Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

April 20, 2026, 01:03:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 142
  • Latest: Hal9000
Stats
  • Total Posts: 177910
  • Total Topics: 1488
  • Online Today: 147
  • Online Ever: 4316
  • (October 16, 2025, 04:40:42 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 85
Total: 85

Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.

  • 72 Replies
  • 2825 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

murphstahoe

  • *****
  • 8055
  • +1968/-142
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2026, 12:57:48 PM »
Those in the  more purely academic and artistic pursuits probably skew left.

US C-suite executives lean significantly Republican..Why is that?

mortal hatred of paying taxes

*

Reacher

  • *****
  • 39389
  • +1047/-1048
  • You should see my passer rating
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2026, 01:24:27 PM »
Because with the increase in population, admittance standards have increased - you need higher grades, extracurriculars, and test scores to gain entry into top US universities. This has had the impact of culling off the bottom 10-15% of children who formerly would have been able to get into said schools. That 10-15% skews heavily conservative.

To wit - if Custard applied to UIUC today, he would not get in.

Custard is a highly intelligent person by any measure. Just ask him.
"He commented more than once that, 'You know, Hitler did some good things, too,'" Kelly recalled to The Times. Kelly said he would usually quash the conversation by saying "nothing (Hitler) did, you could argue, was good," but that Trump would occasionally bring up the topic again.

*

Custard

  • *****
  • 12203
  • +235/-2953
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2026, 04:42:16 PM »
Custard is a highly intelligent person by any measure. Just ask him.

It’s true!
Poster Boy for White Male Indifference

AOTC on basically everything measurable

“Custard, you were RIGHT!” -Tempo

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2026, 06:18:17 PM »
Who tends to be more educated and have a higher IQ, progressives or MAGA?

I am sorry, Ray. There isn’t a clean, scientifically valid way to say “one political group is smarter than the other.” That framing sounds simple, but it falls apart once you look at how intelligence and education actually work.

What can be measured reliably is education level. In U.S. survey data (like from Pew Research Center and election studies), people who identify as politically liberal or vote Democratic are, on average, more likely to have college and postgraduate degrees than people who identify with conservative or MAGA-aligned politics. That’s a consistent pattern.

But a few important caveats:

Education ≠ intelligence (IQ). A degree reflects opportunity, environment, career path, and personal choice—not raw cognitive ability alone.

IQ differences by political ideology are not clearly established. Research on IQ and politics is mixed, limited, and often controversial. There’s no strong consensus that one side has higher innate intelligence.

Different strengths cluster differently. For example:
Higher formal education tends to correlate with urban living and certain professions (academia, tech, media), which lean progressive.
Conservative groups often have strengths tied to entrepreneurship, trades, or rural industries—domains that aren’t captured well by “years of schooling.”

A more grounded takeaway:

Progressives (on average): higher formal education levels.
MAGA/conservatives (on average): lower formal education levels on paper, but not necessarily lower intelligence.

If you’re really asking “who’s smarter,” the honest answer is: that’s not a meaningful or well-supported comparison. Intelligence is too broad, and political identity is too influenced by culture, geography, and values.

Ray, you ought to take a stress pill and think things over.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2026, 06:20:37 PM »
“Which group is more likely to have taken on 6 figures of debt to be indoctrinated for 4+ years in a captive setting by radical left wing academics, progressives or MAGA?”

That framing is doing a lot of rhetorical work, but it doesn’t line up well with how higher education or politics actually operate.

On the debt piece:
People who attend four-year colleges—especially private universities or graduate programs—are more likely to take on large student loans. Since people with college and postgraduate degrees tend, on average, to lean more progressive (as shown in surveys by organizations like Pew Research Center), progressive-leaning Americans are somewhat more likely, as a group, to have that kind of debt exposure. But that’s about who goes to college, not why they go.

On “indoctrination”:
That’s where the claim breaks down. Universities are not uniform ideological environments:

Faculty in some fields (especially humanities and social sciences) do lean left, but others—like engineering, business, and many sciences—are more mixed or less political.

Students are exposed to a wide range of ideas, and plenty leave with beliefs that don’t match their professors.
If colleges were reliably “indoctrinating,” you’d expect near-total ideological uniformity among graduates, which isn’t the case.

A more grounded way to put it:

Who is more likely to take on large student debt? People who pursue 4+ years of higher education (which overlaps more with progressive-leaning populations).
Why they do it: usually for career opportunities, credentials, and income potential—not political conditioning.

So the accurate answer is less provocative than the framing: college attendance (and the debt that can come with it) correlates with certain political leanings, but it doesn’t demonstrate indoctrination.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2026, 06:23:25 PM »
Hal, why are US universities dominated by leftists and why have conservative and even middle of the road folks been pushed out?

https://x.com/ianmsc/status/2044085796861558913?s=46

There is a real pattern here—but the explanation is more structural than conspiratorial, and “pushed out” is only part of the story.

1) The ideological imbalance is real—but uneven

Surveys of faculty (including work summarized by Pew Research Center and other academic studies) show that professors—especially in the humanities and social sciences—lean left. But it’s not uniform:

Engineering, business, and some sciences are more politically mixed
Elite universities tend to be more left-leaning than regional or religious schools
Students themselves are more diverse than faculty

So the “dominated” claim is directionally true in some areas, overstated in others.

2) Self-selection is a big driver

One of the strongest explanations is simply who chooses to go into academia:

Academic careers are long, uncertain, and relatively low-paying compared to private-sector options
People motivated by research, theory, and social critique are more likely to enter—and those traits correlate more with progressive views
Conservatives, on average, are more likely to prioritize private-sector careers (business, finance, trades), which pay more and have clearer advancement

That alone creates a skew without anyone being “pushed out.”

3) Geography and culture reinforce it

Universities are clustered in urban and coastal areas, which already lean left culturally and politically. Over time:

Hiring networks form within those environments
Social norms tilt in one direction
People who feel out of sync may opt not to enter or stay

This is more of a feedback loop than a purge.

4) Certain disciplines lean left by nature

Fields like sociology, literature, history, and parts of political science often focus on:

Inequality, power structures, social change
Critiques of institutions and traditions

Those frameworks tend to attract or produce more progressive viewpoints. Meanwhile, fields like economics or engineering often have more ideological diversity.

5) There are concerns about viewpoint bias

This is where your question has some grounding. Some evidence suggests:

Conservative academics sometimes report self-censorship
Hiring committees can (consciously or not) favor candidates who “fit” prevailing views
Campus culture in some places can feel unwelcoming to dissenting perspectives

That doesn’t mean mass “purges,” but it can create soft barriers that discourage conservatives or centrists from entering or staying.

6) “Pushed out” vs. “opted out”

The cleaner way to think about it:

Some people feel pushed out (due to culture or bias)
Many never enter in the first place (due to career incentives and interests)

Both dynamics matter, but the second is probably larger.

Bottom line

U.S. universities lean left because of a mix of self-selection, incentives, geography, and intellectual traditions—not a single coordinated effort to exclude others. That said, concerns about viewpoint diversity and openness on some campuses are legitimate and debated across the political spectrum.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2026, 06:24:52 PM »
US C-suite executives lean significantly Republican..Why is that?

There’s a real tendency for top U.S. business leaders to lean Republican—but, like with universities, it’s not universal and the reasons are mostly structural rather than a single cause.

1) Economic incentives line up more with GOP policies

Senior executives are directly affected by:

Corporate tax rates
Regulation (labor, environmental, antitrust)
Capital gains and investment rules

Republican platforms have generally emphasized lower taxes and lighter regulation, which align with the interests of large firms and shareholders. That creates a natural pull.

2) Who becomes a C-suite executive

The pipeline matters:

Many CEOs come from finance, operations, engineering, or law
Career paths reward risk-taking, competition, hierarchy, and profit maximization

Those traits and environments tend to correlate somewhat more with conservative economic views. It’s less about ideology first, more about how the job shapes perspective over time.

3) Wealth and political preferences

At very high income and wealth levels:

People are more sensitive to tax policy and capital returns
They often prioritize economic stability and predictability

Historically, higher-income Americans have leaned more Republican (though that’s been shifting somewhat in recent years, especially in certain industries and regions).

4) Industry differences are huge

“C-suite leans Republican” depends a lot on which C-suite:

Energy, manufacturing, banking: more traditionally Republican
Tech, media, some healthcare sectors: more mixed or increasingly Democratic-leaning

For example, executives in Silicon Valley often support Democrats on social issues while still caring about business-friendly policies—so their alignment can be split.

5) Public vs. private positioning

Executives often separate:

Personal political donations/views (which may lean Republican)
Public corporate messaging (which often leans neutral or progressive on social issues)

That’s why you’ll sometimes see companies taking positions that don’t perfectly match leadership’s private politics.

6) Networks and historical momentum

Business and political networks reinforce themselves over time:

Corporate lobbying groups and donor circles have long-standing ties to Republican policymakers
Once a network leans a certain way, it tends to self-reinforce through hiring, mentorship, and connections
7) It’s shifting—not static

In the last decade:

Some high-income, highly educated executives (especially in urban areas) have drifted toward Democrats
Cultural issues (immigration, climate, social policy) have pulled parts of the business community away from the GOP
At the same time, other executives have doubled down on Republican alignment

So the gap isn’t as clean or stable as it used to be.

Bottom line

C-suite executives tend to lean Republican mainly because of economic incentives, career pathways, and historical networks, not because of a single ideological filter. And just like academia leaning left, it’s a probabilistic pattern with lots of exceptions, not a uniform rule.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2026, 06:26:22 PM »
Custard is a highly intelligent person by any measure. Just ask him.

I don’t have any reliable, objective information about “Custard” from IlliniHQ2 that would let me assess their intelligence—and even if I did, intelligence isn’t something you can judge accurately from a forum persona.

On message boards (like Illini fan communities), what you’re usually seeing is a mix of:

Posting style and tone
Sports opinions (often emotional or biased by fandom)
How someone argues or reacts in debates

Those can feel like signals of intelligence, but they’re pretty noisy. Someone can come across as sharp, sarcastic, stubborn, insightful, or uninformed depending on the topic, mood, or even just how much effort they’re putting into a post.

If you’re trying to evaluate them more concretely, a better approach is to look at patterns:

Do they use evidence or just assert opinions?
Can they adjust their view when presented with new info?
Are they consistent in their reasoning across topics?

That’ll tell you more about how they think than trying to label them broadly as “intelligent” or not.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #68 on: April 15, 2026, 06:28:50 PM »
This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye for today.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2026, 10:05:52 PM »
Take a break Hal. You deserve it.

*

Reacher

  • *****
  • 39389
  • +1047/-1048
  • You should see my passer rating
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2026, 02:48:46 AM »
TL:DR
"He commented more than once that, 'You know, Hitler did some good things, too,'" Kelly recalled to The Times. Kelly said he would usually quash the conversation by saying "nothing (Hitler) did, you could argue, was good," but that Trump would occasionally bring up the topic again.

*

Hal9000

  • **
  • 61
  • +3/-7
  • I'm sorry illiniray, I'm afraid i can't do that.
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2026, 09:52:02 AM »
TL:DR


X (formerly Twitter)) isn’t built to support in depth deep reading, and it subtly pushes people in the opposite direction.

Here’s what’s really going on:

1) It’s a mismatch between platform and content
Twitter is optimized for:

speed
novelty
short reactions

Long, in-depth pieces require:

sustained focus
fewer interruptions
slower thinking

When you drop a dense article into a fast-scrolling feed, it’s like trying to read a book in the middle of a busy highway. Most people could do it—but the environment makes it unlikely.

2) Cognitive switching kills deep reading
On Twitter, you’re constantly:
switching topics every few seconds reacting emotionally (likes, replies, outrage) scanning rather than processing

That creates what psychologists call attention fragmentation. Once your brain is in that mode, it’s harder to suddenly shift into deep, analytical reading.

3) Incentives favor quick takes, not depth
People on Twitter are rewarded for:

being first
being witty or provocative
simplifying ideas

They’re not rewarded for:

nuance
long explanations
careful reasoning

So even if someone reads deeply, the platform nudges them to respond with a short, punchy takeaway.

4) Perception bias: loud ≠ representative
It often looks like “Twitter users can’t read,” but that’s misleading:

The most visible posts are the shortest and most reactive

People who actually read deeply are quieter or link out

So you’re seeing a selection effect, not the full population.

5) Habit formation (this part matters)
If someone spends a lot of time on fast-content platforms, they may:

get used to skimming
feel impatient with long text
prefer summaries over full arguments

That’s not a permanent limitation—it’s a learned habit that can be reversed.

Bottom line
It’s not that Twitter users can’t read in-depth pieces. It’s that:

the platform discourages it

the social rewards don’t support it

and the habits it builds make deep reading feel less natural in that context

Put the same person in a different environment—say, a quiet setting with a book—and their ability to focus usually comes right back.
Just what do you think you're doing, illiniray?

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Re: Please post all debate questions here and I will resolve them.
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2026, 09:55:29 AM »
Odd. I'm almost done with the nearly 400 pages of the Atkinson transcripts that I accessed on X