Beware the modern-day heretic hunters - Page 3 - 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

#14865390
During a film studies course or the physics one? Dosen't seem relevant.

The MSc course was called 'European Film Studies' Decky. Fun fact: my undergraduate degree in physics was called a 'Bachelor of Arts', and my master's degree in film studies was called a 'Master of Science'. Yeah, it doesn't make any fucking sense to me either. Lol.

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.

All the classics, Decky. The early 1970s was truly the Golden Age of British cinema, nay, of world cinema! 8)
#14865393
:hmm:

I didn't even know they did a BA in any of the hard sciences. That does make no fucking sense. My brother's marine and freshwater biology degree was an BSc so I thought they were all Sc's (and from what he tells me it was more just capturing and torturing live crabs more than any real science as that is what the main lecturer had specialised in).
#14865395
I didn't even know they did a BA in any of the hard sciences. That does make no fucking sense. My brother's marine and freshwater biology degree was an BSc so I thought they were all Sc's (and from what he tells me it was more just capturing and torturing live crabs more than any real science as that is what the main lecturer had specialised in).

I think Oxbridge and (strangely enough) the Open University hand out BAs in the hard sciences. And Edinburgh Uni hands out MScs in the arts. I strongly suspect that they do it just because they fucking can, rather like a lecturer turning up wearing a clown costume and defying anyone to say anything. Lol.
#14865397
Decky wrote:During a film studies course or the physics one? Dosen't seem relevant.


All the 400 level courses I ever took were completely free of hand-holding. So basically a whole bunch of straight-A students who thought they were king-shit suddenly started failing because they just couldn't come to terms with the fact that there was no "procedure" for solving the exam problems.
#14865412
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:That seems a kneejerk "it must be the elites" reaction, foxdemon and Potemkin. The minority in this case - transgender people - are not really large enough to be a significant part of a "threat" to the ruling elite. And the teaching assistant doesn't represent any group involved in any major struggle either. Nevertheless, you've leaped, without reason, into accusing the "elite" of staging this and similar fights at universities of being a way to subvert rights movements.


A knee-jerk reaction?

Ok, so please dismiss my assertion that socio-economic inequality has been on the rise in the West for the last 50 years.

If you can debunk that, then your position has credence. If you find that you must accept my claim is so, then you will have to consider by what means the haves employ to prevent the have nots from challenging the tend of increasing inequality.
#14865413
You leap from a conflict between academics, in which the major difference between the participants is just age and job seniority, to international economic discussions. That's why it was a kneejerk reaction - rather than discussing the topic of language use in a university and what is OK to show to students, you try to make it about economic equality.
#14865415
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You leap from a conflict between academics, in which the major difference between the participants is just age and job seniority, to international economic discussions. That's why it was a kneejerk reaction - rather than discussing the topic of language use in a university and what is OK to show to students, you try to make it about economic equality.



Is it the case that the West is becoming increasingly unequal? Yes or no?

When there is a trend to inequality, there is a need to justify it.

Justification depends on a system of belief.

The universities produce the system of belief that explains who can use power and under which circumstances.

Do you follow?


It doesn’t matter that the issue is trans politics. It could have been any of a kaleidoscope of anti discrimination causes. Note I didn’t target trans issues but rather set up for an attack on the concept of human rights.


It is about who has the power to form ideas. Acedemic freedom is a threat to an establishment presiding over rising inequality because it might lead to ideas detrimental the status quo. The universities are a battle ground that those who have benefited from rising inequality can not afford to lose. Hence the over reaction illustrated by the OP article.


Naturally the bourgeoisie reaction is to trivialise the matter and attempt to compartmentalise it. Wouldn’t want to see the big picture, right? That would be disturbing for some.


Again, has the West been experiencing rising levels of inequality in the last 50 years?


If so, then how has the dominant classes contrived to control any possible reaction from those who are being progressively excluded? Is it conceivably the case that they might be using moral politics to politically marginalise their potential opponents, that is the white male worker? Or is it simply coincidence that Political correctness latches on to any cause that legitimated the marginalisation of that demographic?

A robber was once asked why he robbed banks. He answered “that is where the money is”. Well, white male workers were where the power was. Why does PC target that group? That’s where the power must be taken from.


@Decky what do you think?
#14865417
The part of the conversation that stood out to me was when, paraphrasing, she says that she was just providing a neutral example and the campus inquisitor says, that's the problem. These people increasingly represent the western left and people don't like it. Sad!
#14865421
The part of the conversation that stood out to me was when, paraphrasing, she says that she was just providing a neutral example and the campus inquisitor says, that's the problem. These people increasingly represent the western left and people don't like it. Sad!

In a sense, the inquisitor was right - in a civil war, there is no such thing as neutrality. If you try to be 'neutral' or 'objective', then both sides will shoot you. And rightly so.
#14865426
colliric wrote:They were debating the topic as part of their course. Presumably parts 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.


No. The topic of bigotry towards trans people is not in the course at all. The students that day were supposed to be working on writing skills. Shepherd started showing the video even though it had nothing to do with the course.

If it was supposed to be part of the course, the actual teacher of the course would not have reprimanded her.

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


They apologised becuase Shepherd secretly taped a discussion where rhe actual teacher reprimanded her for not doing her job, and she then leaked it to the press, violating confidentiality policies of the university. This then became a media frenzy with all the right wing snowflakes howling and crying about censorship.

In order to avoid further bad publicity, the university apologised.
#14865430
foxdemon wrote:Is it the case that the West is becoming increasingly unequal? Yes or no?

A little.
When there is a trend to inequality, there is a need to justify it.

Why? No one has been trying justify it, beyond idiotic BS about "job creators" and "wealth creators" to convince gullible right wingers that votes for rich people's parties will somehow benefit them personally.

Justification depends on a system of belief.

The universities produce the system of belief that explains who can use power and under which circumstances.

No, they don't, unless you're learning economics at Chicago or somewhere else they train the PR people necessary to make the economic system look attractive enough to vote back into power. Those PR people won't give a shit about transgender pronouns.

It doesn’t matter that the issue is trans politics. It could have been any of a kaleidoscope of anti discrimination causes. Note I didn’t target trans issues but rather set up for an attack on the concept of human rights.

It doesn't matter to you, because you have this kneejerk "anything anyone does must be woven into the story of my hobbyhorse of the oppression of white male workers" reaction. For proper discussion, yes, it does matter.

It is about who has the power to form ideas. Acedemic freedom is a threat to an establishment presiding over rising inequality because it might lead to ideas detrimental the status quo. The universities are a battle ground that those who have benefited from rising inequality can not afford to lose. Hence the over reaction illustrated by the OP article.

You give the universities too much weight in western ideology. Most voters aren't basing their support on what academics say. It's a battle of media spokesmen and employees, social media and political advertising.

Naturally the bourgeoisie reaction is to trivialise the matter and attempt to compartmentalise it. Wouldn’t want to see the big picture, right? That would be disturbing for some.

No, the bourgeoisie reaction is to say that what the middle classes view in a lecture is what controls the direction of western society. To claim that the big picture consists of the students' thoughts.

If so, then how has the dominant classes contrived to control any possible reaction from those who are being progressively excluded? Is it conceivably the case that they might be using moral politics to politically marginalise their potential opponents, that is the white male worker?

Potential opponents are far more than just "white male workers". This is the 21st century, not the 19th. White males are no more excluded than anyone - still less so, in most countries. Jesus, your reaction isn't just bourgeoisie, it's Trumpian.

Or is it simply coincidence that Political correctness latches on to any cause that legitimated the marginalisation of that demographic?

I guess you are a white male, like me. If so, stop throwing yourself a pity party. Yes, it's coincidence that your demographic has benefited from having the same racial and gender makeup as the most powerful in society, and there's a gradual move away from that privilege, but which is not remotely "marginalised".

Well, white male workers were where the power was.

And then the First World War started ...

Why does PC target that group? That’s where the power must be taken from.

Unions had some power. They were targeted with labour laws, not over-earnest discussions about pronouns and safe spaces.

@Decky what do you think?

:lol:
Let's ask Dave Spart and Citizen Smith while we're at it. I never thought I'd see anyone here think the Decky account could add to a conversation.
#14865458
Pants-of-dog wrote:She was not the teacher. She ignored the teacher’s choices and inserted her personal beliefs instead.

But that's not what she was accused of, according to the first three minutes of the video at least, because I didn't listen to the rest of that shit. She was accused of breaking the law and creating a toxic teaching environment. They also said many had complained, but they refused to clarify. Why didn't they just tell her she'd been completely unprofessional? No, they began the whole thing with telling her that she broke the law, which was completely professional of them, of course.
#14865463
Beren wrote:But that's not what she was accused of, according to the first three minutes of the video at least, because I didn't listen to the rest of that shit. She was accused of breaking the law and creating a toxic teaching environment, they also said many had complained about that, but they refused to clarify. Why didn't they just tell her she'd been completely unprofessional? No, they began the whole thing with telling her that she broke the law, which was completely professional of them, of course.


Yes, she also violated the code of ethics that she was contractually obligated to follow.

Also, the recording that Shepherd secretly made is of an informal discussion between her and her immediate supervisors. It was not a formal hearing.
#14865465
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, she also violated the code of ethics that she was contractually obligated to follow.

Also, the recording that Shepherd secretly made is of an informal discussion between her and her immediate supervisors. It was not a formal hearing.

Sure, that's the point here. If it was so informal, then why did they mention the law first? It rather sounded like a formal hearing.
#14865467
Beren wrote:Sure, that's the point here. If it was so informal, then why did they mention the law first? It rather sounded like a formal hearing.


I have no idea why they happened to mention one thing before another. Whim? Coincidence? There could be any number of possible reasons. It may, as you say, make it sound more like a formal hearing, but it was not. It was an informal hearing.
#14865470
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea why they happened to mention one thing before another. Whim? Coincidence? There could be any number of possible reasons. It may, as you say, make it sound more like a formal hearing, but it was not. It was an informal hearing.

I think the trivial reason is that it was their main concern. Also, if she broke the law, there is no need for further discussion, investigation, clarification, or debate. She's got to accept that and behave accordingly (in the future), or else it's a legal case or a formal hearing (next time).
#14865471
Beren wrote:I think the trivial reason is that it was their main concern. Also, if she broke the law, there is no need for further discussion, investigation, clarification, or debate. She's got to accept that and behave accordingly (in the future), or else it's a legal case or a formal hearing (next time).


It doesn’t matter what order they brought stuff up in or what their main concern was.

Secondly, she did not break the law. She violated an internal code of conduct.

But yes, that should have been the end of it.

Instead, she secretly taped the informal hearing, leaked it to the press despite confidentiality concerns, and then had the right wing blogosphere whine about free speech until she got an apology.

Didn't like the Antarctic analogy, here's the thi[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

@Potemkin & @LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX What […]

@skinster @starman2003 I am not taking the […]

It turns out that Roy Moore, despite being cut sho[…]