>>95962571Social constructivists (postmodernist, SJW, or whatever you know them as) are singled out particularly as being being anti-science because they deny the very idea that FACTS exist. Sure, you'll find fundamentalist Christians who deny that evolution exists, but they generally are just coming from a flawed source they believe to be authoritative.
If you've ever dealt with a social constructivist, you'll probably notice how they constantly say things like "form the conversation" or "control the narrative." Instead of using actual facts or studies to back up their beliefs or claims, they rely on cherry picked examples to create whatever narrative supports their beliefs or claims.
If it's not apparent by now, these type of people thrive in the humanities departments, because no matter how ridiculously dumb their ideas are, there tends to be absolutely no repercussions if they're dead wrong about everything they say.
In the hard sciences, if you just make shit up, you're called out on it immediately. In business, if you're wrong about something, it can cost you your job. Pretty much everywhere else in the world, being wrong has consequences, except for """academia""".
I'd say it's less of a conspiracy that SJWs are taking over universities, and more than it's unfortunately an environment where being dumb as shit has zero consequences, especially when you surround yourself with people as dumb as yourself.
