The current structure of society creates an almost inevitable pressure in favor of “leftist” social dynamics and social norms. Further, academic ideology is a substantial causal factor in the leftward pressure because the students of one generation are the policy-makers of the next generation.
My points were (paragraph by paragraph):
academic pressure doesn’t explain the civil rights movement in the US
academia is not immune to right-wing ideas
the evidence that academia is leftist is explainable by other factors beyond ideological bias (with a side helping of policy-makers don’t seem as leftist as their professors)
In short, that makes the second sentence of Moldbug’s thesis not likely enough for further consideration. I leave it to you to judge whether the first sentence stands without the second. But Moldbug doesn’t seem to think so—otherwise, why waste all that energy citing that particular historical evidence at all?
As an aside, if one’s political theory really can’t distinguish between the victorious community organizer and the defeated business executive, then my evidence is entitled to substantially less weight. But that isn’t the consensus usage in the doctrines of history or political science dating back to before the rise of PC concerns (but after the Glorious Revolution—so Moldbug may not care). Further, I assert political theories that can’t tell the difference (e.g. political Marxism as practiced) are insufficiently nuanced to be capable of making useful predictions.
As far as I can tell, Moldbug’s thesis is:
My points were (paragraph by paragraph):
academic pressure doesn’t explain the civil rights movement in the US
academia is not immune to right-wing ideas
the evidence that academia is leftist is explainable by other factors beyond ideological bias (with a side helping of policy-makers don’t seem as leftist as their professors)
In short, that makes the second sentence of Moldbug’s thesis not likely enough for further consideration. I leave it to you to judge whether the first sentence stands without the second. But Moldbug doesn’t seem to think so—otherwise, why waste all that energy citing that particular historical evidence at all?
As an aside, if one’s political theory really can’t distinguish between the victorious community organizer and the defeated business executive, then my evidence is entitled to substantially less weight. But that isn’t the consensus usage in the doctrines of history or political science dating back to before the rise of PC concerns (but after the Glorious Revolution—so Moldbug may not care). Further, I assert political theories that can’t tell the difference (e.g. political Marxism as practiced) are insufficiently nuanced to be capable of making useful predictions.