Not everyone finds the topics trumpeted by SJWs to be in line with "basic justice and ethics." In fact, many people find their talking points to be quite esoteric.
They don't have even a remote clue about justice and ethics. Their closest parallel would probably be Nazism, which viewed all justice through the lens of race, ethnicity, class, and sex, where every individual transaction had to be viewed in light of the greater cause and the advancement of society as a whole, individual circumstances be damned.
Did you miss the whole aftermath of WW-II where the British and Americans had to make German judges swear not to take race, ethnicity, or national origin into account when they're hearing cases? Here's a war department film about how we had to create a new Germany "that respects truth, and tolerance, and justice." At 17:10 it says: Now gentlemen, if you'll raise your right hands and take the oath with me. I swear by almighty God that I will at all times apply and administer the law without fear or favor, and with justice and equity to all persons, of whatever creed, race, color, or political opinion they may be, I will obey the law of Germany... to establish equal justice under the law for all persons, so help me God. What Germany had been doing was applying the law based on SJW nonsense about racial oppressors and capitalist exploiters.
There's plenty of people with "a basic sense of justice and ethics" who don't subscribe to leftist politics.
Which 'topics trumpeted by SJWs' do you find not to be in with "basic justice and ethics"? Please pick a university of your choice and highlight the classes. A link to the syllabus would be greatly appreciated, just so I can see where you're coming from. Maybe things have changed in the last 15 years.
Highly Conservative Democrats, yes. And those that didn't change with the times, and instead opted to remain Conservative, are what we now call "Republicans".
I guess that now it becomes obvious what happens when you allow for universities to have customers and not students. On paper the idea that universities would compete for the best students and curriculum in the free market might work if you just gave it cursory thought. Thew reality is in any education system run for profit and not for learning you would get a striation on the top end where the best schools would be specialized, and on the low end you would have a conglomeration of paper degrees which would only have worth if business gave them worth. There are some very specialized american institutions which actually educate our best here in america. They remain the best because you have to compete to get in. There are also the best sports colleges which might have better education funding and name recognition, but that is reliant on a sports program that funds the school over actual tuition. Finally you have your networking colleges for the rich and elite who basically price out the riff raff and keep up their prestige by letting academic students in via awards for academic excellence. For the most part if you are not in a sports, Ivy League, or top level college your degree is generic, and it is only a check mark. You should really just go for your state's universities and save yourself the money if you are not going top end, or even if you are going for a sports school that is not state run. I would say stay away from any sports school as an academic as they don't give a fuck about you at all. Still, this is what is going to happen for a reason. That is demand. It is a simple economic concept. There are only so many elite schools that they can regulate who comes in, and charge more for their degree. The reality is a person who is smart, but attends a regular college is going to have to get certifications and work on selling themselves or their own accomplishments. That degree is not going to get you a job. If you have a degree from MIT that will get you a job, but if you have a degree from Alabama U and you do not play football you don't have shit. A person who has worked since high school will probably be considered better than you with a 4 or 2 year degree. Especially if they have done some college courses. This is all because college is generally useless until you get to a certain level, and then specialization is key. The four year degree is merely a base for careers that will require a bachelors or masters with specialization. Job training takes care of what the employer needs you to do for regular jobs. The two useful things are the composition courses which teach you how to write in the professional realm, and perhaps math for those who did not go accelerated in high school. I was up to pre-cal in high school and would only have needed further math matics if I was delving into physics of engineering. The general composition classes made sure you could write mail and reports in a professional way. They made sure you used headers and paragraphs and new how to sign things and footnote or cite things. Yes, you would need some of the other courses for a specialized career path, but the bachelors was really there to weed out the weaklings who were not going to stack up. Your state school bachelors did put you on track for the long haul towards specialization if you were not elite, but the elite don't stop there, and most people do. The lower universities make their money on students who drop out and do nothing. Their teachers do give out info, but they coddle the dummies, and their professors are customer service reps because the students can whine to the faculty and get their way. I do not like that teacher so I want my F dropped and i will take someone else's course to cover it. If the college does not want to do that right away you make a PITA out of yourself which is what you do with customer service, or you go to a competitor. That means a lot of the bachelors people are really just finding out how to get a bachelors rather than learning. The whole system is really made for busy work and making the dim feel special. College is so fucking slow.
That was very well put. No matter what our backgrounds, one some things there we see eye to eye about the problem. @Dinner gets lots of shit about Muslims, but in five or ten years his perspective will be the new European norm, still dismissed and derided, but true none the less. Some of the Arab immigrants will find freedom and revel in it and amaze us all. They will go into hiding from the rest of the Arab immigrants who aren't remotely on the same page.
I already bring a basic sense of justice and ethics to my workplace and I didn't have to spend $$$$$$$ to develope these traits.
"We have those things without you. You cannot bargain with what you do not have." And I submit that if you walk into your new company already viewing it as an unethical den of injustice that requires your virtue and wisdom to straighten out, you're already showing that your goal is something other than the exchange of your productive labor for a salary. In other words, you've accepted the job under false pretenses.
Exactly. A clever interviewer would say "Our arch rival has a job opening that would be perfect for you! Let me give you their contact information along with a stellar introduction. Oh, and play down the part about how everyone here is a racist sexist money-grubbing capitalist pig who are mindless parts of the misogynist oligarchy that will soon be purged. Just tell them you're a people person"
