The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

[pErvinalia]

You just re-arranged the words of your last post that I already responded to, without addressing anything I said. Impressive.

[JimC]

Even though the dogmatically PC left who 42 rants about are a relatively small minority, some of their ideas can be absorbed uncritically by many other progressives. The rigid ideology displayed by a section of the academic left needs to be critiqued, and progressive thinkers need to be involved in this exercise.

[laklak]

Fuckin A, Jim. Kids these days wouldn't know how to enjoy a good panty raid. Buncha wet blankets if you ask me.

[mistermack]

Fuckin A, Jim. Kids these days wouldn't know how to enjoy a good panty raid. Buncha wet blankets if you ask me.

Raiding panties does often cause wet blankets.

[pErvinalia]

Even though the dogmatically PC left who 42 rants about are a relatively small minority, some of their ideas can be absorbed uncritically by many other progressives. The rigid ideology displayed by a section of the academic left needs to be critiqued, and progressive thinkers need to be involved in this exercise.

Well it depends on what you mean by "some of their ideas". Even though most of what the SJWs go on about is crazy, that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth or value to a selection of the concepts that unfortunately lead them to their whacky positions.

[JimC]

Yeah, there are shades of grey in both directions, but I still think that too few leftist progressives are critical of the excessively PC crap from some within their ranks...

[pErvinalia]

I don't think they need to be, as it's such a tiny fraction, and the consequences of this stuff isn't as dangerous as the consequences of rwnj ideas.

[JimC]

What the crazy ideas do, even if from a small %, is to taint the whole progressive movement as lunatics. 42 may represent a very forceful version of that position, but I know well enough that the number of people with moderate political views who see that crap are turned off other, much more reasonable progressive views. Do not underestimate that effect on the general populace...

[laklak]

If you're hounded out of a job because you've offended some snowflake it would be quite important to you. This is why I refuse to teach, my arcane and mysterious knowledge will die with me.

[Forty Two]

Left wingers (in the US) are mostly Christian too. LOL. Most people in the US are Christian. Most people who consider themselves on the left side of the spectrum, still have no problem considering themselves Christian. The percentage of people who say they are Christians is about 75% of the US population. http://news.gallup.com/poll/187955/perc ... -high.aspx

And some folks considered "right wing" are non-Christian - look at the objectivists - devotees of Ayn Rand - most of those folks are atheists, as Ayn Rand was a confirmed, outspoken atheist who said atheism was an aspect of her philosophy, objectivism. Look at libertarians, who are often placed on the right wing - many of them are atheists, or other non-Christians.

[Forty Two]

I want to point out, that the people in the Wilfred Laurier inquisition of the teacher, Lindsey Shepherd, do not appear to be fringe people. This was her professor, with two administrators, one of which was an administrator whose job covers diversity. These are people who are supposedly educated on the topic at hand, and given specific training on ethics in education, freedom of speech on college campuses, and the principles of diversity, etc. They go to seminars and take continuing education, as administrators, on these topics.

Remember the argument about Jordan Peterson, and how he said that bill C-16 was being used to stifle free speech, and would potentially criminalize the very discussion he was having with Paikin and the panel on The Agenda? Well, during the interview with Lindsey Shepherd, she asked for clarity on what she had done that was a violation. They said that she was violating school policy and the human rights code, and that what she did, in neutrally playing 5 minutes of the Paikin/Agenda debate and discussing in a college classroom, was transphobia and violence - a violation of the law. Their remedy was that she was going to present to the crew there that was interviewing her, from then on, all material she was going to present to her class so that they can review it, and she was forbidden to play anything from Jordan Peterson again (or anything like it). They also implied her job was on the line, because at the end Rambukkana said that some of what was said in the interview was problematic, and they had to meet and confer as to whether her teaching assistant role would continue.

Fringe?

Maybe. Maybe not. But, Wilfred Laurier has traditionally been a respected university. Their administrators and professors are not generally thought of as espousing the fringe position. It's also not an unusual or "you heard it here first" viewpoint - the views they expressed to Ms. Shepherd, when they thought they were not being recorded, are exactly in line with what Jordan Peterson and others, and many threads on this forum, have pointed out, with the addition that they admitted that they took the view even airing a discussion about pronoun usage which was not presented in favor of the trans-position on it and denigrating the Jordan Peterson view of it was illegal, discriminatory, hate speech and violence. That's what Jordan Peterson has been saying - that's what was pointed out here on the threads related to Jordan Peterson - and that's what some have said was ridiculous - never would happen - trans-rights lawyers have poo-pooed the notion publicly, etc. But, when it came down to the actual, on the ground, application of principle to the specific case -- look what the reality was.

And, it's interesting to note what a couple of articles pointed out. If this hadn't been recorded, and Lindsey Shepherd reported the content of the interview without proof -- would anyone have believed her? Would she have gotten even the half-assed apologies she has received?

And, lastly, if it is so fringe and "out there" and ridiculous - that is, if what these three professors/administrators did and said to Lindsey Shepherd was so vastly outside what is considered the norm or reasonable, then why has no action been taken against the professors who acted so unreasonably and ridiculously? If what they did was crazy -- why aren't they under review now? Why aren't they being sanctioned? Lectured? Or sent to training so that they can properly apply the law and policy? Could it be that they did apply the law and policy, and the only reason things came out as they have is that the meeting was surreptitiously recorded?

[pErvinalia]

Maybe. Maybe not. But, Wilfred Laurier has traditionally been a respected university. Their administrators and professors are not generally thought of as espousing the fringe position. It's also not an unusual or "you heard it here first" viewpoint - the views they expressed to Ms. Shepherd, when they thought they were not being recorded, are exactly in line with what Jordan Peterson and others, and many threads on this forum, have pointed out, with the addition that they admitted that they took the view even airing a discussion about pronoun usage which was not presented in favor of the trans-position on it and denigrating the Jordan Peterson view of it was illegal, discriminatory, hate speech and violence. That's what Jordan Peterson has been saying - that's what was pointed out here on the threads related to Jordan Peterson - and that's what some have said was ridiculous - never would happen - trans-rights lawyers have poo-pooed the notion publicly, etc. But, when it came down to the actual, on the ground, application of principle to the specific case -- look what the reality was.

fucking what?! I don't even know where to begin pointing how retarded that was. The reality is clearly different, given there is no law against her teaching what she did. Reread that paragraph and start again.

[Forty Two]

If you listened to the audio of the grilling of Lindsay Shepherd, you will see that the professor and two administrators did, in fact, tell her that she was violating the law. I.e., they did express their view that there is a law against teaching what she did, because it was transphobia and violence - it was harmful to some students in the class, and violated the Canadian human rights code and university policy. That's what their view of it is, and that's what Jordan Peterson and others have been saying the law (like the law resulting from bill C-16 and its policy guidance from the human rights commissions) is being read to mean. He himself received letters from his university, University of Toronto, stating their interpretation was that he was violating the law by expressing his view on pronoun usage, and the folks at Wilfred-Laurier expresslyl stated to Lindsay Shepherd that she was violating the law.

Now, Your post just there is pointless. "Fucking what?!" 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.

"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. So, does the law say/mean what they're interpreting it to mean? Their view seems to be roughly in accord with professor Mattes, who considered refusing to use pronouns to be "hate speech" and "violence." Are these professors being attended to by their universities, so that they understand that the law does not, in fact, make what Jordan Peterson said about pronoun usage "hate speech" and "violence?"

"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.

[pErvinalia]

If you listened to the audio of the grilling of Lindsay Shepherd, you will see that the professor and two administrators did, in fact, tell her that she was violating the law. I.e., they did express their view that there is a law against teaching what she did, because it was transphobia and violence - it was harmful to some students in the class, and violated the Canadian human rights code and university policy. That's what their view of it is, and that's what Jordan Peterson and others have been saying the law (like the law resulting from bill C-16 and its policy guidance from the human rights commissions) is being read to mean. He himself received letters from his university, University of Toronto, stating their interpretation was that he was violating the law by expressing his view on pronoun usage, and the folks at Wilfred-Laurier expresslyl stated to Lindsay Shepherd that she was violating the law.

Now, Your post just there is pointless. "Fucking what?!"

You said that JP has been saying there is a law against this stuff, and that heaps of others have been saying this is nonsense. And then you finish by saying - "look what the reality was".

The fucking reality is that she still has a job, and isn't in prison or the court system. So clearly the reality is different to the picture you were trying to paint.

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.

"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.

"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.

[Forty Two]

If you listened to the audio of the grilling of Lindsay Shepherd, you will see that the professor and two administrators did, in fact, tell her that she was violating the law. I.e., they did express their view that there is a law against teaching what she did, because it was transphobia and violence - it was harmful to some students in the class, and violated the Canadian human rights code and university policy. That's what their view of it is, and that's what Jordan Peterson and others have been saying the law (like the law resulting from bill C-16 and its policy guidance from the human rights commissions) is being read to mean. He himself received letters from his university, University of Toronto, stating their interpretation was that he was violating the law by expressing his view on pronoun usage, and the folks at Wilfred-Laurier expresslyl stated to Lindsay Shepherd that she was violating the law.

Now, Your post just there is pointless. "Fucking what?!"

You said that JP has been saying there is a law against this stuff, and that heaps of others have been saying this is nonsense. And then you finish by saying - "look what the reality was".

The fucking reality is that she still has a job, and isn't in prison or the court system. So clearly the reality is different to the picture you were trying to paint.

As I noted, it was lucky for her she surreptitiously recorded the interview, because nobody would have believed her if she reported, second hand, the stuff these folks were saying. One, she still has a job, but at the end of that interview her professor clearly said that whether she continued in that capacity was subject to discussion among him and the administrators, and that her job was to be censored by them going forward (if, indeed, it continued). She was not in the court system or prison, that's true - but that doesn't mean that the conversation she had with her students was not a violation of the law. Someone would have to report it to the human rights commission - apparently, as far as we know, it was just reported to the university.

What's obvious here is that the professor and two administrators, who are paid to enforce the law within the university - to make sure the "students are safe" from violations of the human rights code -- were of the mind that what she did was a violation of the law. That's obvious, because they said so.

As I noted, if that was a ridiculous and fringe view - one that is just whacked out and weird -- wouldn't the people charged with enforcing the law (those three folks who grilled Lindsay Shepherd) be under investigation themselves? They're so whacked out, they think showing the Peterson video was violence, hate speech and a violation of the human rights code -- if they think that, aren't they sort of incompetent at their job?

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. Going to jail is not the only remedy for legal violations. The university enforces the human rights code by silencing hate speech and "phobias" in their classrooms. These professors said the Jordan Peterson debate on The Agenda was hate speech, violence and transphobia, and was thus to be barred from the classroom, and that Lindsey Shepherd violated the law in showing it, and she harmed her students by doing so. That's what they said.

"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. They are experts of some sort, because their jobs involve enforcing the human rights code at Wilfred Laurier university, and they said exactly that. They told Lindsay Sheperd that that was what they were doing.

And, nobody would have believed that the three nitwits who interviewed her said what they said, had she not recorded it. She lucked out.

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.

"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 feel my comments are not worthy of serious reply, then please, by all means, go talk to people you think are worthy. I've no truck with that.

You've proved again that you are incapable of having a discussion. You're all projection, and meanspiritedness. You come across as such unpleasant a character.