Beware the modern-day heretic hunters - Page 2 - 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

#14865283
I actually wonder whether identity politics is good for the working class or it's rather a weapon against them in the class struggle. How the hell is the transgender issue so important in the Western hemisphere? :?:
#14865284
I actually wonder whether identity politics is good for the working class or it's rather a weapon against them in the class struggle. How the hell is the transgender issue so important in the Western hemisphere? :?:

It's useful to the ruling class as a diversion tactic, Beren. It seems to be working, too.
#14865285
Cause they exist and some people care? I know a few trans people and think they should be treated with respect as human beings.

I think the right wings response to trans people of making a huge issue out of it is what made it such a big issue. Nobody would care if it weren't for the inordinate reaction against them.
#14865286
Potemkin wrote:It's useful to the ruling class as a diversion tactic, Beren. It seems to be working, too.

It's good for diversion as well as dividing. Also, the transgender issue could be so important only if Baphomet were a real god.
#14865298
mikema63 wrote:Cause they exist and some people care? I know a few trans people and think they should be treated with respect as human beings.

I think the right wings response to trans people of making a huge issue out of it is what made it such a big issue. Nobody would care if it weren't for the inordinate reaction against them.


Legislating and enforcing political correctness is inherently dangerous, but I think you have a point in that wingnuts aren't principled civil libertarians defying tyranny, they're assholes defying common decency.
#14865309
I wonder if this university would therefore likewise ban the Opposing Viewpoints series of books . I suppose that it would , as similarly it strives to provide essays from both sides of various controversial issues . It was from their book addressing Communism that I not only came to understand arguments in support of the social system set in place in such countries as at one time the Soviet Union , but also why certain detractors oppose it . This has helped me to better address issues such as this , as I can not only better understand and present my own point of view but also be aware of where others are coming from , so that I can better counter their arguments . The teacher's assistant sort of reminds me of the debate coach in this movie I saw , titled Debating Robert Lee . P.S. I have since learned , upon looking her up in a search engine , that Lindsay Shepherd has been issued an official apology by Laurier University . http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/wilfrid-laurier-universitys-president-apologizes-to-lindsay-shepherd-for-dressing-down-over-jordan-peterson-clip
#14865316
Shepherd also apparently did not contextualise the video before playing it.

That means she did not explain what the video was abput before playing it. She just put it on with no explanation.

So, what we have here is a teacher’s assistant who disregarded the actual course materials and curriculum, did not teach what she was supposed to, and instead put a video on about her personal beliefs without any explanation.

When the students complained, the actual professor who is responsible for the class had a supposedly private discussion with her about what she did wrong, including violating the code of ethics that she is supposedly following as per her contract.

She secretly tapes the conversation, which violates confidentiality policies of the university and leaks it to the press, where it is picked up by the anti-PC crowd who start howling about free speech.

The university, now in the media spotlight and having to prove its innocence, issues an apology.

Shepherd does seem to understand how to manipulate the media in order to force her boss to apologise to her after she did her job incorrectly.
#14865333
Shepherd also apparently did not contextualise the video before playing it.


Actually it sounds totally like she did.

"here is someone expressing an opposing view" is all she needed to say and from the video is what she apparently did say. That was warning enough for the students in the classroom.

That they are millenials and don't traditionally understand this to mean that there could "murky waters ahead" is their own fault for being snowflakes.

Even if she had of literally said "Warning: Controversial Content ahead" they sound like they are the exact type of individuals (Snowflake millenials) which would have bitched and complained anyway even with a more explicit warning and explanation of context.
#14865336
colliric wrote:Actually it sounds totally like she did.

"here is someone expressing an opposing view" is all she needed to say and from the video is what she apparently did say. That was warning enough for the students in the classroom.


Well, the professor of the class did not think she contextualised it, nor does one vague sentence qualify as good contextualising.

If she did say what you claim, then she did not explain what Peterson’s view opposes. Nor did she mention the code of ethics as supported by her school, or discuss transphobia, or talk about free speech, or tie this in to the actual course material.

That they are millenials and don't traditionally understand this to mean that there could "murky waters ahead" is their own fault for being snowflakes.


Where did you get that they are millenials?

Even if she had of literally said "Warning: Controversial Content ahead" they sound like they are the exact type of individuals (Snowflake millenials) which would have bitched and complained anyway even with a more explicit warning and explanation of context.


The only people bitching and complaining here are those who are oh so offended at the university for oppressing this woman’s “free speech”.

I guess we now define free speeech to include inserting your personal beliefs into classroom settings despite the professor’s wishes, the code of ethics of the institution, or its application to what is actually supposed to be taught.
#14865341
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, the professor of the class did not think she contextualised it, nor does one vague sentence qualify as good contextualising.


Yes it does, she set the video up adequately. Usually these situations go:
- here is a video which expresses an opposing view
- Video
- Explanation(including further contextualising and relationship to the course). This set can be skipped mostly though as the information will also be naturally covered by the final step as well.
- Discussion(Q&A)



If she did say what you claim, then she did not explain what Peterson’s view opposes. Nor did she mention the code of ethics as supported by her school, or discuss transphobia, or talk about free speech, or tie this in to the actual course material.


Her intention was to do this the STANDARD WAY it is done in classrooms. Play the video with a brief intro, then TALK ABOUT IT.

Not talk about it totally then play it, as that is the incorrect educational order.

Where did you get that they are millenials?


Logic:
College students in the year 2017 were on average born around the year 1998. The first year age average in Australia for university students is 18-19. Which makes them Millenials to me. I know the stupid official time frame ends at 1995, but that dating is stupid to me. 2000 should be the cut off date.
#14865343
colliric wrote:Yes it does, she set the video up adequately.


No. One single sentence that does not discuss the topic at all is not good contextualising.

Usually these situations go:
- here is a video which expresses an opposing view
- Video
- Explanation(including further contextualising and relationship to the course). This set can be skipped mostly though as the information will also be naturally covered by the final step as well.
- Discussion(Q&A)


And she did none of this. Not before or after.

Her intention was to do this the STANDARD WAY it is done in classrooms. Play the video with a brief intro, then TALK ABOUT IT.

Not talk about it totally then play it, as that is the incorrect educational order.


Your notions of what the correct procedure is are irrelevant.

Logic:
College students in the year 2017 were on average born around the year 1998. The first year age average in Australia for university students is 18-19. Which makes them Millenials.


So you are making an unsupported assumption.

Again, the professor of the class, i.e. her boss, thinks she did not contextualise it properly. But we are supposed to ignore his decision and go with yours even though you have no evidence and are basing this entirely on your opinion of what proper teaching is.

Does deliberately ignoring the actual curriculum and inserting your personal beliefs also count as contextualising to you?
#14865348
Pants-of-dog wrote:If she did say what you claim, then she did not explain what Peterson’s view opposes. Nor did she mention the code of ethics as supported by her school, or discuss transphobia, or talk about free speech, or tie this in to the actual course material.


Maybe she should have been handing out consent forms before holding a Hitler rally.
#14865357
We didn't get the luxury of a warning as to the level of violence when the teacher played us Roman Polanski's Macbeth.. Apart from "It's based on the play we're studying".

They just pressed play on the VHS... How dare he. We should have been fully warned and told every aspect of the decapitation scene in every detail before he choose to traumatise us all with it....

To his credit he did tell us it was made by a man who's partner had recently been murdered by Manson.

He also failed to mention it was produced by Playboy and had good levels of nudity prior to us seeing it.
#14865370
Pants-of-dog wrote:Was that supposed to be a reply to what I said?


I hate how Sarcasm never translates well to text alone.

Obviously I was in Sarcasm mode and it was a response to you.

Teachers should be able to make choices and show videos that are educationally confrontational. We watched "Playboy Presents Roman Polanski's Batshit insane getting over a Manson Murder version of Macbeth" with little to no warning at all... It didn't hurt us to see it, as it is the second most famous film adaptation of that play.
#14865371
colliric wrote:I hate how Sarcasm never translates well to text alone.

Obviously I was in Sarcasm mode and it was a response to you.


:|

Teachers should be able to make choices and show videos that are educationally confrontational.


Yes.

She was not the teacher. She ignored the teacher’s choices and inserted her personal beliefs instead.

Also, the point of the class was to work on writing skills. How does showing “educationally confrontational” videos about denying trans people’s rights help with that?

We watched "Playboy Presents Roman Polanski's Batshit insane getting over a Manson Murder version of Macbeth" with little to no warning at all... It didn't hurt us to see it, as it is the second most famous film adaptation of that play.


I fail to see how your personal anecdotes have anything to do with this.
#14865376
Pants-of-dog wrote:She was not the teacher. She ignored the teacher’s choices and inserted her personal beliefs instead.

Also, the point of the class was to work on writing skills. How does showing “educationally confrontational” videos about denying trans people’s rights help with that?


They were debating the topic as part of their course.

Presumably part of their course included some element of media/social studies, for example they picked a political debate topic and analyzed how people communicate their points either way.

She has stated she played this video in that context.

Anyway, why argue this when the University rightly apologized to her, indicating she was right.

This is one of those cases where the Uni put their foot in their mouth by acting like Thor hammering down on a frivolous complaint.
#14865383
Pants-of-dog wrote:Shepherd also apparently did not contextualise the video before playing it.

That means she did not explain what the video was abput before playing it. She just put it on with no explanation.


God forbid students at a university should have to think for themselves about something rather than having the orthodox opinion explained to them beforehand. :lol:

This is just an example of what education is like under a right wing government, none of this would have happened in the Soviet Union, they only ran people out of jobs and put them in mental asylums only for good reasons, like anti working class views or opinions out of kilter with those of the party.
#14865386
God forbid students at a university should have to think for themselves about something rather than having the orthodox opinion explained to them beforehand. :lol:

If the middle-class little darlings are forced to think for themselves, they actually complain about it, Decky. I can remember back when I was doing my MSc at Edinburgh Uni, the professor (a German Maoist) was presenting two conflicting points of view concerning some political conflict in the 1930s, without coming down on one side or the other. One of the students (who also happened to be German) asked him with a puzzled expression on her face: "But which is the correct viewpoint?" The professor had to carefully explain to her that, in real life, there is actually no 'correct' viewpoint, but are in fact multiple and mutually conflicting viewpoints which are incompatible and incommensurate, but none of which can be said to be objectively true or false. Even after he explained it to her, she still looked puzzled. Most people just want some authority figure to tell them what to believe, just like they did at kindergarten, so the little darlings don't have to go to all the trouble of actually thinking for themselves or having any beliefs of their own. And if it's not forthcoming, then they seem to feel cheated in some way. The professor should just have told her: "The Party is always right. The Party is your mother and your father, your guardian and your God. All hail the Party!" Lol. :excited:
#14865388
Potemkin wrote:If the middle-class little darlings are forced to think for themselves, they actually complain about it, Decky. I can remember back when I was doing my MSc at Edinburgh Uni, the professor (a German Maoist) was presenting two conflicting points of view concerning some political conflict in the 1930s, without coming down on one side or the other. One of the students (who also happened to be German) asked him with a puzzled expression on her face: "But which is the correct viewpoint?" The professor had to carefully explain to her that, in real life, there is actually no 'correct' viewpoint, but are in fact multiple and mutually conflicting viewpoints which are incompatible and incommensurate, but none of which can be said to be objectively true or false. Even after he explained it to her, she still looked puzzled. Most people just want some authority figure to tell them what to believe, just like they did at kindergarten, so the little darlings don't have to go to all the trouble of actually thinking for themselves or having any beliefs of their own. And if it's not forthcoming, then they seem to feel cheated in some way. The professor should just have told her: "The Party is always right. The Party is your mother and your father, your guardian and your God. All hail the Party!" Lol. :excited:


During a film studies course or the physics one? Dosen't seem relevant.

I would love to teach a film studies course, all the Carry Ons, the first on the buses film, the Italian job, Man who would be king, Zulu etc. It would be the best course ever.

In a world where international travel is prevalent[…]

haha that is exactly what you and some others are[…]

EU-BREXIT

Oh no! Please Decky, please Nigel, you must not l[…]

What! No festive cheer on PoFo?

I went to the school Xmas concert last night. Ozzy[…]