something you find convenient to taut on your own behalf, but to deny to conservatives so as to further your propagandist 'we're smarter than them' world view... good luck with such a moronic, self inflating egotistical bullshit attitude.... figures a leftist like you would get there eventually.
 
Last edited:
We in Mensa think all of you of Earth are IDIOTS.

Waiting for the MENSA defamation league to begin cat calling this individual with all those anti-MENSA names now, demanding proof, .... waiting... waiting... oh shit, this is a LIBERAL ......
 
Last edited:
You feigned academic interest, then later admitted it was purely an interest in trying to trash the article and the topic, and finally breaking down in a name calling tantrum when that didn't work out for you. That's what you covered in a 'later post', and you can thump your chest for your fellow sub-primates all you desire now.

And MENSA seems to be something you find convenient to taut on your own behalf, but to deny to conservatives so as to further your propagandist 'we're smarter world view... good luck with such a moronic, self inflating egotistical bullshit attitude.... figures a leftist like you would get there eventually.

http://jamesleejobe.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/diggingahole.jpg

No thanks. You're doing fine.
 
You have no idea what this means to me.

I will be walking on clouds this Friday.

So... what was your MENSA experience like?

Was it bliss?

I joined because I could. Everything about the organization blows. I have no Mensa experience. And you don't have to capitalize all the letters because it isn't an acronym. If you were in Mensa, like me, you'd know that. Idiot human.
 
I got into Mensa on the little-used 'Unusually Large Penis' loophole.
 
Unfortunately, I could have started that quote before 'little-used' and had it still be true.
 
If you were in Mensa, like me, you'd know that. Idiot human.
Yea, this quote was directed towards Byron, but...

Now, IMAGINE the backlash had I, also a MENSA member (caps added just to fuck with said 'human idiot') have said this same thing.... and then take another look at the title of this thread, 'Liberal professors admit to openly discriminating against conservative peers' .... and even TRY to deny it! My case is made by the very conspicuous attitudes toward my stating I'm a member, and that of Dr Ego.
 
That's a 'quote hack'... and you know what that means. You may now write to yourself, or to your 'friends', but my correspondence with you is finished...
You're laughable as well. You accuse me of "quote hacking" (even though it's obvious to anyone, but you apparently, that you didn't actually say Plus a lot blah blah ramblings and other idiotic statements and that I was merely acknowledging the other drivel in your post for what it was).

Yet when when you quoted me you left out the key premise of my post:
but let's ignore that the study was of a tiny minority of academia and pretend for a moment that it can be applied in general.


And now I'm supposed to be bothered because someone who is so closed minded that they can't see what's right in front of them, even when it's pointed to, isn't going to correspond to with me anymore?
Yeah, I'm really going to loose sleep tonight. :rolleyes:

But hey, good way to ignore the truth. Taking your ball and running home.
 
Last edited:
Yea, this quote was directed towards Byron, but...

Now, IMAGINE the backlash had I, also a MENSA member (caps added just to fuck with said 'human idiot') have said this same thing.... and then take another look at the title of this thread, 'Liberal professors admit to openly discriminating against conservative peers' .... and even TRY to deny it! My case is made by the very conspicuous attitudes toward my stating I'm a member, and that of Dr Ego.
The jokes about you being in Mensa are not becuase you are a conservative, they're because you are so stupid.
 
Back
Top