Beware the modern-day heretic hunters - Page 4 - 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

#14865504
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

So she violated the institution’s code of ethics and human rights statutes.

I actually don't know what she did. If she broke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is the law of Canada I guess, then it's a legal issue, and they somehow just opened the informal discussion with stating that she broke the law of Canada rather than just telling her how unprofessional she was, which you seem to consider the greatest issue here by the way.
#14865514
Beren wrote:I actually don't know what she did. If she broke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is the law of Canada I guess, then it's a legal issue, and they somehow just opened the informal discussion with stating that she broke the law of Canada rather than just telling her how unprofessional she was,


Sure. What is the relevance of this?

which you seem to consider the greatest issue here by the way.


Actually, I think the greatest issue is how the media, especially the right wing media, latched onto this as a free speech issue when it is obviously not, and how it has been uncritically accepted as such. The facts seem to indicate that this is simply a case of unprofessional behaviour at best and law breaking at worst.
#14865519
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. What is the relevance of this?

It's really hard to debate with you, but not because you're such a great debater.

The relevance of this is that their problem wasn't that she had presented her own beliefs instead of enhancing the students' writing skills, as you suggest, they just told her that she broke the law and that's it. And it's the law of the state she broke, not some ethics code of the university, so it could even have legal consequences. I wonder whether they meant to warn/threaten or mentor and criticise her, but it rather seems a warning to me. And it sounds like they just had to do it anyways, or else they could suffer some consequences too.
#14865522
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this relate to the issue of free speech, which was what Shepherd said it was about?

I can't believe that. :lol:

She obviously believes that her right to free speech and free expression of opinion is violated by the university, or even the state of Canada itself, which would be absolutely unacceptable in an academic environment.
#14865545
Pants-of-dog wrote:How was her free speech violated?

I think she meant to present a different opinion on something, due to which she was warned, which she may consider a violation of the right to free expression of opinion. However, it's only the first three minutes of the video I know of, and I didn't like it, but I don't know what she actually did or claims.
#14865578
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I think the greatest issue is how the media, especially the right wing media, latched onto this as a free speech issue when it is obviously not, and how it has been uncritically accepted as such. The facts seem to indicate that this is simply a case of unprofessional behaviour at best and law breaking at worst.


So for you, it is not what was said but rather who said it. OK, fine. We all now know polemics is all that is of interest to you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How was her free speech violated?


This isn’t about free speach. This is about freedom of conscience, freedom of political belief, acedemic freedom.

Hey mate, maybe it is about time you accepted other people don’t have to accept your peculiar beliefs. But see here’s the problem. Human rights law enshrines your bias. It is about time human rights were debunked.
#14865600
Beren wrote:And it's the law of the state she broke, not some ethics code of the university, so it could even have legal consequences. I wonder whether they meant to warn/threaten or mentor and criticise her, but it rather seems a warning to me. And it sounds like they just had to do it anyways, or else they could suffer some consequences too.


Jordan Peterson is a crank but he is right about how dangerous these overwrought identitarian zealots are. We do need to shut this down before it descends into utter madness.
#14865604
Sivad wrote:Jordan Peterson is a crank but he is right about how dangerous these overwrought identitarian zealots are. We do need to shut this down before it descends into utter madness.

The whole fuss is about a Jordan Peterson video. It's funny, isn't it? :lol:
#14865731
foxdemon wrote:So for you, it is not what was said but rather who said it. OK, fine. We all now know polemics is all that is of interest to you.


No, you misunderstood.

This isn’t about free speach. This is about freedom of conscience, freedom of political belief, acedemic freedom.


Please explain how her freedom was threatened or taken away. Thanks.

Hey mate, maybe it is about time you accepted other people don’t have to accept your peculiar beliefs. But see here’s the problem. Human rights law enshrines your bias. It is about time human rights were debunked.


Fell free to give up your human rights.
#14865767
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:

And as Mao himself had said , " Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend. " So political correctness , if taken to an absurd extreme extent , can become even more totalitarian in a sense than a Communist party ruled regime . Oh , and by the way , as an article I linked to , from the National Post pointed out , Shepherd didn't actually violate the terms of the Human Rights Code. This was therefore an example of unqualified people issuing a legal opinion , when it isn't their area of expertise .
#14865901
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.


:lol:

Power rests in the hands of rich business scum who have not worked a day in their lives.

While male workers are in the same place other workers are, doing 12 hour shifts in factories or freezing their bollocks off on a scaffold in November. The only power they have is that which they exercise collectivity through unions and since no one joins unions any more they have basically no power.

Rich people are targeting the while male working class as a way of redirecting minority worker's anger (and creating an inevitable equivalent anger in the attacked white workforce) thus turning the working class against one another to stop them ever uniting and doing anything about the true enemy, the people who have never worked a day in their lives, their bosses and landlords and aristocrats of all colours.
#14865906
Decky wrote::lol:

Power rests in the hands of rich business scum who have not worked a day in their lives.


That power is placed in the hands of rich business scum by working class scum that don't know what they'd do with themselves if they didn't have to toil their lives away like a bunch of jerks. There's no victims in hell or the class struggle, Decky, only horror.
#14865907
Sivad wrote:That power is placed in the hands of rich business scum by working class scum that don't know what they'd do with themselves if they didn't have to toil their lives away like a bunch of jerks.


That simply isn't true, we would have plenty to do. Mostly drinking and gambling true but saying we would not know what to do with ourselves is simply wrong.
#14865908
Decky wrote:That simply isn't true, we would have plenty to do. Mostly drinking and gambling true but saying we would not know what to do with ourselves is simply wrong.


I agree, you need to convince the working class of that. If I had my way we'd be working 20 hr weeks and retiring at 40. The working class are mean spirited, unimaginative, obsequious boot licking shitheads. I figured out a long time ago that my problem wasn't the ruling class, they're just a symptom, my problem is the working class. They're the disease.
#14865910
Sivad wrote:I agree, you need to convince the working class of that. If I had my way we'd be working 20 hr weeks and retiring at 40. The working class are mean spirited, unimaginative, obsequious boot licking shitheads. I figured out a long time ago that my problem wasn't the ruling class, they're just a symptom, my problem is the working class. They're the disease.


Robert Noonan is that you? History says you died in 1911 but evidently not. :lol:
#14865911
Decky wrote:Robert Noonan is that you? History says you died in 1911 but evidently not. :lol:


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.

Show me the Money!" We had a saying in N[…]

Potemkin. Um no. NASA has proven there are planet[…]

You won't hear it in MSM https://www.facebook.com[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

You left out the part about the laziness to learn[…]