Ideologic used in a sentence

Ideologic in a sentence as an adjective

I think the whole point of this article sounds a bit ideologic. Also, again, no really good data to prove his point.

I believe it was an ideologic position by the author, but maybe it is not too far. I can't tell for others, but depending on what I look for Google is not the best option.

The trouble with these ideologic arguments is that the hard questions are never debated. For instance, my own opinion is that it is good that you can get rich by creating things that others need.

At some non-ideologic point the interests of all state actors meet. The might makes right mentality of a seasoned bureaucrat is the same everywhere.

What many people hate is the lack of creativity and the "corruption" of already-existing shows for ideologic views.

This mindset of making an emotional ideologic reaction isn't helping anyone! > If a way to serve unblockable ads existed, it would already be implemented and widely used It would require a change in how ads are served and bids are made in realtime.

> Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some people In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X. The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.

WorldWar2 eastern europes nightmare had a ideologic base and that was the reliance on medieval farming techniques instead of fertilizer. Yes, i know it sounds nature romantic, but the end of the line of this sort of ideology were literally mass graves.

So it was the legal office of VCs doing the opening and they were opening with SVB because VC funds are incestous and they have zero geographic and ideologic diversification in their non-portfolio business relationships. So they all end up using the same law firms, banks, consultants etc.

People left digg for reddit because of a redesign, people stay on Twitter despite an ideologic shift from left to right! Nerds switch platforms over minor perceived slights and switch Linux distributions over license-philosophies or systemd-controversies; normies stay with the herd, with the audience, with the likes and clicks.

This is the real danger in going down the ideological-purity path the way the mainstream extreme-liberal tumblerite bloc has. I get around this by maintaining a network of people I trust implicitly as comrades and who also trust me, but this is how ideologic drift happens in, say, activist groups.

As someone who has successfully worked remote for years, I worry about all of these ideologic prescriptions for how remote work must look. Most of the remote work failures and return to office mandates I’ve heard about in local companies have their roots in unrealistic ideas about remote work, both from the company side and the employee side.

Thanks to Moore's Law, we programmers, afforded to be careless, not think about performance or use unnecessary abstractions just out of esthetical or ideologic considerations. It allowed businesses to say that time to market trumps everything and customers should simply buy more powerful boxes or more boxes.

Yes it's disappointing to find out that a nice person turns out to be part of a digusting group, but on the **** side, sometimes seeing the humanity in different people can help lessen the ideologic stronghold on some people. I have some narrow-minded friends and relatives who have been a bit less categorical just by hanging out with nice people who think totally differently than them.

If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer?

They nerfed aristocratic power by neutering the House of Lords, but didn't bother replacing it with some other check or balance, leaving the Commons all-powerful - and with an electoral system that disproportionately favours cohesive ideologic minorities. Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared leftists, who utterly failed to anticipate how fascism could easily manifest through such a system.

Obviously, this thought experiment bears much more radical and ludicrous consequences than a gun in a kids movie or some casually racist or sexist lines in a 90s movie - but ultimately, what we do by "greenwashing" recent works of art has a very similar effect: we rob future generations of the possibility to comprehend our cultural and ideologic development, and to learn and understand how it came to be. We censor historical context to maximize current profits.

The politicization of everything and the rise of ideologic overtake of universities, contaminated thinking accurately about the models of reality reducing every intelligence based and genuine debate to banal disputes of privileges and subjective preferences militarizing discourse with false accusations and mining the victimhood mindset. PS: most of the population can't read that sentence and are blind to that trick.

Or ChatGTP it for you: Me: Summarize your understanding of this sentence: The politicization of everything and the rise of ideologic overtake of universities, contaminated thinking accurately about the models of reality reducing every intelligence based and genuine debate to banal disputes of privileges and subjective preferences militarizing discourse with false accusations and mining the victimhood mindset. ChatGTP: This sentence appears to express concern about a trend where everything, including universities, is becoming politicized and ideologically driven, leading to a reduction in genuine debate and an increase in banal disputes over subjective preferences and privileges.