We can have objective arguments on who's side is more educated, like the link I provided above shows that can have an objective answer, but notions like what ideologies or beliefs we find to be good or bad are entirely subjective. When you complain that opposition to white wing ideologies are emotional it worth pointing out that your promotion of White wing ideology is also emotional.
All that Pew has done is perform a limited statistical analysis, which is definitely based on a methodology, to determine that those in America with university education tend toward the Democratic Party.
However, in a general sense, I regard most universities today as centers of indoctrination in either a light sense but also in a more overt sense.
I agree that one's ideologies and beliefs have a subjective
element, but they also have to do with how broad a range of different ideas one is introduced to or in which one is grounded. For this reason I did refer to the
Millerman interview. His position is that the alternative side of the (political) coin is
suppressed and the traditional, Left-Progressive side
stressed.
I do
not say that sound opposition to ideas from the Right perspective or right-leaning political philosophy are necessarily emotional, but rather that a great deal of today's opposition in popular culture let's say, or what is mediated through those mediating entities, is more often than not based in, grounded in, dependent on, an emotional argument.
You are a very good example of this. Even your use of the term 'White Wing' is infused with an
emoted idea.
I have not made any sort of defense of a platform that could be termed *white wing ideology*. I have carefully defined that I think Caucasian-Europeans have a very specific and defined cultural base. I presented that idea pretty thoroughly
here by including some concise description by Waldo Frank (BTW a very Progressive intellectual).
Over the course of weeks and months this has been, at least largely, my focus. Just this idea is intolerable to you and as I say what you do is to emotionally react against any idea that you imagine as threatening. I further suggest that everything about *white culture* and also *whiteness* is similarly threatening to you. And these observations go back some months now to suggestions I have made that the reason this is so is because you, as an African brought to the New World, have been forced substantially against your will to *labor* within that empire of the white man's will. This exposes *your problem* and that of a rebellious Black-American culture generally. Your resistance is deeply embedded in your psychology even if you cannot recognize it. In Spanish we refer to this nexus as "
malicia indígena".
My argument has been that the more that your
malicia comes out into the open, the more destructive it becomes. And it is this destructiveness that must be noticed and arrested. The *you* here is plural and refers to something sociologically perceptible.
And none of this have I backed away from or modified. These are still core ideas that I believe have substantial validity.
If that's your argument then you don't understand what subjectivity is. Different people value different things and those things are neither right or wrong but particular to them. It is the other side to objectivity, things who's value we can discern through measurement and observation.
You will argue and bicker until your last breath! You are the classic argumentative fight-seeking Jamaican! It is something that bubbles up out of your blood.
You are entirely wrong when you suggest that values are neutral and that right and wrong do not apply. Right and wrong are metaphysical categories. You reveal your postmodern
locality with this assertion.