I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students after the video (which lead to us talking 1 on 1 a lot more, and me being more open about my political views - my only issue was he told me how happy he was to hear alternate perspectives from me and what I brought to the daily discussions, fearless in sharing views knowing I'd get piled on by the whole class, and a student thinking differently and critically, etc, but... c'mon, you're the professor, you can encourage that yourself in class, rather than just respecting the 1 student that did it on his own), despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses I can understand and respect his approach

I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students after the video (which lead to us talking 1 on 1 a lot more, and me being more open about my political views - my only issue was he told me how happy he was to hear alternate perspectives from me and what I brought to the daily discussions, fearless in sharing views knowing I'd get piled on by the whole class, and a student thinking differently and critically, etc, but... c'mon, you're the professor, you can encourage that yourself in class, rather than just respecting the 1 student that did it on his own), despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses

I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students after the video (which lead to us talking 1 on 1 a lot more, and me being more open about my political views from me and what I brought to the daily discussions, fearless in sharing views knowing I'd get piled on by the whole class - my only issue was he told me how happy he was to hear alternate perspectives, and a student thinking differently and critically, etc, but... c'mon, you're the professor, you can encourage that yourself in class, rather than just respecting the 1 student that did it on his own), despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses

I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students after the video (which lead to us talking 1 on 1 a lot more, and me being more open about my political views - my only issue was he told me how happy he was to hear alternate perspectives, and a student thinking differently and critically, etc, but... c'mon, you're the professor, you can encourage that yourself in class, rather than just respecting the 1 student that did it on his own), despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses

I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students after the video (which lead to us talking 1 on 1 a lot more, and me being more open about my political views), despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses

I've actually had a fair amount of younger students (I'm not old, but older than most grad students), who never expressed similar opinions to me (but weren't all that vocal, or super SJW types in class, either) come up to me after lectures where I argue my positions, and thank me for doing so, tell me they agree, etc. The professor I was genuinely scared of how it'd unfold, but was so happy with not only his reaction, but that I became one of his favorite students, despite us both knowing we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He didn't hide his views, but he at least didn't do like most other professors and constantly bash Trump at every opportunity. He's on the left, but he also made sure to distinguish between the left (not liberals, or democrats, but the genuine "left") today, and the left when he was in school (late 60s/early 70s), and how the ideology today is toxic in many ways, plagued particularly by identity politics (my words, but ideas he's expressed).

Admittedly, I'm also far more neutral in my approach in these classes, because I have to be. Any kind of sentiment that could be viewed as pro-Trump could legitimately get me a failing grade, amongst other things. But I've learned over the years (been in academia since '07, perfected this approach around Obama's first election) how to "drop red pills," spread facts, and help nudge people in the right direction. It's not easy, and it resembles the way Tim Pool speaks and argues, and how many perceive his views, in a lot of ways; but it's necessary when dealing w/ particular audiences. That's why I personally really like Tim Pool and defend him from his many critics on this board. I think he intentionally and methodically chooses to present his beliefs the way he does, and debate/make his points in the manner he does. It's far more effective at reaching a much wider audience, even if it may lose him some that disagree w/ his policy views too much. People who would dismiss or never listen to someone like Tucker Carlson, Levin, Crowder, Styxenhammer, etc , will consider the views of someone like Pool, so he serves a useful purpose in my eyes, and based on my own experience in how I approach debate with the loonies at our college campuses