Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You are assuming that people like me believe that the university's policy and interpretation of the law is reasonable. This is one of these times where you seem to be willfully missing the point as well as ignoring what I've written:
If your argument is that this is a poorly written code, fine. Then I am confused as to why we are discussing Lindsay Shepherd at all.
Having said that, the university has to live with it just like anyone else in Ontario, and presumably they are on the hook if any of their teachers violate it.
Considering that, please note that Shepherd was not punished, which implies that the university itself did not see Shepherd’s actions as being harmful. If they did see Shepherd’s actions as being so harmful that it was a problem, they would have been obligated to report Shepherd to the tribunal that handles these cases.
So even if the code is vague and all encompassing, it did not lead to anyone being punished in this case.
As to your comment concerning banning ideas from clasrooms, please note that Shepherd was supoosed to be teaching a class on writing skills. She did not do that. Instead, she showed a video that had nothing to do with the class, she did not contextualise it, and did not tie it into the class context in any way.
It is like arguing that Aristotle’s poetics is banned in engineering classes.
If I was you I wouldn't want to comment on professors seriously claiming that white TAs or white women's tears are oppressing them either.
Since the professor never claimed that, I could not have commented on it.
The white tears comment you quoted was from a third party who was correctly pointing out that portraying white women as victims has been used to rationalise hate speech and violence. The whole Muslim “rapefugees” thing is one example. So is the whole thing where posses would lynch black men who were suspected of raping white women. It is probably why Fox and Rebel Media and other right wing news outlets love hiring pretty white women.
I explained the commonality: the insistence that nobody should be required to provide evidence.
That’s because different contexts require different amounts of evidence. When conservatives get together to complain about SJWs, they do not demand any evidence at all because they are just socialising and reaffirming their tribalism.
Having said that, it is easy to go get evidence of transphobia without demanding that a specific trans person go through their personal life in a public venue for everyone to pick apart and criticise. That was what the trans person you quoted was talking about: not having their personal life used as bigotry porn, and the fact that arguments against transphobia should not require trans people to do this to themselves.
Please note that I have continually asked for evidence that Shepherd was in any way punished or is in any way a victim and no evidence has been supplied.
Another thing to note is the artificial language many of these people are using when talking about their victimhood. It has a cultish quality whereby people are initiated not only to think but also talk in a certain way and can no longer use our common natural language. Of course, this doesn't come easily to everybody as one of the people in the meeting demonstrates when she tries to explain what the actual policy violation was and starts to stutter:
Your feelings about how people talk are not relevant.
Not sure why I'm replying to you if you just come back and ask the same question again.
As long as we agree that she was not formally accused of anything, has not been punished, still has her job, and there is no media campaign against her like there is against the professor.
She is obviously hoping to cash in on the comtroversy like Peterson has.