Blogpost infested with rightwingers violating rabble policy - hi, mods!

531 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

swallow wrote:

On his right to free speech, I think 100% of participants on this thread agree. 

In principle, yes. In practice, that freedom is always tempered.

Does that extend to him being absolved of the responsibility for the things he says?

No, it doesn't, and I think more than anything this has to do with his tone, and the way in which he has demonized people. It isn't that these potential intersections of rights can't be talked about, but him wildly misinterpreting the law and stating his intention to break it, and making accusations of left wing authoritarianism, and a backlash all run counter to his responsibilities as a teacher.

... for those who interpret the letters from the university as nothing but persecution, and stamping on his free speech.

I'm trying not to be disrespectful because I was apparently warned to, but seriously, FUCK tone policing. Saying that the problem is his tone is like saying that there is no problem.

Who is he demonizing? The Black Liberation Collective? They're a bunch of morons.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that he's wildly misinterpreting the law, but if that's the case, how is he stating an intention to break it? If it's NOT against the law to refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns then he's not misinterpreting it now is he??? Christ on a fucking cracker!

6079_Smith_W

Peterson has said that the law wil compel him to call people by whatever pronouns they want, even if that is "blue".

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has clarified that is not the case; that the term "they" is acceptable, or just using a person's name.

The fact that he doesn't understand the law doesn't change the fact that he has compared it to policing of expression under totalitanism, and he has called those who do respect the rights of transgenders people "puppets to ideology".

It actually is a problem, because although he does have academic freedom and freedom of speech he does have an obligation to respect the rights of others.

In the first letter:

"It is important for faculty members to consider the impact of their words and actions on the students they teach"

And from the second letter:

The impact of your behaviour runs the risk of underming your ability fo conduct essential components of your job as a faculty member, and we urge you to consider your obligations as a faculty member to act in a manner that is consistent with the law and with university policy."

So no, tone (or in this case, equating respecting the rights of others with authoritarianism, and being a puppet, and claiming that taking part in training on racism is the same as admitting you are aracist)  is not the same as saying there is no problem

http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-re...

And you know Boze, I know every time you get called on some of these comments you claim it is just "ideas" you are talking about. It is the ideas we need to spit at. It is the accusations of racism and sexism that need to be treated with the derision they deserve. 

But it isn't too long (sometimes just a comment) before you are back to identifying people.  "Narcissists" who you think need to be "broken of their delusions".

Or  "people you can't stand" who we are supposed to work together to defeat.

Even with Peterson's lack of understanding and paranoia, I'd find his ideas a lot easier to take if he wasn't framing it as an attack against people who he thinks are authoritarians, but who in fact bear the brunt of discriimination.

Same goes for the way you fall back on targetting groups as an alleged problem.

 

 

Mobo2000

 

Forgive the formatting, I have yet to figure out how to quote posts.

Boze said:

----

Everyone has an agenda. Peterson has an anti-PC agenda. His twitter feed is currently full of mentions of how European countries are starting to finally challenge Islam. Peterson despises the radical left. But that doesn't make him a right-winger. I don't really like Ezra Levant at all, but I can recognize an ally on free speech when I see one. You have to be willing to work with people you don't like in order to defeat people you can't stand. Socialists ought to understand that.

---

Boze:   I agree we need to work with people who have views different than ours to defend important values, like free speech.   I think there are much better allies on this than Ezra Levant, and were Peterson to be charged by the government or disciplined by the university, they would come out to defend him.  Peterson has visibility, resources, is a professional, and if his rights were curtailed, he's in a far better place to defend them than most.   I don't know if Peterson is a right winger and it doesn't really matter much to me either way. 

In some ways this whole controversy feels like a new phemonenon, perhaps because of the immediacy of social media.   But in lots of other ways its deja vu all over again.   When I went to university in 1990-94, there were protests against the objectivists debate club (remember them?), people brought white noise machines, protested they didn't want the campus to enable them, etc.   Ann Coulter came to give a talk and needed extra security, lots of disruption, etc.   This sort of thing has been around on university campuses for a long time, along with "the PC Police are in your head/coming to get you" narrative.   It seems like it's reignited every few years.

With regards to made up pronouns, I had an employee at my place of work who went by "zir" 12 years ago.  

Boze, I absolutely share your desire for fair debate, for people to feel like they can say what they think.   I also, to some degree, share Peterson's concern about "compelled speech".    I also don't mind your tone, and also not a fan of tone policing in general.

Matt Taibbi, one of my favourite journalists, wrote about free speech and the American election and I think a lot of what he says in the American context may be spilling over up here:   

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/free-speech-might-be-anoth...

"The rise of Trump's rightist/white supremacist movement in the population at large, coupled with the emergence of a young generation that sometimes sees the term "free speech" as a stalking horse for right-wing politics, may lead to a radical reversal in our posture toward certain once-cherished civil liberties.

Historically, the embrace of free speech has been understood as going hand in hand with progressive politics. In the past, the people who tested the boundaries of free speech protections were almost always countercultural heroes....

All of this is changing now. The new taboo campus bugbear is right-wing politics. Moreover, academia's new self-proclaimed speech champions aren't Mario Savio-style intellectuals preaching peace and love, but often meathead jocks and frat dudes walking over their own puke to scrawl obnoxious stuff on walls."

 

6079_Smith_W

Eight grand a month. Not bad.

Quote:

Since gaining international media attention for his YouTube lecture series on gender and political correctness, Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has seen a spike in donations to his Patreon account.

A portion of Peterson’s Patreon page states, “The additional financial support helps me remain confident that I can remain independent in my thinking and less vulnerable to institutional pressure, should that be brought to bear.”

When asked to elaborate on this, Peterson replied that he had “no idea how stable” his position at U of T is. He referenced the letters he received from Vice-Provost, Faculty and Academic Life Sioban Nelson, Arts and Science Dean David Cameron, and Department of Psychology Chair Susanne Ferber.

“That speaks for itself. I’m not counting on any stability in my job whatsoever given recent events,” he said.

http://thevarsity.ca/2016/12/05/jordan-peterson-receives-patron-boost-fo...

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Peterson has said that the law wil compel him to call people by whatever pronouns they want, even if that is "blue".

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has clarified that is not the case; that the term "they" is acceptable, or just using a person's name.

The fact that he doesn't understand the law doesn't change the fact that he has compared it to policing of expression under totalitanism, and he has called those who do respect the rights of transgenders people "puppets to ideology".

It actually is a problem, because although he does have academic freedom and freedom of speech he does have an obligation to respect the rights of others.

In the first letter:

"It is important for faculty members to consider the impact of their words and actions on the students they teach"

And from the second letter:

The impact of your behaviour runs the risk of underming your ability fo conduct essential components of your job as a faculty member, and we urge you to consider your obligations as a faculty member to act in a manner that is consistent with the law and with university policy."

So no, tone (or in this case, equating respecting the rights of others with authoritarianism, and being a puppet, and claiming that taking part in training on racism is the same as admitting you are aracist)  is not the same as saying there is no problem

http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-re...

And you know Boze, I know every time you get called on some of these comments you claim it is just "ideas" you are talking about. It is the ideas we need to spit at. It is the accusations of racism and sexism that need to be treated with the derision they deserve. 

But it isn't too long (sometimes just a comment) before you are back to identifying people.  "Narcissists" who you think need to be "broken of their delusions".

Or  "people you can't stand" who we are supposed to work together to defeat.

Even with Peterson's lack of understanding and paranoia, I'd find his ideas a lot easier to take if he wasn't framing it as an attack against people who he thinks are authoritarians, but who in fact bear the brunt of discriimination.

Same goes for the way you fall back on targetting groups as an alleged problem.

You are still failing to understand that the people who bear the brunt of discrimination, i.e. trans people, are not the people that he is talking about or that I am talking about. They are not the left-wing activists who are pushing for this horseshit.

From the article you linked to:

Quote:
“Depending on the context, if personal pronouns are being used, the refusal by a teacher or colleague to use the personal pronoun that is an expression of the person’s gender identity can constitute discrimination,” reads a portion of the letter. “In many situations it is not necessary to use personal pronouns at all, but where it is, the personal pronoun that is chosen as the person’s gender identity-related and gender expression-related identifier should be used.”

I will NEVER utter a deliberately gender-neutral pronoun.

edit: dialing it back.

Boze

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalp...

Quote:
The school, for the record, is a witheringly progressive one. Before classes even started last fall, teachers underwent serious “gender training” given by QMUNITY, an organization for LGBTQQ2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning and two-spirit) people. Teachers were told in no uncertain terms, for instance, that “no one is 100-per-cent male or female” and that everyone is somewhere on the “gender spectrum.”

Perverse. Horseshit. Undecided

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe people's feelings don't matter.

6079_Smith_W

Boze wrote:

Perverse. Horseshit. Undecided

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe people's feelings don't matter.

You know Boze, dialing it back from your last comment (which I did read) was a good idea. Why the change of heart?

Seems to me the "feelings" we are talking about hurting here are Petersons, and those who are somehow threatened by others' identity.  I assure you, people who don't quite fit the gender norm live with those kinds of mistakes and insults all the time. And this small consideration that Peterson seems to think is the leading edge of authoritarianism (but in fact is no imposition at all) pales in comparison to the real issues they face, and which I have repeated enough times that I don't need to do it again.

But frankly, I have had about enough of this. I went to a presentation last night by a friend who, because of gender identity, was abandoned by her family, and later, because someone felt threatened by her, was assaulted, and nearly killed.

Did it remind of this conversation? Only in the sense that it was another, nearly deadly example how self-centred and lacking in compassion and blind to reason some are.

My main concern was frankly about my daughter, who is regularly mistaken for a boy, and who, while she didn't see the whole presentation, was affected enough that she asked "am I going to have to be afraid for the future".

It left me feeling scared, and sad, and angry, because although I know the bigots are a minority, they are a minority that can do a lot of damage.

What is important here? Children like my daughter, who have to deal with dinosaur attitudes. Another friend whose partner nearly committed suicide over this issue, and a school friend of my son, who is fortunately enough to have people around him who treat him with compassion, not stupid judgment and arrogance.

Your calling this names because you feel threatened by it is small, and closed-minded, and petty, and it is of absolutely no importance.

No one cares if you don't want to say something. No one is doing anything to you at all.

 

 

 

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

Perverse. Horseshit. Undecided

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe people's feelings don't matter.

You know Boze, dialing it back from your last comment (which I did read) was a good idea. Why the change of heart?

Seems to me the "feelings" we are talking about hurting here are Petersons, and those who are somehow threatened by others' identity.  I assure you, people who don't quite fit the gender norm live with those kinds of mistakes and insults all the time. And this small consideration that Peterson seems to think is the leading edge of authoritarianism (but in fact is no imposition at all) pales in comparison to the real issues they face, and which I have repeated enough times that I don't need to do it again.

But frankly, I have had about enough of this. I went to a presentation last night by a friend who, because of gender identity, was abandoned by her family, and later, because someone felt threatened by her, was assaulted, and nearly killed.

Did it remind of this conversation? Only in the sense that it was another, nearly deadly example how self-centred and lacking in compassion and blind to reason some are.

My main concern was frankly about my daughter, who is regularly mistaken for a boy, and who, while she didn't see the whole presentation, was affected enough that she asked "am I going to have to be afraid for the future".

It left me feeling scared, and sad, and angry, because although I know the bigots are a minority, they are a minority that can do a lot of damage.

What is important here? Children like my daughter, who have to deal with dinosaur attitudes. Another friend whose partner nearly committed suicide over this issue, and a school friend of my son, who is fortunately enough to have people around him who treat him with compassion, not stupid judgment and arrogance.

Your calling this names because you feel threatened by it is small, and closed-minded, and petty, and it is of absolutely no importance. No one is doing anything to you at all.

I would imagine that this kind of "training" would be the kind of thing Peterson would oppose.

When I was going to high school I hated the fact that teachers couldn't speak openly about political matters, i.e. which political party they might support. For fear of influencing us! I don't want parents or school administrators telling teachers what they can and cannot say, or subjecting teachers to mandatory ideological training. I consider it an absolutely unconscionable violation of their rights to speak what they want to speak, and an equal violation of the rights of any student who might want to listen. You have NO RIGHT to NOT be exposed to speech. I confess that I do indeed bristle with rage at this kind of imposition of authority. Maybe even to the point of pathology. If I am told that I will be fined, or fired, for refusing to speak gender-neutral pronouns, then that just makes me want to refuse even more. It has nothing to do with the people that the legislation is intended to protect. It's about freedom for all of us, and that means spitting in the face of attempts to control us.

I have said before, I have no problem with C-16 in the abstract. It's human rights tribunals with the power to levy fines, and mandate the firing of troublesome employees, that I regard as the enemy. No one is threatened by anyone's identity. What I find threatening is the idea that people are entitled to have their identities - or anything else, for that matter - validated by others.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I went to a presentation last night by a friend who, because of gender identity, was abandoned by her family, and later, because someone felt threatened by her, was assaulted, and nearly killed.

I'm not looking to be nosy here, so I won't ask "which" gender identity, I'll only ask whether this happened to your friend because your friend identifies as having no gender.

Because for some reason this conversation keeps taking detours into the world of trans-women who can't rent an apartment, even though nothing Peterson says is about trans-women or trans-men.

I totally and completely get that trans-women and trans-men are routinely discriminated against, assaulted, sexually assaulted and killed.  But even after 12 pages of this, I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the non-gendered face the same threats.  To be blunt, it really seems like the biggest threat to the non-gendered is others not taking their non-genderedness seriously.  But if you know of a non-gendered person who was nearly killed for no other reason than being non-gendered, I would like to hear more.

6079_Smith_W

Considering that Peterson sees himself as the victim of the vast big tent movement of "Radical Left Authoritarianism", kind of funny that he turns around and tries to beg the question and scapegoat this one small group, and pretend that most trans people are on his side.

Do you really believe that?

Have you read any of the comment threads on any of the articles on this issue. Are people there making this fine distinction of yours?

For that matter, the argument in this thread doesn't stop at discrimination against trans people. Accusations of racism and sexism should also  be greeted with the derision they deserve, apparently. Likewise one of the things that set Peterson off was his feeling that racism seisitivity training would make him a racist.

So no. I am not going to entertain that idea, because it is not only a red herring, it is a contradiction of many of the other things Peterson has said when he isn't playing defense.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do you really believe that?

I doubt that trans-persons are rallying behind him, but that's not really the point.

Quote:
Are people there making this fine distinction of yours?

Probably not.  I expect so little of the comments section and yet it always finds new ways to disappoint me.  But that's not really the point.

So I remain curious what trans-people have to do with Peterson.

Quote:
For that matter, the argument in this thread doesn't stop at discrimination against trans people.

FWIW, it should be stopping at discrimination -- assuming it even exists -- against the "non-gendered", seeing as that's what Peterson is really talking about.  I do agree that this thread seems to have gone on walk-about, but that seems to be coming from both sides.

Personally, I don't really care if someone who opposes him showed a porno in class.  And I don't care if someone who supports him also hates all kinds of other folk.  And I don't care if his YT hits are earning him real-world dollars.  None of that has anything to do with "zim versus him".

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Considering that Peterson sees himself as the victim of the vast big tent movement of "Radical Left Authoritarianism", kind of funny that he turns around and tries to beg the question and scapegoat this one small group, and pretend that most trans people are on his side.

Do you really believe that?

Have you read any of the comment threads on any of the articles on this issue. Are people there making this fine distinction of yours?

For that matter, the argument in this thread doesn't stop at discrimination against trans people. Accusations of racism and sexism should also  be greeted with the derision they deserve, apparently. Likewise one of the things that set Peterson off was his feeling that racism seisitivity training would make him a racist.

So no. I am not going to entertain that idea, because it is not only a red herring, it is a contradiction of many of the other things Peterson has said when he isn't playing defense.

I'm not even sure exactly what you're referring to. But I regard the idea that anybody who opposes a certain view of racism, the view favoured by the Black Liberation Collective, deserves to be denounced as a racist, as pernicious in the extreme.

Peterson would not agree with me but my own beliefs on what racism is are probably closer to that of the Black Liberation Collective's than most people's are. That's not the point though. Once you've decided your ideas are beyond dispute, once you start shouting down people who disagree, or convincing institutions to institute mandatory ideological training sessions, or exerting actual authority, you're my enemy no matter what beliefs we share or what your goals are. It's not their ideas, or even the ideas of the gender radicals, that I have a problem with. It's their tactics.

6079_Smith_W

Never mind that if you are in a line of work where you do any kind of professional development - medical professional or teacher, for instance - you take those kinds of courses.

Some years after I left my old university they instituted a mandatory writing course for all students.

If I was to go back there to get a degree I would most certainly have to take this basic course on rudimentary grammar, essay writing, and rational argument.

I could get my nose out of joint over this authoritarian move, which clearly is designed to show that I am illiterate and irrational (obviously, since I am expected to take it) .

Or I could accept that even if I do know it all, refresher courses are not a bad idea, as there might be a new perspective, or that at the very least it is a good idea in principle.

... and more importantly, that it is not all about me.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
or convincing institutions to institute mandatory ideological training sessions

I suppose such a thing could go pear-shaped, but I don't begrudge being informed that "a person who uses a wheelchair" is preferable to "someone who's trapped in a wheelchair". 

So I guess we disagree on "mandatory ideological training sessions" in the general sense.  But we probably still agree if the mandatory ideological training includes "we must all use our language to show solidarity with ze/zim/zir".

 

milo204

i think it's bit different with grammar, writing etc compared to political ideologies.

i mean, i too probably fall closer on the anti racism spectrum to the black lib collective than peterson, but i can totally see how someone would not be inclined to take anti racist sessions from a pretty radical fringe group.   i get that.  And i get that it's a bit weird that a big school like the u of t would have a group like that be part of setting the agenda when it comes to their training as opposed to a more widely known and accepted group or groups, we know there are plenty.

it amounts to what he has been saying.  that some of the more extreme and ideological views are not just part of the conversation (he;s ok with that) but are becoming policy and people like him are expected to play along...

i can see his point about that

Boze

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/academic-extremism-comes-to-canad...

Margaret Wente wrote:

I bet the poor guy never saw it coming.

Until recently, Henry Parada was director of the School of Social Work at Ryerson University, Toronto’s big downtown commuter school. His career was going well and he got major research grants. Now he has stepped aside after a handful of students calling themselves the Black Liberation Collective accused him of “a violent act of anti-Blackness, misogyny and misogynoir.” What was this act? It seems that he left a meeting where a black female speaker was giving a talk. No one knows why.

What happened next won’t surprise anyone who has been tracking the steady rise of authoritarian illiberalism on the left. The Black Liberation Collective at Ryerson (which has perhaps the most diverse student body in the nation) issued an escalating series of rants demanding immediate action to address his crimes, along with institutional racism in general. Students disrupted faculty meetings. The administration has issued the standard non-response: Basically it values diversity and inclusion, and is looking into the matter.

But really, it doesn’t matter what Prof. Parada did. He’s a white man, and therefore guilty.

Here’s a partial list of what’s been happening on campus lately. At the University of Toronto, psychology professor Jordan Peterson is under attack – not least by his own administration – for refusing to use invented pronouns for transgender people. (Last year, Kenneth Zucker, a renowned U of T psychiatry professor, was fired from his position at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health because his treatment of transgender kids was deemed not radical enough.)

At Queen’s, a good-natured off-campus costume party blew up into a crisis over racism. Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf denounced the event on his blogas “the unacceptable misappropriation and stereotyping of numerous cultures,” and solemnly vowed yet again to improve diversity and inclusion on campus. In other news from Queen’s, the head of a student theatre group was forced to grovel after announcing a plan to cast a white female as the lead in Othello. “There is absolutely no excuse for making a casting decision that was oppressive and caused people of colour to feel as though they were invalid,” she apologized. The production was cancelled.

Political correctness gone mad.

Personally, if I knew that walking out on somebody's speech would cause people to freak out and start shouting that I'm a racist or whatever, I'd walk out on her every single time. The best way to deal with this shit is to expose these clowns for the nutjobs they are. I have yet to hear anybody offer any defense of this nonsense.

My question is, what's it going to take for more people on the left to start calling this shit out? This kind of shit will absolutely destroy us.

https://theeyeopener.com/2016/11/black-and-indigenous-students-protest-s...

Quote:

The school of social work, you have a lot to be ashamed of,” Diverlus said. “For weeks we’ve been waiting for answers. We released a statement to y’all, and instead of confronting us and talking to us, you host a pizza party. Do you really think that’s addressing our needs?”

The faculty members sat in silence.

“You let us know, all of us, that you don’t care about Black students. You don’t care about Black faculty. You don’t care about what happens to us when we walk through these halls and down this entire campus,” Diverlus said.

“Between your two sentences, this pizza party and lack of public apology, your ongoing anti-Blackness and anti-Indigeneity, racism follow us to come back, show up and shut down,” Mckenna said. “Be it in your classroom meetings, ceremonies, hallways, we will continue to show up for our communities.”

The ralliers exited the room while BLC members distributed indictment posters with photos of faculty members as they shouted “you’re indicted for anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism.”

Seriously?

...Seriously??

I would have said "YEP, don't care" and left the room. Laughing

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This kind of shit will absolutely destroy us.

Not sure yet whether it will destroy the Left, but they sure seem hell-bent on destroying language.

BLC_Ryerson wrote:
a violent act of anti-Blackness, misogyny

So now "violent" could mean just about anything.  It could mean a jackboot to the head, or it could mean someone leaving a meeting early.

To be fair, though, for every word they destroy, they create a new one for us all to use.

BLC_Ryerson wrote:
misogynoir

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Realistically, though, they're a fringe.  And Trump/The Right has their fringe too, and it also leaves (or should leave) people scratching their heads.

Why would someone say "I can't support the Left if they support this kind of nonsense" but not then also say "I can't support the Right if they support this kind of nonsense"?  Maybe you're right, and they just will, but that's not the logical outcome of this, it's the illogical outcome.

Boze

I'm firmly in the camp that believes this kind of stuff drives otherwise mostly apolitical people into the arms of the likes of Trump...or, at the very least, away from the left.

Boze

When was the last time the radical right forced someone to step down from a position at a major university?

They are a fringe, but they wield disproportionate influence. People are afraid to be labelled as racists. Remember, the BLC are the ones at whose behest the University of Toronto instituted its anti-bias training for administrators, that Jordan Peterson was labelled a racist for bringing up as an example of political correctness gone too far.

I'd tell them that the university owes them nothing, and to go fuck themselves, in exactly those words. And they'd call me a racist.

Ward

People choose who they would prefer to see.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Remember, the BLC are the ones at whose behest the University of Toronto instituted its anti-bias training for administrators, that Jordan Peterson was labelled a racist for bringing up as an example of political correctness gone too far.

TBH, I'm not even against such training.  Sometimes it's needed, and if it's not needed then it's a few hours out of the office, and maybe muffins.

Years ago I received similarly mandatory AODA training -- as a result of AODA legislation -- and I learned a few things.  Not lots, but a few.  If you see me say "persons with a disabilty" or "uses a wheelchair" rather than "the disabled" or "confined to a wheelchair" then that's that training for you.  An hour or so well spent.

Boze

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Remember, the BLC are the ones at whose behest the University of Toronto instituted its anti-bias training for administrators, that Jordan Peterson was labelled a racist for bringing up as an example of political correctness gone too far.

TBH, I'm not even against such training.  Sometimes it's needed, and if it's not needed then it's a few hours out of the office, and maybe muffins.

Years ago I received similarly mandatory AODA training -- as a result of AODA legislation -- and I learned a few things.  Not lots, but a few.  If you see me say "persons with a disabilty" or "uses a wheelchair" rather than "the disabled" or "confined to a wheelchair" then that's that training for you.  An hour or so well spent.

I'm not necessarily against such training either. I'm against loudly denouncing people as racists for merely opposing such training.

Boze

And my point was that the universities DO listen to these people. They're a fringe, but they're not treated like one.

Ward

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/head-of-ontario-university-cafe...

head-of-ontario-university-cafe-fired-over-joke-help-wanted-ad-seeking-slave

6079_Smith_W

Universities and councils are responsible for their own decisions and actions, Boze.

Whether they make a decision that is too harsh or unwise, it doesn't discount the analysis or concerns. To take Ward's example, posting an ad for a slave may have warrranted an apology rather than cancellation of a contract (especially in an instutition that is supposed to be about people learning) , but it doesn't justify that ad.

If anything, this is evidence about why those training courses, and listening to those groups  are perhaps a good idea.

And you have it backwards. Peterson brought the issue up by saying that taking part in those courses was essentially showing one's self to be a racist.

Boze

Ward wrote:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/head-of-ontario-university-cafe...

head-of-ontario-university-cafe-fired-over-joke-help-wanted-ad-seeking-slave

Fuck these people. These are little fascists, and you'll be next.

Quote:
Sandor Dosman, who runs Veritas Café at the Waterloo, Ont., university, said the school’s Graduate Students’ Association called him into its boardroom on Monday, showed him a copy of the ad he posted and terminated his contract.

“I had the ad in front of me, saying, ‘What was it? Was it the word slave? Was it the word kill? As in try not to kill our customers?” he said. “I dug a little bit and said is there something more to this? But they just said, ‘No, it’s because of this ad,’ and that’s it.”

The student group had two security guards escort Dosman off campus. The café, which was set to close next week for the holidays, was shut down, too.

6079_Smith_W

Right. The elected student council, being heavy handed with a contractor.

Obviously their next step is to annex the Sudetenland, then plant the chips in the back of your head. 

(in case you are wondering how that sounds)

You know, the hyperbole, and the inaccurate epithets really don't help this discussion, such as it is.

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Right. The elected student council, being heavy handed with a contractor.

Obviously their next step is to annex the Sudetenland, then plant the chips in the back of your head. 

(in case you are wondering how that sounds)

You know, the hyperbole, and the inaccurate epithets really don't help this discussion, such as it is.

Undecided

So. What do we do about this creeping illiberalism?

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Universities and councils are responsible for their own decisions and actions, Boze.

Whether they make a decision that is too harsh or unwise, it doesn't discount the analysis or concerns. To take Ward's example, posting an ad for a slave may have warrranted an apology rather than cancellation of a contract (especially in an instutition that is supposed to be about people learning) , but it doesn't justify that ad.

If anything, this is evidence about why those training courses, and listening to those groups  are perhaps a good idea.

And you have it backwards. Peterson brought the issue up by saying that taking part in those courses was essentially showing one's self to be a racist.

Peterson had three points concerning the mandatory anti-bias training: one, there's no evidence that it reduces racism or bias. Two, it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's ideological and of questionable legitimacy. Three, to his thinking, there's no need for anti-racist education for people who aren't racist, therefore instituting the training is effectively claiming that the administration has a racism problem. I don't agree with him on that, but my point stands: the BLC and their allies responded to Peterson's videos by loudly branding him a racist, even though he has said nothing racist.

I don't agree that this is evidence of any such thing. The word "slave" is not racist. Joking about hiring a slave is not making a racist joke. Slavery throughout human history has not predominately been based on race. And this is Canada, not the American south. I don't think the ad needed any justification - and the people who fired the guy won't comment on what exactly the problem was, so we don't even know if it had anything to do with race or the word "slave" or was based on anything legitimate at all, or was merely a knee-jerk reaction. He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

jjuares

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Right. The elected student council, being heavy handed with a contractor.

Obviously their next step is to annex the Sudetenland, then plant the chips in the back of your head. 

(in case you are wondering how that sounds)

You know, the hyperbole, and the inaccurate epithets really don't help this discussion, such as it is.

 


Yes, this whole thread is about hyperbole. Right wingers love to get themselves into an absolute lather about these issues. This thread is awful, full of goofy psychobabble ( Meg's accurate term) and right wing memes. Oh, politcal correctness is ruining the world. Put on your tinfoil hats. Meanwhile global warming, nuclear proliferation, and falling living standards, pfft, no biggie.

jjuares

Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.


Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

Boze

jjuares wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Right. The elected student council, being heavy handed with a contractor.

Obviously their next step is to annex the Sudetenland, then plant the chips in the back of your head. 

(in case you are wondering how that sounds)

You know, the hyperbole, and the inaccurate epithets really don't help this discussion, such as it is.

 

Yes, this whole thread is about hyperbole. Right wingers love to get themselves into an absolute lather about these issues. This thread is awful, full of goofy psychobabble ( Meg's accurate term) and right wing memes. Oh, politcal correctness is ruining the world. Put on your tinfoil hats. Meanwhile global warming, nuclear proliferation, and falling living standards, pfft, no biggie.

My whole beef is that it is mostly only right-wingers who are worried about this stuff! Maybe because I'm actually attending university, I'm somewhat concerned about this trend of witch hunts and offendotrons - and the extent to which this tendency is damaging people's ability to think critically and consider their opponents' points of view, and I very much don't want to see the importation of the kind of campus politics that the United States has seen recently. When you have left-wing activists chanting "shame" (or even worse, "safety") to stop a conservative speaker from being heard, I don't think that does the left any favours.

Boze

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

It's not professional, but why would a bunch of students want to see somebody disciplined or fired for being unprofessional?

And you're right about public announcements and legal obligations, but my feeling is that you shouldn't undertake any course of action that you won't defend publicly, and more importantly they didn't tell him what the problem with the ad was.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Oh, politcal correctness is ruining the world. Put on your tinfoil hats. Meanwhile global warming, nuclear proliferation, and falling living standards, pfft, no biggie.

Shouldn't these bigger problems pretty much preclude anyone from caring what happens municipally?

Who should give a fuck about a new stop sign in a school neighbourhood, or the re-zoning of a residential area when there's nuclear proliferation? 

Are you sure it's a good idea to line up all the problems in order of size?

6079_Smith_W

Boze wrote:

My whole beef is that it is mostly only right-wingers who are worried about this stuff!

Oh... that's your whole beef? That we aren't jumping on the angry entitlement train.

It is bad enough having to listen to the repetition, the spitting, the insults, the paranoia, the telling people they should go fuck themselves and the studious ignoring of what the actual regulations are around this.

Please spare us the pretense that you are somehow doing any of us a favour here, or helping us. You aren't

 

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Oh, politcal correctness is ruining the world. Put on your tinfoil hats. Meanwhile global warming, nuclear proliferation, and falling living standards, pfft, no biggie.

Shouldn't these bigger problems pretty much preclude anyone from caring what happens municipally?

Who should give a fuck about a new stop sign in a school neighbourhood, or the re-zoning of a residential area when there's nuclear proliferation? 

Are you sure it's a good idea to line up all the problems in order of size?


You make a good point. But what if these pronoun problems receive more press attention and concern from the public than important issues. Case in point, how much coverage was there of global warming in the US election?

jjuares

Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

It's not professional, but why would a bunch of students want to see somebody disciplined or fired for being unprofessional?

And you're right about public announcements and legal obligations, but my feeling is that you shouldn't undertake any course of action that you won't defend publicly, and more importantly they didn't tell him what the problem with the ad was.


Well your feelings don't amount to shit. It is the law and professional obligations that count. If you knew anything about these issues you would know it is extremely common for people who have been fired to go public with their grievance and the organization can't repond publicly for a variety of reasons. And by the way it isn't just a group of students it is the GSA which in my old alma mater was an organization of 10 million a year revenue. It sounds like this GSA is also very big and a professional organization.

6079_Smith_W

jjuares wrote:
But what if these pronoun problems receive more press attention and concern from the public than important issues.

Yup. Like the acts of discrimination and hate crimes against trans people that Bill C-16 is really about.

Rather than the pronouns (a choice of three in Ontario, or just using a person's name) that is apparently a problem for some.

 

 

Boze

Smith, no one is forcing you to listen to anything. If you don't attend or work at a university you are pretty much free to not notice all this bullshit. For now. I'm not sure in what sense you think I am acting entitled, or why anybody would defend this nonsense.

Is it really so bad to have to listen to people being told to go fuck themselves? Guess what you can do about it. You can go fuck yourself.

Boze

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

It's not professional, but why would a bunch of students want to see somebody disciplined or fired for being unprofessional?

And you're right about public announcements and legal obligations, but my feeling is that you shouldn't undertake any course of action that you won't defend publicly, and more importantly they didn't tell him what the problem with the ad was.

Well your feelings don't amount to shit. It is the law and professional obligations that count. If you knew anything about these issues you would know it is extremely common for people who have been fired to go public with their grievance and the organization can't repond publicly for a variety of reasons. And by the way it isn't just a group of students it is the GSA which in my old alma mater was an organization of 10 million a year revenue. It sounds like this GSA is also very big and a professional organization.

The previous head of the association publicly slammed the group's decision, a decision which no one seems to understand. I can't understand why you'd defend it. Is this really a question of "right wingers are mad about this, therefore I gotta take the opposite position"?

swallow swallow's picture

Boze wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Right. The elected student council, being heavy handed with a contractor.

Obviously their next step is to annex the Sudetenland, then plant the chips in the back of your head. 

(in case you are wondering how that sounds)

You know, the hyperbole, and the inaccurate epithets really don't help this discussion, such as it is.

Undecided

So. What do we do about this creeping illiberalism?

Research each case, don't assume they are all the same. 

Don't drag down the cases of those with good grounds for complaint by linking them to Jordan Peterson - it will hurt their case by linking it to his, which is about different matters entirely. 

Try to avoid telling people you disagree with "fuck you" - it doesn't help your case, and it's pretty illiberal too in its refusal to be open to contending ideas. 

Don't rely on Margaret Wente, whose grasp of facts and journalistic ethics is sometimes tenuous. 

Stand up for free speech on campus, under attack from right-wing forces trying to ban boycotts of Israel etc. as much as it is under attack from left-wing forces. Don't allow the issue to polarize on left-right lines.

Celebrate the times when (and this is very common, in fact) universities stand up for free speech causes in the face of complaints - even Margaret Wente briefly salues one such case in an article otherwise arguing that universities are stifling free speech. 

Don't assume the illberalism is creeping. Try to also see the many times that liberal values are expanded at universities, and the way this has developed over time.

Those are my suggestions, anyway.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yup. Like the acts of discrimination and hate crimes against trans people that Bill C-16 is really about.

Are you referring to "real" hate crimes, or "left a meeting early" hate crimes?

6079_Smith_W

I am talking about real hate crimes, Magoo.

 

jjuares

Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

It's not professional, but why would a bunch of students want to see somebody disciplined or fired for being unprofessional?

And you're right about public announcements and legal obligations, but my feeling is that you shouldn't undertake any course of action that you won't defend publicly, and more importantly they didn't tell him what the problem with the ad was.

Well your feelings don't amount to shit. It is the law and professional obligations that count. If you knew anything about these issues you would know it is extremely common for people who have been fired to go public with their grievance and the organization can't repond publicly for a variety of reasons. And by the way it isn't just a group of students it is the GSA which in my old alma mater was an organization of 10 million a year revenue. It sounds like this GSA is also very big and a professional organization.

The previous head of the association publicly slammed the group's decision, a decision which no one seems to understand. I can't understand why you'd defend it. Is this really a question of "right wingers are mad about this, therefore I gotta take the opposite position"?


Well he/she is euntitled their opinion. I neither defend or attack the decision. I just don't rely on Margaret Wente for information on these matters or anything else for that matter. Surely, you know hehr history? I just pointed out what should have been obvious, you are relying on the information supplied by one side to a right wing newspaper. I have also explained why only one side has been presented. Critical thinking skills rather than dancing to the tune of a bunch of right wingers. Margaret Wente? For fuck sakes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am talking about real hate crimes, Magoo.

And BLC_Ryerson weren't?

Boze

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Boze wrote:

He can't exactly apologize if the people firing him won't say what specifically he did wrong. What is the analysis? What are the concerns? They don't say. I take that as evidence that there are none.

Well, you shouldn't take that as evidence. Professionally, legally, and ethically they have to be concerned with any public announcements about firing him. As for the ad itself I found it unprofessional and in bad taste. Maybe they over reacted and fired him based on this single incident as he claims. However, this was not a good move on his part.

It's not professional, but why would a bunch of students want to see somebody disciplined or fired for being unprofessional?

And you're right about public announcements and legal obligations, but my feeling is that you shouldn't undertake any course of action that you won't defend publicly, and more importantly they didn't tell him what the problem with the ad was.

Well your feelings don't amount to shit. It is the law and professional obligations that count. If you knew anything about these issues you would know it is extremely common for people who have been fired to go public with their grievance and the organization can't repond publicly for a variety of reasons. And by the way it isn't just a group of students it is the GSA which in my old alma mater was an organization of 10 million a year revenue. It sounds like this GSA is also very big and a professional organization.

The previous head of the association publicly slammed the group's decision, a decision which no one seems to understand. I can't understand why you'd defend it. Is this really a question of "right wingers are mad about this, therefore I gotta take the opposite position"?

Well he/she is euntitled their opinion. I neither defend or attack the decision. I just don't rely on Margaret Wente for information on these matters or anything else for that matter. Surely, you know hehr history? I just pointed out what should have been obvious, you are relying on the information supplied by one side to a right wing newspaper. I have also explained why only one side has been presented. Critical thinking skills rather than dancing to the tune of a bunch of right wingers. Margaret Wente? For fuck sakes.

And my point has been that people on the left need to take up these causes rather than leaving them to the right wingers. People with any common sense will look at that nonsense and say "Yep, that's some bullshit, those people are idiots," so I don't think that it's smart to let that be defined as a "right-wing" stance. Do you think I like linking to right-wing newspapers? More importantly, is there any word in that Wente piece that I quoted that you are suggesting is inaccurate?

swallow swallow's picture

Who on the right-wing defends the right to free speech when talking about "Israeli Apartheid Week"? 

Boze

swallow wrote:

Research each case, don't assume they are all the same. 

Don't drag down the cases of those with good grounds for complaint by linking them to Jordan Peterson - it will hurt their case by linking it to his, which is about different matters entirely.

It's the same thing. Peterson publishes videos about the problem of political correctness, and the same people come out to denounce him as a bigot. It is the same phenomenon.

Quote:
Try to avoid telling people you disagree with "fuck you" - it doesn't help your case, and it's pretty illiberal too in its refusal to be open to contending ideas.

I think I'm open to contending ideas. I don't tell people "fuck you" for disagreeing with me. I tell people "fuck you" when they need to be told off.

Quote:
Don't rely on Margaret Wente, whose grasp of facts and journalistic ethics is sometimes tenuous. 

Stand up for free speech on campus, under attack from right-wing forces trying to ban boycotts of Israel etc. as much as it is under attack from left-wing forces. Don't allow the issue to polarize on left-right lines.

I don't really think that this is the case, but I'd be happy to read any source you can provide on this. Still, my focus is primarily, and has always been, geared towards arguing for more libertarian tendencies on the left, against any censorship, repression or militarism. I am admittedly less concerned about what the right wing are doing. I am very concerned with what left-wingers are doing, especially when they are NDP politicians, as I am a party member.

I appreciate your suggestions.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Who on the right-wing defends the right to free speech when talking about "Israeli Apartheid Week"?

Surely no one.  But should that dictate our actions?

I can't help but agree with Boze, at least a little.  It would be heartwarming, and encouraging, to see the left sometimes say "sorry, no, that wasn't a hate crime and please stop diminishing the meaning of hate crime." or whatever.

In the spirit of that, do you think that leaving a meeting early is an example of "violence" and uncontrollable "anti-black rage"?  On a scale of "yes" or "no".

Pages