Beware the modern-day heretic hunters - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14865912
Sivad wrote:I don't really know who that is but if he was a guy who was pretty much disgusted in general with everyone and everything then I guess you got me pegged.


He was a rather misanthropic socialist. He wrote a book called the ragged trousered philanthropists (arguing the workers were philanthropic as they were kindly allowing the bosses to take most of what they produced). The book contains many arguments for how a socialist society would work and examples of the crushing poverty of British workers at the time but is mostly devoted to examples of moronic devotion to either the Tory or Liberal parties and workers' refusal to act in their own interests. I think you would really like it.

He published it under the name Robert Trestle to avoid being black listed by employers for being a socialist.
#14865915
I'll check it out, sounds like it's up my alley.

When I think about I realize that I don't really care about any of these people, I'm just appalled by the horror of it. I think a lot of what the elites say about the under classes is true. If I were to play devil's advocate I'd say the ignorance and vulgar pettiness of the working class forced some people to become ruthless exploiters. The common people were such ignorant assholes that they were definitely going to elevate someone to lord it over them and exploit them merciless so the choice was clear: either do it to these fuckers or pointlessly share their fate. And you can't do kinder gentler elitism, you can't fake the evil, you have to actually be evil or you're not going to be able to hold power. I don't think that excuses any of it but it explains a lot of it. It was bound to happen.
#14865917
I guess some of us have more hope. Together we can achieve great things and one day all the lamp posts of Westminster will be hung with bankers, capitalists and politicians, the houses of Parliament will be raised to the ground, the TUC will be the unimarcal chamber of government and will meet in St Paul's after the Church of England has been evicted, nothing from the largest industries to the slightest stick of furniture will be left unnationalised and enemies of the people will live out their lives in gulags on remote Scottish islands. All this and more will come to pass.

#14865921
Decky wrote:I guess some of us have more hope. Together we can achieve great things and one day all the lamp posts of Westminster will be hung with bankers, capitalists and politicians, the houses of Parliament will be raised to the ground, the TUC will be the unimarcal chamber of government and will meet in St Paul's after the Church of England has been evicted, nothing from the largest industries to the slightest stick of furniture will be left unnationalised and enemies of the people will live out their lives in gulags on remote Scottish islands. All this and more will come to pass.


That would just be one bunch of elites "inspiring the masses" to lynch the old bunch. I wouldn't shed any tears but I wouldn't expect much change to come from it either.
#14865958
mikema63 wrote:Man one girl get's told off by one professor and the confirmation bias is firing up to the point that a school not wanting to face controversy is worse than totalitarian regimes controlling speech. :lol:

High standards, Mike, high standards, that's what makes the West the best! :excited:

Image
#14868852
Ao the students who were annoyed at her for disrupting the class with her political beliefs spoke to the actual professor face to face instead of making a formal complaint.

How is this noteworthy?
#14869239
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the students who were annoyed at her for disrupting the class with her political beliefs

Very funny, Pod. :lol:

How many students complained is unknown, as that's apparently confidential, it could be only one. The only evidence that there was a complaint or that a student expressed concern comes from the professor, so as far as Lindsay Shepherd and the general public is concerned at this point this is a claim made by him and nothing more.
#14869243
It seems reasonable to assume that someone, or more than one person, simply mafe sn informal, face to face, complaint about Shepherd to the professor.

After all, it is not as if Shepherd fid anything significant.

And this is why there was an informal discussion about it.

This whole thing only became significant because Shepherd misrepresented it as a free speech issue.
#14869249
Pants-of-dog wrote:After all, it is not as if Shepherd fid anything significant.

Again, hilarious.

She was accused of gender-based violence and therefore in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. From the OP:
Rambukkana: Do you understand how what happened was contrary to, sorry Adria, what was the policy?
Joel: Gendered and Sexual Violence.
Rambukkana: — Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. Do you understand how —
Shepherd: Sorry, what did I violate in that policy.
Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.
Shepherd: So I caused harm?
Joel: — which is, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a protected thing so something that Laurier holds as a value.
#14869251
Yes, she did violate the code of ethics that she was contractually obligated to follow.

If you think this is significant, fine. Then the fact that she had this pointed out to her is not unreasonable, considering the significance of her mistake.
#14869254
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, she did violate the code of ethics that she was contractually obligated to follow.

If you think this is significant, fine.

More than that. The guy told her she had violated Ontario's human rights law and that she caused harm. If you believe that what she did actually caused harm, you can't argue it's insignificant. The two people talking to her certainly didn't think so. Same goes for those who wrote up Ontario's human rights code and the university policy she allegedly violated.

If you really want to argue that she didn't do anything significant, you should oppose the university's policy, their interpretation of the law and the two guys reprimanding her.
#14869311
I am perfectly fine with agreeing that it is significant. But if the person who complained about it only did so in an informal manner, and she was only “reprimanded” by having her mistakes discussed in an informal discussion.

Please note that she was not actually punished for this, other than having an informal discussion about what she did.
#14869328
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am perfectly fine with agreeing that it is significant. But if the person who complained about it only did so in an informal manner, and she was only “reprimanded” by having her mistakes discussed in an informal discussion.

Please note that she was not actually punished for this, other than having an informal discussion about what she did.

If you are "fine" with it, why say it was insignificant?

As for her "mistake", how often do I have to repeat that she was told she had broken the law and that she caused harm through "gendered violence" by showing part of a video recording that had been aired on television?

Anyway, you are giving a very fine example of arguing in bad faith here.
#14869334
I have no idea how you think I am arguing in bad faith here. Perhaps you think I am discussing my personal opinion as to whether or not it is insignificant; I am not. I am discussing how significant Shepherd’s actions seemed to the others involved in the incident.

It seems like the person who originally complained thought it was not significant enough to warrant a formal complaint.

It seems like the professor and other staff thought it was not significant enough to warrant a formal hearing.

It seems like the professor and other staff thought it was not significant enough to merit actual punishment, because the only “reprimand” that Shepherd received was this informal discussion that she secretly recorded.

If you wish to believe that the professor or the university or the student(s) thought it was actually significant, please note that this is contradicted by their reaction.
#14869508
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea how you think I am arguing in bad faith here. Perhaps you think I am discussing my personal opinion as to whether or not it is insignificant; I am not. I am discussing how significant Shepherd’s actions seemed to the others involved in the incident.

It seems like the person who originally complained thought it was not significant enough to warrant a formal complaint.

It seems like the professor and other staff thought it was not significant enough to warrant a formal hearing.

It seems like the professor and other staff thought it was not significant enough to merit actual punishment, because the only “reprimand” that Shepherd received was this informal discussion that she secretly recorded.

If you wish to believe that the professor or the university or the student(s) thought it was actually significant, please note that this is contradicted by their reaction.

My earlier response re significance is independent of whether this is your interpretation or opinion.
Right Wing Marxism?

But those were fully developed economies, with ce[…]

Because it showed Moore’s moral strength, by resi[…]

Except Roy Moore literally said that. He said th[…]

Is Contraception Murder?

Have a good one. You Too 8)