Do you two really expect CliffFletcher or whomever to spend his day scouring for news across all Universities and constantly update this thread with them? Or was it a good opportunity to take a cheap drive-by. Kinda suspect it's the latter.
Also, to borrow a line from Lewis Black PepsiFree I think you have a severe case of Nazi tourettes.
I was being purposely hyperbolic because I do find the double standard (in general, not specifically Cliff as I believe he would find it problematic just as he stated) genuinely funny.
Maybe you should take a note from the standup you watch and not take everything so seriously
* The St. Paul's thing didn't come across any of my regular news sources (G&M, CBC, the Guardian) that I check on a daily basis. I'm old-school - I don't use a social media feed or other 'push' format of news delivery. But thanks for bringing it to my attention.
* I disapprove of the stance of the school. However, I recognize religious schools do their own thing, and are allowed to do their own thing by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
* It isn't as big a deal to me personally as suppression of free speech in public universities, because I don't expect my kids will be going to St. Paul's, and I doubt the graduates of that school will have much influence on Canadian media, culture, or public policy going forward.
I'm quoting this because thanks isn't enough, this is spot on (other than the social media thing).
So the CBC tackled this controversial issue today in its typically hard-hitting and even-handed manner by inviting three far left professors to express their feelings on freedom of speech on campus.
The consensus - angry white men are threatened by women and people of colour attending university. Glad we cleared that up in such an academically and intellectually rigorous manner.
The funniest part is when the host says a lot of professors were reluctant to come on the air and talk about the issue of freedom of expression on campus, and all three of the far left professors assume that it was leftist professors who were at risk from sticking their necks out.
I wonder if the Current's producers really think this sort of group-hug segment achieves their mandate as a public broadcaster? I mean, if they genuinely want to promote dialogue on the issue, why not have people with different points of view on to contest them on the air? Why not facilitate genuine intellectual debate? Why not - okay, this might sound crazy - invite Peterson himself on to debate the issue with people who disagree with him? If his positions are intellectually fraudulent or untenable, surely that will be exposed in open debate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-01-2017 at 11:07 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The consensus - angry white men are threatened by women and people of colour attending university.
Not going to comment on the CBC program in particular but I do think there is an element of truth to this. I think dudes are getting kind of pissy because some of their longstanding beliefs and traditions are being rightly called out for sexism, racism, etc., and they're not happy about the choice between changing them or being considered pariahs so they lash out and claim it's a free speech issue.
Obviously sometimes that goes too far to the point of absurdity but I've certainly seen the angry white dude phenomenon up close and in person (anecdotal I know).
Obviously I don't know who the specific dudes you're talking about are, but I suspect there is a strong likelihood that you're projecting their motivations onto them and that they're upset for other reasons than women and minorities attending university.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Obviously I don't know who the specific dudes you're talking about are, but I suspect there is a strong likelihood that you're projecting their motivations onto them and that they're upset for other reasons than women and minorities attending university.
Well I kind of expanded on that but if that's what you want to reduce my argument to, then you do you.
I'm not shocked if you're saying you know a racist. I'm saying that there isn't "an element of truth" to the notion that white men being angry that minorities and women are attending university is a serious problem warranting discussion on the CBC, nor is it anything but a farcical response to the incident under discussion.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I'm not shocked if you're saying you know a racist. I'm saying that there isn't "an element of truth" to the notion that white men being angry that minorities and women are attending university is a serious problem warranting discussion on the CBC, nor is it anything but a farcical response to the incident under discussion.
Not going to comment on the CBC program in particular but I do think there is an element of truth to this. I think dudes are getting kind of pissy because some of their longstanding beliefs and traditions are being rightly called out for sexism, racism, etc., and they're not happy about the choice between changing them or being considered pariahs so they lash out and claim it's a free speech issue.
If their arguments are weak or reactionary, then let them be exposed for being weak and reactionary. Let them demonstrate the folly of their position for everyone to see.
The problem (and it was clearly demonstrated by the professors in this CBC piece) is that the most activist people on campus today mistake their ideological positions as academic or scientific truths - the fact Canada is a sexist racist neo-colonial patriarchal regime that oppresses anyone who isn't a white male at every turn is treated as a simple scientific fact that anyone with goodwill must surely recognize. And anyone who disputes it can be dismissed as anti-science, and guilty of Wrong Think.
They're no more willing to step up and contest their ideas in open debate, with data and reason and empiricism, than fundamentalist Christians are willing to debate their beliefs in an intellectual arena.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Pretty sure, yeah. Would you like me to find a bunch of tweets like this one from students?
People are stupid. You're not going to have a difficult time finding examples of people being stupid, particularly people on campus. In fact, I think my first post in this thread stressed the importance of not placing too much emphasis on crazy outlier incidents in analyzing campus culture.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The problem (and it was clearly demonstrated by the professors in this CBC piece) is that the most activist people on campus today mistake their ideological positions as academic or scientific truths - the fact Canada is a sexist racist neo-colonial patriarchal regime that oppresses anyone who isn't a white male at every turn is treated as a simple scientific fact that anyone with goodwill must surely recognize. And anyone who disputes it can be dismissed as anti-science, and guilty of Wrong Think.
Weird, I must have missed those portions of my lectures during my four years as a social sciences student at UVic.
Well, you sure seem to have got the message regardless!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
President of Laurier University releases their report on the incident. The actual report has not been released - yet - but the student is wholly vindicated. Not only that, there is this comment.
Quote:
There were numerous errors in judgement made in the handling of the meeting with Ms. Lindsay Shepherd, the TA of the tutorial in question. In fact, the meeting never should have happened at all. No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video. This was confirmed in the fact-finding report.
No complaint was ever made to have started the reprimand.
Pretty much exactly the statement that they should make on this, kudos to the President on that one.
Shepherd did an interview a week or so ago with Dave Rubin to go over what happened from her end.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
No complaint was ever made to have started the reprimand.
Is this really surprising? So much of this identarian nonsense is zealots proving their dedication to the cause by being pro-actively offended on behalf of others. There's something odiously patronizing about the whole thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-18-2017 at 06:32 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
yeah, I find it really surprising that 2 professors and Diversity person would let this go so far, garner international attention, and not try to get ahead of the fact there was no complaint.
They even brought up Gender violence, and accused her of targeting people based on their gender.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
It's not that surprising. This article explores some of the underlying assumptions that a bunch of people subscribe to, even certain posters on this board.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Interesting. Begs the question then who initiated the meeting and if I recall correctly that she was told specifically during the meeting that it arose from a student complaint. Didn't she state at one stage in the proceedings that she wasn't interested in names but was curious was it one or more students that had complained?
It's not that surprising. This article explores some of the underlying assumptions that a bunch of people subscribe to, even certain posters on this board.
Thanks for that article. I recommend it to anyone who's interested in understanding the dogma driving this movement.
Quote:
The natural consequence of all this is the gradual adoption of social constructivism, which provides the strongest possible rationalisation for the view that everything is caused by people striving for power: there is only people, everything else, including nature, is just a construct. Furthermore, one can say that the most powerful people are the ones driving the social construction, thus even the social construction itself becomes a system of oppression... This allows for a radical conception of liberation. All limitations can be construed as the product of incomplete understanding. If this sounds remarkably like religious mysticism, it’s no coincidence. Streams of thought like this have existed in both the East and West for thousands of years. (Hegel was inspired by Christian mysticism.)...
This produces a view of freedom that is radically different from that of classical liberals, who saw freedom as the creation of a society that prohibited the natural inclinations of people to exert force against each other. Human nature, as well as the natural environment within which human societies reside, set limits on human freedom...
In short, once someone starts by defining the purpose of scientific inquiry as liberating people from oppression, it naturally follows to construe the world as a set of oppressive systems, since that is the focus. It then follows, especially for those whose field of study is people, to personify these systems as the desires of powerful groups of people. Finally, it follows to appeal to social constructionism as a way to minimise or avoid alternative explanations from nonhuman (i.e., natural) causes.
Just as people who march under the banner of Christian values in politics would do well to educate themselves about the Bible and the history of Christian thought, those who support identarian aims should spend some time and learn about the ideology at the root of the movement.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” - George Orwell
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-18-2017 at 06:59 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
