Naturalism News

NYT: Confession of liberal intolerance – bit late

Spread the love

From Nicholas Kristof:

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”More.

Reality check: First, progressives are not liberals. They are totalitarians sapping free societies. The precious little asshats of Asscrat U can’t wait to grow up to be Big Enforcement of whatever enters their heads. That’s the beauty of being naturalists. They don’t need to make sense.

These junior jackboots know that their brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. They are full of irrational feelings that must be respected in a way that intellect used to be. And their profs are just like them, to judge from how few ever confront them and send them packing—to either study or get lost, as they please.


Don’t blame us for your problems. Blame the engineers who invented the Internet. They gave us a whole world of news, not just what you wanted us to hear.


Second, the New York Times itself is fast approaching oblivion. That fact is only indirectly related to progressives dressing up as liberals. It’s more a function of the fact that no one needs the New York Times to find out what’s going on in the world anymore. You buy it only if you need news manufactured for progressives.

I (O’Leary for News) get junk mail every few days asking me to subscribe— a 50% off special. This has been going on for years, and my best guess is that the “50% off” price is the market price. But I don’t need the Times anyway. Nor do most of the people who used to need it. That’s why the Times is headed south.

Don’t blame us for your problems. Blame the engineers who invented the Internet. They gave us a whole world of news, not just what you wanted us to hear.

Third, lots of people are getting wise to the social sciences racket that Kristof describes: A publicly funded country club for naturalist atheists.

So don’t bother confessing your sins, Kristof: Shape up or ship out.

File under: As if anyone cares (along with “BioLogos is finally going to trash Darwin’s Doubt“)

See also: Japanese universities shedding social sciences


Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “NYT: Confession of liberal intolerance – bit late

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    A bit off topic:

    Unbelievable? (Christian Radio) Is human life intrinsically valuable? Peter Singer, Richard Weikart & Susan Blackmore
    Saturday 7th May 2016
    Richard Weikart, professor of history at California State University, joins Justin to talk about his new book ‘The Death of Humanity’. He says the loss of belief in the value of human life is leading to disastrous consequences for society.
    Peter Singer is an Australian ethicist who believes we should dispense with the concept of the sanctity of human life in favour of a view of ‘personhood’. Humans who are less capable of having preferences, such as babies, have less claim to be kept alive.
    They debate whether this view of humanity is dangerous and Susan Blackmore, atheist psychologist and philosopher also joins the conversation.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Its a dumb conversation they make.
    First there is a natural right of people to decide who comes to the table and is included in society.
    Men made civilization and so decide if women can join. It was never a natural right of women to men’s nations. likewise foreignors be that black or latino or anything.
    The rejection of conservatives/religious people is against natural and natioonal rights.
    What is the contract in society? Who can even decide who is welcome or not?
    Naw. No excuses. The liberals were always doing what most of mankind did in history. Denying the common mans natural rights.
    Universities today are doing this again.
    There is no debate. There must be obedience to natural and national rights.
    Progressive was a word used to define conclusions as postive development in mankinds rights and value.
    It was . by its term, exclusive of other conclusions.
    no one can escape the equation here.
    Somebody decides what is right and wrong relative to natural and national rights.

  3. 3
    groovamos says:

    I spent some time today reading thru the comments on the NYT piece on Texas culture as I am a long time resident.

    You would think that commenters in NY, CA and all the other states commenting on Texas, mostly from the leftist viewpoint, would be taking their multicultural dogma seriously enough so as not to be open to ridicule, but no, the hostility towards Texas is quite stark and I comment on their lack of consistency with the multicultural project in my own comments. One can point out the economic success and job creation in the state, but all of that is irrelevant, there are even people thinking that Texas is holding the rest of the country back.

    What a waste of my time. As it is getting late I look back on all the comments and realize that the success of Texas is a threat to these conflicted people and their multicultural contradiction.

    Here is a link to the piece:

  4. 4

    The NYT has long been a megaphone for leftist/atheist/Darwinist ideas and viewpoints. Its “fast approaching oblivion” brings a smile to my face. Good riddance.

Leave a Reply