…Its just you.

There are NUMEROUS bribed academics who are right-winged. chris hedges and noam chomsky have been sucxessfully bribed for years to be anti-Communist and anti-Anarchistic as two examples.

Most academics are probablty slightly left-leaning though seeing as how most of them see that what Michael Parenti said was correct: “All conservative ideologies justify existing inequities as the natural order of things, inevitable outcomes of human nature. If the very rich are naturally so much more capable than the rest of us, why must they be provided with so many artificial privileges under the law, so many bailouts, subsidies and other special considerations - at our expense? Their “nat urally superior talents” include unprincipled and illegal subterfuge such as price-fixing, mass m%%der, stock manipulation, insider trading, fraud, tax evasion, the legal enforcement of unfair competition, ecological spoliation, harmful products and unsafe work conditions. One might expect naturally superior people not to act in such rapacious and venal ways. Differences in talent and capacity as might exist between individuals do not excuse the crimes and injustices that are endemic to the corporate business system.”

One of physics professors in my uni loved Elon Musk, and has photo with Trump.

(Latter one for a presidential award they won, to give the benefit of doubt)

There are plenty of right wing academics but they are a minority. It probably varies by field too. In the core sciences that minority is probably the smallest and is greater in the humanities. My professor was a right wing scientist and we often clashed on values. I felt sorry for him at times because it would be his point of view Vs the entire research group. He is fundamentally a good person that can hold illogical and contradictory opinions that felt like they were emotionally based.

Certainly it’s not none, but there’s a trend where college educated people tend towards leftist ideals purely because they’re exposed to more ideas, more people, more things, and that tends to lead to broader acceptance, which is, unfortunately, a polarizing thing. Many right-wing points are grounded in xenophobia, racism and an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and it’s harder to hold those ideals when folks are put into situations where they have to actually interact with and get to know the people they’re “against”, rather than them just being faceless boogie men to be feared and hated.

Nope they’re all moron’s hence well look around fuckin moron’s need to hang

Go to any school of economics, comp sci faculty, school of business and dare i say biology and you’ll find a lot of em. They tend to be less vocal. Historians too.

“Academics” is huge…

Theres fewer and fewer, but some avenues of academics a person wouldnt be swayed left/right solely by their knowledge and subject matter expertise that makes them an academic.

Off the top of my head, only economists have a right wing slant. But that’s because the wealthy bought off the neoliberals to deregulate everything, and everyone agreed that the only people who knew about the economy, were the ones who said Regeanomics was a step in the right direction.

Everyone else was just called wrong and haven’t had a real chance to try on smaller scales that it works.

Mamdani is a great example of someone who just does the easy obvious thing, the difference is him and his administration are actually trying. Doing it in a city with the GDP of most countries, is huge because it’s an obvious example of it working.

Probably people who are curious and want to learn how the universe really is, who climb to the highest levels of Perry’s scheme of cognition, who use Sagan’s baloney detection kit, rather than supernatural and unfalsifiable excuses, to understand the cosmos. It’s part of the scientific method and great to learn new things, not mistakes but data for next experiment, and big claims require big proof, like defending a thesis should require. We are all waves of one ocean made of stardust, observing the universe, conscious elements billions of years old. DNA that survived all the extinctions so far, on the one habitable planet, and nothing to rescue us, but human cooperation.

If you want faith, it must allow room for doubt and mystery, rather than twisted to demand certainty and remain in Perry’s low levels overall. They could study the neurochemical ways high-control groups hook people and keep them with unhealthy shame/blame/guilt, threat of exile, conditional belonging, solution for invented problem, punish/reward cycles, and maybe choose to escape. Good luck!

Generally only older ones who haven’t kept up with advances in sociological research. The big issue we have in the US is that we have evidence-based examples of better organized societies that are able to achieve higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens by non-profit investment by the government. Ultimately oligarchs controlling all of the money doesn’t create a better society.

I don’t remember the charges he did time for other than them vaguely being about ‘corruption’.

That’s because they were bogus charges, they were only meant to remove him from the election. In short he was accused of money laundering and corruption, because they claimed that he received bribes through renovations on an apartment (that he didn’t owned nor lived in), and in short he was arrested before being judged, he served a couple of years in jail having been denied his abeas corpus while the prosecutor charging him gave speeches saying things like “we might not have proof, but we have convictions”. Eventually the judge that prosecuted Lula was given a position as the ministry of security in the government he help elect by taking Lula from the election, and a panel of supreme judges ruled he had had no actual evidence to convict Lula and overthrew the conviction.

He had close ties with Christina Kirchner, which is well known to have had people killed for investigating her,

Yeah, that’s one of the other ones I know enough to say they’re very well put on that list.

and i remember something about him and her wanting to make some kind of latin american alliance thing which I consider a terrifying idea.

It’s called Mercosur, it’s a very good idea that predates both Lula and Kirchner, it was formally declared in 85 by Sarney and Alfonsín. Lula has been a very strong advocate for a more united Mercosur, wanting it to be similar to the EU, this has nothing to do with left or right wing, Paraguay is a member and Lula has kept good relationships with Peña despite him being right wing, at the same time the Mercosur suspended Venezuela after the election fraud and Lula has criticized Maduro because of his authoritarian regime.

There were also stuff about political persecution of the bolsonaro nutjob proteters but I’ll take that with a big pinch of salt.

Yeah, they’re calling political persecution to the fact that violent radical protestors enticed by social media who invaded the house of government and destroyed property in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election were given the option to go through an education course and abstain from social media or serve prison sentences, and they chose prison sentences, so now they’re in jail (surprised Pikachu face). Some documents also showed that it was part of a plan from Bolsonaro to create confusion while Lula was assassinated, and his answer to that was “it doesn’t matter that we planned it and had it all scheduled, the assassin didn’t actually do it so we can’t be judged for planning something that didn’t happened”

You’re not familiar with techbros?

Depending on how you define “academic”

There are certainly people who can get doctorates while still being right wing, those are the ones that get paid a lot of money to tell poor people to stop complaining about being poor.

It depends on the country, but there’s a self-preservation aspect to academics leaning left. In the USA especially but not exclusively a major right-wing policy point has been defunding academia and publicly-funded research in general. Unless you’re in a field that can reliably pull private funding, such as some branches of the oft-mentioned economics, voting and sharing right-wing talking points carries a major risk of getting your funding cut and leaving you without a job.

That’s the thing about right-wing populism. It relies on primitive instincts. It’s a baseline. It requires no effort.

Rich people are smarter, otherwise they wouln’t be rich. No don’t tax them, they worked so much harder than anyone else to get there! Taxing them will only punish the imaginative and the resourceful, while incentivising the lazy and the worthless. I blame the immigrants because they work harder and for less money, and it’s their fault that I also have to work harder for less! We need one more lane, that would relieve the traffic so much!

These takes always seem super OBVIOUS at first, and if you never bother revising them - you’ll just be stuck with them. The longer you live with them, the firmer you’ll latch onto them.

That’s why it’s so crucial for the rightwingers to dismantle the education system. They need you to be ignorant. Take things face-value.

The correlation is there. It’s there more generally for education level - more educated people are usually more left wing. (And richer, which is a bit of a funny situation if you’re doing class war)

Obviously, there’s exceptions. Somebody mentioned techbros, and economists can fall anywhere. Probably there’s shitty nationalist historians still kicking around, as well.

This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, although as more people achieve greater education, it looks a bit different. You’ll remember most of the Reich’s great scientists ended up working on the Manhattan project.