The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

[pErvinalia]

I've explained fucking what more than once, and I suspect your response is partially due to the fact that you very likely did not listen to the entire audio. If you haven't done that, then you really ought to temper your comments. You next say "I don't even know where to begin pointing out how retarded that was." Look, you're the one who doesn't address the topic at hand or discuss points made - you just make veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks on people.

No, I'm saying your comment is retarded. And it is. You tried to paint a situation where JP etc were right with their warnings about overreach of the law and used this case as evidence, when the evidence of this case doesn't prove what you were trying to prove. She's not in trouble with the law.

It's not, and you're being your ridiculous self, and here I am responding to your bullshit, again.

She's not NOW in trouble. But her job was in jeopardy, and the people who held her job in their hands said she was in violation of the law.

That's an entirely different thing to what you were painting. An employer has the right to expect certain standards from their employees. You might not like what those standards are, but if they are not illegal, then that's freedum for you. It's not an overreach of the law.

"The reality is clearly different" -- than what? Than what the professor and two administrators at Wilfred Laurier said? Or is my characterization of what they said "clearly different" than reality? "Given that there is no law against her teaching what she did..." -- I agree that there shouldn't be a law against it, but the professor and administrators who grilled her cited law and stated to her exactly how they believed she violated it.

Who gives a fuck what they think about legal matters? Are they judges? Or even legal experts of some sort? Until she's prosecuted, let alone found guilty of anything, JP hasn't been proved right.

They're the diversity officers, and mainstream professors at a respected university. They ARE judges over Lindsey Shephard's job and censors of what she says in her classroom.

I.e they are employers. Remind me again of the laws being broken here?

They said that going forward she was not to show any more videos involving Jordan Peterson or anything similar. They censored her speech ON THE GROUNDS that it was hate speech, violence, and trasphobia, harmful to students, which is prohibited by law.

As long as their censorship is legal, and I expect it is (I can't see how it could be illegal for a university to require it's lecturers to meet certain criteria in the curriculum), then we are talking about normal employer/employee relations here. Not the Social Marxist Invasion that JP and you are bleating about.

"Reread that paragraph and start again." If you had anything much of worth to contribute to a topic, I'd take your suggestions seriously. As it happens, a glib comment like that from you means less than nothing. Chatter on, muttonhead.

The funniest thing about you is that you have absolutely no clue about how low regard you are held in, and how rubbish your arguments are. You keep pulling this "if you haven't got anything to contribute blah blah", as if you are worthy of the respect to treat your output as anything worth replying to seriously. You need to understand that your dishonesty and abject refusal to accept that you can be wrong has come at a cost for you. I'm sorry it's that way, as you do seem to enjoy the intellectual side of debating. But you've only got yourself to blame.

I'll leave that up to everyone here to decide. My arguments are not rubbish. Further, at least my arguments are arguments. At best, your "arguments" are mere declarations of a position, with virtually no argument at all, and very often your "arguments" are just personal attacks.

If you read for comprehension you would have clearly seen why I don't engage you in serious debate any more.

You come across as such unpleasant a character.

At least everyone knows where they stand with me. What can you say about honesty, CES?

[Forty Two]

I've explained fucking what more than once, and I suspect your response is partially due to the fact that you very likely did not listen to the entire audio. If you haven't done that, then you really ought to temper your comments. You next say "I don't even know where to begin pointing out how retarded that was." Look, you're the one who doesn't address the topic at hand or discuss points made - you just make veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks on people.

No, I'm saying your comment is retarded. And it is. You tried to paint a situation where JP etc were right with their warnings about overreach of the law and used this case as evidence, when the evidence of this case doesn't prove what you were trying to prove. She's not in trouble with the law.

It's not, and you're being your ridiculous self, and here I am responding to your bullshit, again.

She's not NOW in trouble. But her job was in jeopardy, and the people who held her job in their hands said she was in violation of the law.

That's an entirely different thing to what you were painting. An employer has the right to expect certain standards from their employees. You might not like what those standards are, but if they are not illegal, then that's freedum for you. It's not an overreach of the law.

No, it's not an entirely different thing from I'm "painting." What I was "painting" was the fact that the idea that this kind of thing would be considered a violation of the law is not an out-of-the-mainstream, ridiculous viewpoint. Jordan Peterson's concern that administrators would consider it a violation of the law is well founded. When he said that on The Agenda, he noted that he had received letters from his university, University of Toronto, which said as much - that he was violating both school policy and the law. Lindsay Shepherd faced the same thing - they flat out said she was violating the law - not just some more restrictive school policy. Wilfrid Laurier is a public university, not a private one.

If the law is such that it causes public employers to censor or fire people (as they were considering doing to Lindsay Shepherd) because they present arguments about pronouns in the workplace, then there is a significant concern about the law. Part of what these administrators were doing was enforcing the law (as they saw it).

"The reality is clearly different" -- than what? Than what the professor and two administrators at Wilfred Laurier said? Or is my characterization of what they said "clearly different" than reality? "Given that there is no law against her teaching what she did..." -- I agree that there shouldn't be a law against it, but the professor and administrators who grilled her cited law and stated to her exactly how they believed she violated it.

Who gives a fuck what they think about legal matters? Are they judges? Or even legal experts of some sort? Until she's prosecuted, let alone found guilty of anything, JP hasn't been proved right.

They're the diversity officers, and mainstream professors at a respected university. They ARE judges over Lindsey Shephard's job and censors of what she says in her classroom.

I.e they are employers. Remind me again of the laws being broken here?

According to the trained diversity officer for the public university in question, the Canadian human rights act and its interpretation by the the human rights commission. That's the point I've made five times now. These administrators read the law and the law's requirements in the exact way Jordan Peterson said they would, and said the U of T was reading it in relation to him. It's not just some ludicrous, outlier position here. Folks in administrative authority at respected public institutions are reading it that way.

They said that going forward she was not to show any more videos involving Jordan Peterson or anything similar. They censored her speech ON THE GROUNDS that it was hate speech, violence, and trasphobia, harmful to students, which is prohibited by law.

As long as their censorship is legal, and I expect it is (I can't see how it could be illegal for a university to require it's lecturers to meet certain criteria in the curriculum), then we are talking about normal employer/employee relations here. Not the Social Marxist Invasion that JP and you are bleating about.

"Reread that paragraph and start again." If you had anything much of worth to contribute to a topic, I'd take your suggestions seriously. As it happens, a glib comment like that from you means less than nothing. Chatter on, muttonhead.

The funniest thing about you is that you have absolutely no clue about how low regard you are held in, and how rubbish your arguments are. You keep pulling this "if you haven't got anything to contribute blah blah", as if you are worthy of the respect to treat your output as anything worth replying to seriously. You need to understand that your dishonesty and abject refusal to accept that you can be wrong has come at a cost for you. I'm sorry it's that way, as you do seem to enjoy the intellectual side of debating. But you've only got yourself to blame.

I'll leave that up to everyone here to decide. My arguments are not rubbish. Further, at least my arguments are arguments. At best, your "arguments" are mere declarations of a position, with virtually no argument at all, and very often your "arguments" are just personal attacks.

If you read for comprehension you would have clearly seen why I don't engage you in serious debate any more.

Anymore? Virtually nothing you've ever said could be properly described as "engaging in serious debate."

You come across as such unpleasant a character.

At least everyone knows where they stand with me. What can you say about honesty, CES?

Good thing your view of where other people stand is of precisely zero importance. Honestly, you actually think you are in a position to judge others, and that there is any import to where anyone "stands" with you? "Oh, gee whiz, I'm on the outs with pErvin! Oh nos! Whatever shall I do!" "Oh, good - I'm in good with pErvin. His opinion really matters. Glad I've kept myself in his good graces." What it must be like to have such a high opinion of oneself, yet bringing so little to table....

You can go ahead an link to my "dishonesty" anytime now, pErvin. Go ahead.

[pErvinalia]

They're the diversity officers, and mainstream professors at a respected university. They ARE judges over Lindsey Shephard's job and censors of what she says in her classroom.

I.e they are employers. Remind me again of the laws being broken here?

According to the trained diversity officer for the public university in question, the Canadian human rights act and its interpretation by the the human rights commission. That's the point I've made five times now.

No I mean what law are the employers breaking by asking their employees to meet certain standards? This is the point you are not getting. This isn't some draconian state censoring its subjects. It's a standard employer/employee relationship. The reason you are outraged is that you don't like those standards. That's fine, but don't try and paint it as something more than what it is. You are being hyperbolic, like your buddy JP.

You come across as such unpleasant a character.

At least everyone knows where they stand with me. What can you say about honesty, CES?

Good thing your view of where other people stand is of precisely zero importance. Honestly, you actually think you are in a position to judge others, and that there is any import to where anyone "stands" with you? "Oh, gee whiz, I'm on the outs with pErvin! Oh nos! Whatever shall I do!" "Oh, good - I'm in good with pErvin. His opinion really matters. Glad I've kept myself in his good graces." What it must be like to have such a high opinion of oneself, yet bringing so little to table....

You can go ahead an link to my "dishonesty" anytime now, pErvin. Go ahead.

It makes no difference. There's a perfect example inscribed into my signature. And not to mention that I DID just point out your dishonesty, CES.

[Forty Two]

Regarding this: "No I mean what law are the employers breaking by asking their employees to meet certain standards? This is the point you are not getting. This isn't some draconian state censoring its subjects. It's a standard employer/employee relationship. The reason you are outraged is that you don't like those standards. That's fine, but don't try and paint it as something more than what it is. You are being hyperbolic, like your buddy JP."

It's not a standard employer employee relationship. It's a public university (which is a state actor, not a private employer). Further, as the folks in the audio said, they purported to follow the requirements of the law, which was that it was transphobia, hate speech, and violence to play the video clip from The Agenda.

This is the point you're not getting. It's not just standards I don't like. It's state actors taking action in accord with what they think are the requirements of the law, and censoring a teacher who did nothing more than "neutrally" present a debate. That's what they said part of "the problem" was.

I pointed out how this illustrates what Jordan Peterson was worried about when he first started speaking up about this - that colleges would be interpreting this to mean that you cannot even have the conversation he was having on The Agenda and that the conversation might be illegal under the law. And, the creeps in the audiotape of Lindsey Shepherd interview were stating exactly that. Those were the administrators of a university tasked with enforcing the law regarding these matters, and they said flat out that what she did was illegal -- it was transphobia, hates speech and violence under the human rights act.

This should be clear to you by now. I suspect it is clear, and you're just up to your own usually bullshit and deflecting this conversation to an attack on me.

[Forty Two]

It makes no difference. There's a perfect example inscribed into my signature. And not to mention that I DID just point out your dishonesty, CES.

You pointed out no such thing. Please, by all means, point out a lie. Not by referring to something in your own words. Show my words. Go ahead. Try.

You do this all the time. Your misinterpretations are not other people's dishonesty.

But, it doesn't matter. I made yet another mistake in bothering to talk to you. Every time I do so, the other people on this forum who do talk reasonably about issues scatter and stop contributing, and it just becomes me responding to troll post after troll post after derail after BS. That's my fault.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding this: "No I mean what law are the employers breaking by asking their employees to meet certain standards? This is the point you are not getting. This isn't some draconian state censoring its subjects. It's a standard employer/employee relationship. The reason you are outraged is that you don't like those standards. That's fine, but don't try and paint it as something more than what it is. You are being hyperbolic, like your buddy JP."

It's not a standard employer employee relationship. It's a public university (which is a state actor, not a private employer). Further, as the folks in the audio said, they purported to follow the requirements of the law, which was that it was transphobia, hate speech, and violence to play the video clip from The Agenda.

This is the point you're not getting. It's not just standards I don't like. It's state actors taking action in accord with what they think are the requirements of the law, and censoring a teacher who did nothing more than "neutrally" present a debate. That's what they said part of "the problem" was.

I pointed out how this illustrates what Jordan Peterson was worried about when he first started speaking up about this - that colleges would be interpreting this to mean that you cannot even have the conversation he was having on The Agenda and that the conversation might be illegal under the law. And, the creeps in the audiotape of Lindsey Shepherd interview were stating exactly that. Those were the administrators of a university tasked with enforcing the law regarding these matters, and they said flat out that what she did was illegal -- it was transphobia, hates speech and violence under the human rights act.

This should be clear to you by now. I suspect it is clear, and you're just up to your own usually bullshit and deflecting this conversation to an attack on me.

Stop whining, ffs.

It doesn't matter whether it's a public or private university. They are still subject to the same employer/employee structures and relations. Do you really think they are doing this because they think it's against the law? They don't agree with what she is saying, so they are telling her she can't continue to say it. While ever what they are doing is within the law, then it is their right as employers to have their employees meet certain standards. As a liberal, I thought you were supposed to be in favour of this sort of workplace freedum?

edit: and before you misunderstand again... By "within the law" I don't mean the imaginary law that you and JP fear, I mean laws that would prohibit an employer telling their employee what they have to do to meet the conditions of their employment.

[pErvinalia]

It makes no difference. There's a perfect example inscribed into my signature. And not to mention that I DID just point out your dishonesty, CES.

You pointed out no such thing. Please, by all means, point out a lie. Not by referring to something in your own words. Show my words. Go ahead. Try.

You are incredible. My signature quotes YOUR WORDS!

You do this all the time. Your misinterpretations are not other people's dishonesty.

But, it doesn't matter. I made yet another mistake in bothering to talk to you. Every time I do so, the other people on this forum who do talk reasonably about issues scatter and stop contributing, and it just becomes me responding to troll post after troll post after derail after BS. That's my fault.

Nice little whine there to try and deflect from the fact that you are here as a sock puppet for years now, and still won't own up to it. How honest do you think that is?

[Forty Two]

"Do you really think they are doing this because they think it's against the law?" Well, they said they think it's against the law.

They don't agree with what she is saying AND they are saying it is illegal transphobia, hate speech and violence, and harm to the students. I know you always know what people "really mean" as distinct from what they say, but the folks in the audio said they were concerned that Lindsay Shepherd was breaking the law.

In the audio, professor Rambukkana says - "So the thing about this is, if you’re presenting something like this, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you’re creating. And this is actually, these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Even since … C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression." He alleges that the playing of the Peterson video in class was that illegal discrimination. That's what he says.

As I noted, this supports the notion expressed by Jordan Peterson in the video from The Agenda that it might even be considered to be illegal "to have this conversation." This is what I am saying. The people tasked with enforcing diversity, including protections for trans people, are, in fact, reading the law just as Peterson said they might - as making it illegal to have the conversation. That's what was "problematic" and "toxic" and "discrimatory" about what Lindsay Shepheard did - at least in the minds of the people who said they had to talk more about whether she would even continue in her capacity as a TA, and even if she did continue, she would have to clear all of her presentations ahead of time, and commit to never playing any videos involving Jordan Peterson again.

Professor Rambukkana also claimed that discussing the issue was improper because it is "not up for debate." And, he said that it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have done what Lindsay Shephard did. Once again, that ultimately supports the notion that the people out there enforcing these issues at universities are reading the law as prohibiting discussion of the propriety of compelled pronoun use, or general issue of trans rights, unless the views like those of Jordan Peterson are presented as "problematic" and "toxic" etc.

Now, go on with your insults.

[Forty Two]

It makes no difference. There's a perfect example inscribed into my signature. And not to mention that I DID just point out your dishonesty, CES.

You pointed out no such thing. Please, by all means, point out a lie. Not by referring to something in your own words. Show my words. Go ahead. Try.

You are incredible. My signature quotes YOUR WORDS!

Not lies.

You're an admitted troll, remember? You just want to get under people's skin to drive them off the forum.

You do this all the time. Your misinterpretations are not other people's dishonesty.

But, it doesn't matter. I made yet another mistake in bothering to talk to you. Every time I do so, the other people on this forum who do talk reasonably about issues scatter and stop contributing, and it just becomes me responding to troll post after troll post after derail after BS. That's my fault.

Nice little whine there to try and deflect from the fact that you are here as a sock puppet for years now, and still won't own up to it. How honest do you think that is?

Perfectly honest. If what you say is true, there is nothing at all wrong or dishonest about someone creating a new account and not letting you know about it. Who the fuck are you?

There is no rule against sock puppets here. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... ts#p909820

But we don't have a no sock puppet rule here

Care to invent some other allegation?

[pErvinalia]

It makes no difference. There's a perfect example inscribed into my signature. And not to mention that I DID just point out your dishonesty, CES.

You pointed out no such thing. Please, by all means, point out a lie. Not by referring to something in your own words. Show my words. Go ahead. Try.

You are incredible. My signature quotes YOUR WORDS!

Not lies.

You're an admitted troll, remember? You just want to get under people's skin to drive them off the forum.

This is another one of your regular lies. I've addressed this so many times I worn my keyboard out. Yet you just won't accept that you are wrong. Are you purposely lying, or is there some malfunction of the brain going on?

You do this all the time. Your misinterpretations are not other people's dishonesty.

But, it doesn't matter. I made yet another mistake in bothering to talk to you. Every time I do so, the other people on this forum who do talk reasonably about issues scatter and stop contributing, and it just becomes me responding to troll post after troll post after derail after BS. That's my fault.

Nice little whine there to try and deflect from the fact that you are here as a sock puppet for years now, and still won't own up to it. How honest do you think that is?

Perfectly honest. If what you say is true, there is nothing at all wrong or dishonest about someone creating a new account and not letting you know about it. Who the fuck are you?

There is no rule against sock puppets here. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... ts#p909820

But we don't have a no sock puppet rule here

Care to invent some other allegation?

Dude, the question is regarding your honesty. It may not be against the rules, but that doesn't magically make it honest to pretend that you are someone else and even deny that you are the same person. You can't seriously claim you are honest and upstanding when you are trying to deceive people into thinking you are a new member. What's even worse is that after all these years, you've still yet to own up to it. You've even outright denied it in the past. In what universe do you think this represents honest behaviour??

[pErvinalia]

And this isn't even touching on your lying that a number of us have repeatedly pointed out in the past over various incidents. And that quote in my thread is an indisputably case of you lying (if you follow further along the conversation). It wasn't just a case of you having one of your regular memory lapses and actually really believing that no one criticised Obama. After you were shown a whole thread criticising Obama, you still refused to retract your wrong allegations. You need to sort out your dishonesty problem. Things would go a lot smoother for you here if you just stopped lying and misrepresenting so much.

[Forty Two]

I have not pretended to be someone else. You've invented that. Please post or link to whatever you think is dishonest about the account nonsense you keep carping about.

I don't claim anything here. You do. You've claimed I'm dishonest, yet you don't show me lying about anything, particularly the issue of Forty Two. It's not "pretending to be someone else" to have used an account in the past and a new account later. You just manufacture BS over and over again.

Just stop it, already.

[pErvinalia]

Why did you start another account, and why do you still refuse to admit that you've done that? How is it honest to refuse to admit that you have "done nothing wrong", by your reasoning. And I'm 98% certain you've outright denied that you are CES. If you've done nothing wrong in setting up a sock puppet, what are you afraid of admitting?

Honestly, you are utterly ridiculous. Only you could claim that pretending to be someone else isn't dishonest.

[Forty Two]

I haven't refused to admit or deny anything, and even if I did refuse, such a refusal is not dishonest. I owe you no explanation or confirmation, or denial, or admission. Nothing.

Oh, you're 98% sure, are you? Good for you! In order to substantiate your allegation that I "outright denied" something, you would need to present evidence. You haven't. As usual.

I'm not afraid of admitting or denying or refraining from doing so. I don't care what you want to know, or why.

It's not an "if" it's not wrong to set up a sock puppet. It's NOT wrong to set up a sock puppet. I've shown you that by posting Rachelbean's comment stating exactly that. You see, when I make an assertion, I tend to post evidence to support it. Why are you afraid to admit that it would not be wrong here to set up a sock puppet account? And, why are you afraid to admit that since it would not be wrong, and since you are not in any position of authority here, refraining from providing you with an explanation is not dishonesty?

Pretending to be someone else? Everyone with an account in other than their real name is pretending to be someone else. What the fuck are you talking about? You're really harping on, and bitching and moaning, about the idea that someone would pretend to be a given username until date X, and then start some years later again pretending to be a different username? Are you fucking insane?

[pErvinalia]

I haven't refused to admit or deny anything, and even if I did refuse, such a refusal is not dishonest. I owe you no explanation or confirmation, or denial, or admission. Nothing.

Oh, you're 98% sure, are you? Good for you! In order to substantiate your allegation that I "outright denied" something, you would need to present evidence. You haven't. As usual.

I take this where you refer to CES in the third person multiple times amongst a group of other third persons as a denial. What are you trying to hide? It's outright dishonest.

It's not an "if" it's not wrong to set up a sock puppet. It's NOT wrong to set up a sock puppet. I've shown you that by posting Rachelbean's comment stating exactly that. You see, when I make an assertion, I tend to post evidence to support it. Why are you afraid to admit that it would not be wrong here to set up a sock puppet account?

Because the rightness or wrongness of it has nothing to do with whether you are dishonest in denying you are a sockpuppet of CES.

And, why are you afraid to admit that since it would not be wrong, and since you are not in any position of authority here, refraining from providing you with an explanation is not dishonesty?

Because it's go nothing to do with whether being a sockpuppet is wrong. This is simple English even a first generation immigrant like you and CES should be able to get.

Pretending to be someone else? Everyone with an account in other than their real name is pretending to be someone else. What the fuck are you talking about?

Don't play dumb. You are pretending to be someone other than the person who was behind the CES account. Why are you doing that? Why the dishonesty??

You're really harping on, and bitching and moaning, about the idea that someone would pretend to be a given username until date X, and then start some years later again pretending to be a different username? Are you fucking insane?

Dude, I'm pointing out a massive case of your dishonesty. This is patently simple stuff.

So let's have it, are you CES or not? If you don't answer, what have you got to hide?