It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Douchebag wrote:
Leave it to Long Time Guy to make a terrible thread even worse.



No. There is an irony to what's going on here. Failing to acknowledge it makes it no less true.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
ZephMarshack wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-wlus-contemptible-conduct-proof-of-intellectual-assault-underway-on-campuses


With almost no intellectual opponents remaining, campus radicals have lost the ability to engage with arguments and resort instead to the lazy alternative of name-calling: opponents are all ‘fascists,’ ‘racists’ or ‘white supremacists’.”

What's amusing of course is that Peterson and his followers love namecalling the most of all. Anyone who ever disagrees is a postmodernist or Marxist or worst of all, both, and Peterson thinks such people definitely deserve to be doxxed for their evil plans of indoctrinating the youth.


I didn't mention Peterson. Why would people talking about pronoun usage be called Marxists? I think you're exaggerating that.

Kay is regurgitating the arguments Peterson makes in that editorial. And I'm not exaggerating at all. Peterson absolutely calls pretty much anyone he disagrees with politically a neo-Marxist or postmodernist. He complains that the humanities and social sciences are dominated by "neo-Marxists" and wants to do away with entire departments and fields he claims are neo-Marxist to their core.

And lest you think that he's talking just about campus radicals, guess again! All progressives are just neo-Marxists too operating under a different name. Talking about gender pronouns is simply another way for the damned cultural Marxists to subvert Western Civlization.


Okay, but again, I’m not talking about him. In fact, I’ve always thought he was kind of a doofus, especially with his idiotic religious arguments. He is generally correct on this issue, however.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Curious Hair wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The grad student's pedagological justification for airing the debate in the first place was still tenuous at best and has been lost amidst the outrage about the instructor and university making fools of themselves. And Peterson's predictions aren't really backed up by this, as one university's speech code says little to nothing about the actual implications of C16, which has been what he railed against the most and has frequently misrepresented.


It seems like one of three things happened with her decision to show the video:
LEAST LIKELY: she really is a crypto-Nazi spreading the gospel of alt-right v-neck-tee-and-sportcoat Len Kasper
SOMEWHAT LIKELY: she's teaching freshman English to bored kids who snapchat through class and she thought a CONTROVERSIAL~! debate would at least get the little shits engaged for half an hour
MOST LIKELY: she mistakenly thought the debate material was more relevant to her lesson plans than it really was, but now, having been dragged into a room to be yelled at by tenured professors who at the very least will gang up on her and treat her like a very stupid person ("do you know what confirmation bias is? do you know what peer review is?" she's not a 10-year-old, you asshole) and at the most will ruin her career, she panicked and doubled down on her error so many times over that it stopped being about the video and even stopped being about her, though in fairness, it's plain as day that the professors/administrator were perfectly uninterested in remotely trying to defuse the situation before it escalated as it did.

I'm glad she did what she did and got this Kafka bullshit out in the open. The audio made my skin crawl, from the aforementioned condescension about high school psychology topics to that other guy's voice, HIS FUCKING REEDY LITTLE BITCH VOICE, I'm sorry, he just sounds like someone you'd never want to stop beating the shit out of, even without such gems as "I don't want to compare Jordan Peterson to Hitler, but this is literally Hitler" and "positionality." And the real punchline of it all, after they told her that she wouldn't be able to teach her class each day without express approval of her lesson plans and would have to be monitored, was "well, this was the informal meeting." If the left wants self-criticism, criticize this passive-aggressive 'problematic?" (always with the rising inflection) shit out of existence.
I don't really object to this framing at all and think following on your Freddie mention above this is another case of universities not just having too many administrators, but also having their number 1 priority being covering the university's ass above all else. Which of course is why you see the immediate backtracking when this went public, as opposed to the ideological doubling down we'd more likely see if academia was really such a hotbed of those damned neo-Marxists. This is likewise the case with the severity of the "punishment" in the first place; you'd have thought this girl lost her funding and was kicked out of the program altogether based on the outrage this has generated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
The issue the zealots have with this entire thing isn't that it happened, it's that the public heard it before it was time. They've been incrementally building this moment for a while now and in their eyes another few years and this recording wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But the "debate" hasnt moved that far left yet. There still needs to be a few more conversations before we accept this level of identitarian nonsense. In 5 years this will seem like nothing. Canada, UK, Sweden etc. fining people for misgendering within 10 years.

The USA and continental Europe will take a lot longer. The courts in the US are too friendly to the 1A to get away with it and good luck getting southern Europeans and Swiss/Bavarian/Austrians to accept women as equals much less trans bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
ZephMarshack wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The grad student's pedagological justification for airing the debate in the first place was still tenuous at best and has been lost amidst the outrage about the instructor and university making fools of themselves. And Peterson's predictions aren't really backed up by this, as one university's speech code says little to nothing about the actual implications of C16, which has been what he railed against the most and has frequently misrepresented.


It seems like one of three things happened with her decision to show the video:
LEAST LIKELY: she really is a crypto-Nazi spreading the gospel of alt-right v-neck-tee-and-sportcoat Len Kasper
SOMEWHAT LIKELY: she's teaching freshman English to bored kids who snapchat through class and she thought a CONTROVERSIAL~! debate would at least get the little shits engaged for half an hour
MOST LIKELY: she mistakenly thought the debate material was more relevant to her lesson plans than it really was, but now, having been dragged into a room to be yelled at by tenured professors who at the very least will gang up on her and treat her like a very stupid person ("do you know what confirmation bias is? do you know what peer review is?" she's not a 10-year-old, you asshole) and at the most will ruin her career, she panicked and doubled down on her error so many times over that it stopped being about the video and even stopped being about her, though in fairness, it's plain as day that the professors/administrator were perfectly uninterested in remotely trying to defuse the situation before it escalated as it did.

I'm glad she did what she did and got this Kafka bullshit out in the open. The audio made my skin crawl, from the aforementioned condescension about high school psychology topics to that other guy's voice, HIS FUCKING REEDY LITTLE BITCH VOICE, I'm sorry, he just sounds like someone you'd never want to stop beating the shit out of, even without such gems as "I don't want to compare Jordan Peterson to Hitler, but this is literally Hitler" and "positionality." And the real punchline of it all, after they told her that she wouldn't be able to teach her class each day without express approval of her lesson plans and would have to be monitored, was "well, this was the informal meeting." If the left wants self-criticism, criticize this passive-aggressive 'problematic?" (always with the rising inflection) shit out of existence.
I don't really object to this framing at all and think following on your Freddie mention above this is another case of universities not just having too many administrators, but also having their number 1 priority being covering the university's ass above all else. Which of course is why you see the immediate backtracking when this went public, as opposed to the ideological doubling down we'd more likely see if academia was really such a hotbed of those damned neo-Marxists. This is likewise the case with the severity of the "punishment" in the first place; you'd have thought this girl lost her funding and was kicked out of the program altogether based on the outrage this has generated.


I don't think her justification for showing the video was in any way tenuous. It's completely germane to a discussion on language, particularly in Canada at the current time. Also, she was told by her superiors that what she did was illegal. That certainly is related to C16. Finally, we have no idea what the punishment would have been had she not taped the meeting. At a minimum it seems she was going to be a pariah in the department (she probably is anyway).

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I don't think her justification for showing the video was in any way tenuous. It's completely germane to a discussion on language, particularly in Canada at the current time. Also, she was told by her superiors that what she did was illegal. That certainly is related to C16. Finally, we have no idea what the punishment would have been had she not taped the meeting. At a minimum it seems she was going to be a pariah in the department (she probably is anyway).

Just saying it's a debate about language in a course about language does not establish anything more than a tenuous connection. Shepherd herself has said she showed the video in the context of a grammar lesson about the singular they and that makes the relevance seem especially like a stretch.

Rambukkana misunderstood C-16 about as badly as Peterson, as the article in the original post of this thread noted. And it's also worth noting that none of the other administrators paid any attention to whether what Shepherd did was "illegal" but rather ran afoul of the university's own policy.

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
ZephMarshack wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I don't think her justification for showing the video was in any way tenuous. It's completely germane to a discussion on language, particularly in Canada at the current time. Also, she was told by her superiors that what she did was illegal. That certainly is related to C16. Finally, we have no idea what the punishment would have been had she not taped the meeting. At a minimum it seems she was going to be a pariah in the department (she probably is anyway).

Just saying it's a debate about language in a course about language does not establish anything more than a tenuous connection. Shepherd herself has said she showed the video in the context of a grammar lesson about the singular they and that makes the relevance seem especially like a stretch.

Rambukkana misunderstood C-16 about as badly as Peterson, as the article in the original post of this thread noted. And it's also worth noting that none of the other administrators paid any attention to whether what Shepherd did was "illegal" but rather ran afoul of the university's own policy.

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


She was asking for it.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The concerns that I advanced were legitimate. I was called Anti Semitic and my the points that I raised were misconstrued to the point where it became about an advocacy for the destruction of Israel. I never once advanced any position related to it yet I was labeled anyway. It's essentially the same thing.
You need to stop rewriting it. You literally said for months that Israel should not be in anywhere in the Middle East, while also not saying where it should be. I must have asked you 10 times about this subject and your answer was always the same. This is clearly an anti-Semetic view. Eventually, you kind of acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist though even that came off as fairly hollow as it seems you would be fine if the Muslim states took it upon themselves to rid the Middle East of Israel. You can't play the "misconstrued" card when there were many times that people asked you point blank if Israel should exist in the Middle East and your answer was no.

If you have noticed, even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist where it does now has all but stopped the anti-Semetic charge being thrown at you even when you do things like the "Jews in Hollywood" routine you did in the Weinstein thread.

It's getting to the point where it seems like you want to be the victim here because people said it was anti-Semetic to want the state of Israel to not exist currently in Israel, and with no response to where it should be. Now, you'll go on for paragraphs about how all along you simply meant that Israel was created with many mistakes(and most agree) even though you spent months responding to the discussion without EVER saying that was your actual point.



You rarely make any sense with the things that you post and you always try to twist what someone says.

For the record I stated that I have a problem with the way Israel was founded. Doesn't make me An Anti Semite for feeling that way.

It also doesn't mean that I advocate for the destruction of Israel. If I have ever advocated for the destruction of Israel then find the quote or stop making the claim.

You won't be able to find the quote because i never made the quote.

I gave an accurate portrayal of what happened. You seem to believe that we will forget how hard it was to even get you to acknowledge that Israel deserves to exist in the Middle East.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The concerns that I advanced were legitimate. I was called Anti Semitic and my the points that I raised were misconstrued to the point where it became about an advocacy for the destruction of Israel. I never once advanced any position related to it yet I was labeled anyway. It's essentially the same thing.
You need to stop rewriting it. You literally said for months that Israel should not be in anywhere in the Middle East, while also not saying where it should be. I must have asked you 10 times about this subject and your answer was always the same. This is clearly an anti-Semetic view. Eventually, you kind of acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist though even that came off as fairly hollow as it seems you would be fine if the Muslim states took it upon themselves to rid the Middle East of Israel. You can't play the "misconstrued" card when there were many times that people asked you point blank if Israel should exist in the Middle East and your answer was no.

If you have noticed, even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist where it does now has all but stopped the anti-Semetic charge being thrown at you even when you do things like the "Jews in Hollywood" routine you did in the Weinstein thread.

It's getting to the point where it seems like you want to be the victim here because people said it was anti-Semetic to want the state of Israel to not exist currently in Israel, and with no response to where it should be. Now, you'll go on for paragraphs about how all along you simply meant that Israel was created with many mistakes(and most agree) even though you spent months responding to the discussion without EVER saying that was your actual point.



You rarely make any sense with the things that you post and you always try to twist what someone says.

For the record I stated that I have a problem with the way Israel was founded. Doesn't make me An Anti Semite for feeling that way.

It also doesn't mean that I advocate for the destruction of Israel. If I have ever advocated for the destruction of Israel then find the quote or stop making the claim.

You won't be able to find the quote because i never made the quote.

I gave an accurate portrayal of what happened. You seem to believe that we will forget how hard it was to even get you to acknowledge that Israel deserves to exist in the Middle East.


And my rationale was that it should exist in areas that were uninhabited.

If I said all of the things which keep stating that I said then use the search function or admit that you are lying.

It's interesting how easy your interpretation ability happens to be when you wish to find a desired outcome. Now I want Muslims to "rid themselves of Israelis".

It is truly interesting how a discussion on the rights of Native people somehow turned into a discussion on Anti Semitism.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 31368
pizza_Place: Milano's
long time guy wrote:
It is truly interesting how a discussion on the rights of Native people somehow turned into a discussion on Anti Semitism.


I think it was discussion about a professor and pronouns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The concerns that I advanced were legitimate. I was called Anti Semitic and my the points that I raised were misconstrued to the point where it became about an advocacy for the destruction of Israel. I never once advanced any position related to it yet I was labeled anyway. It's essentially the same thing.
You need to stop rewriting it. You literally said for months that Israel should not be in anywhere in the Middle East, while also not saying where it should be. I must have asked you 10 times about this subject and your answer was always the same. This is clearly an anti-Semetic view. Eventually, you kind of acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist though even that came off as fairly hollow as it seems you would be fine if the Muslim states took it upon themselves to rid the Middle East of Israel. You can't play the "misconstrued" card when there were many times that people asked you point blank if Israel should exist in the Middle East and your answer was no.

If you have noticed, even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist where it does now has all but stopped the anti-Semetic charge being thrown at you even when you do things like the "Jews in Hollywood" routine you did in the Weinstein thread.

It's getting to the point where it seems like you want to be the victim here because people said it was anti-Semetic to want the state of Israel to not exist currently in Israel, and with no response to where it should be. Now, you'll go on for paragraphs about how all along you simply meant that Israel was created with many mistakes(and most agree) even though you spent months responding to the discussion without EVER saying that was your actual point.



You rarely make any sense with the things that you post and you always try to twist what someone says.

For the record I stated that I have a problem with the way Israel was founded. Doesn't make me An Anti Semite for feeling that way.

It also doesn't mean that I advocate for the destruction of Israel. If I have ever advocated for the destruction of Israel then find the quote or stop making the claim.

You won't be able to find the quote because i never made the quote.

I gave an accurate portrayal of what happened. You seem to believe that we will forget how hard it was to even get you to acknowledge that Israel deserves to exist in the Middle East.


And my rationale was that it should exist in areas that were uninhabited.

If I said all of the things which keep stating that I said then use the search function or admit that you are lying.

It's interesting how easy your interpretation ability happens to be when you wish to find a desired outcome. Now I want Muslims to "rid themselves of Israelis".

It is truly interesting how a discussion on the rights of Native people somehow turned into a discussion on Anti Semitism.

http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=102576&p=2627674&hilit=Israel+exist#p2627674

It's all over that thread. You eventually acknowledged that Israel can stay in the weakest of terms.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
ZephMarshack wrote:

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


In the most literal sense, yes. But what might also happen is that she is not allowed to teach again. This meeting was about power--the power of who gets to frame ideas. That's a significant power.

The punishment, even if it was limited to what was recorded, is actually pretty severe. They're trying to humiliate her. They're using every bad rhetorical device they can to confuse her, humiliate her, and intimidate her. What really pisses people off is that they are doing it in the name of justice and sensitivity. She also had little chance to defend herself. How Kafkaesque can you be? I thought universities were supposed to be about enlightenment? This is a trial in a back room, and one with consequences.

Pre-approved course notes and lesson plans . . . . The chances that this will go wrong are pretty damn high.

As we all know, this is a workplace issue, too. Someone does not like you? They're gonna find a way to eviscerate you. Bad fucking faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The concerns that I advanced were legitimate. I was called Anti Semitic and my the points that I raised were misconstrued to the point where it became about an advocacy for the destruction of Israel. I never once advanced any position related to it yet I was labeled anyway. It's essentially the same thing.
You need to stop rewriting it. You literally said for months that Israel should not be in anywhere in the Middle East, while also not saying where it should be. I must have asked you 10 times about this subject and your answer was always the same. This is clearly an anti-Semetic view. Eventually, you kind of acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist though even that came off as fairly hollow as it seems you would be fine if the Muslim states took it upon themselves to rid the Middle East of Israel. You can't play the "misconstrued" card when there were many times that people asked you point blank if Israel should exist in the Middle East and your answer was no.

If you have noticed, even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist where it does now has all but stopped the anti-Semetic charge being thrown at you even when you do things like the "Jews in Hollywood" routine you did in the Weinstein thread.

It's getting to the point where it seems like you want to be the victim here because people said it was anti-Semetic to want the state of Israel to not exist currently in Israel, and with no response to where it should be. Now, you'll go on for paragraphs about how all along you simply meant that Israel was created with many mistakes(and most agree) even though you spent months responding to the discussion without EVER saying that was your actual point.



You rarely make any sense with the things that you post and you always try to twist what someone says.

For the record I stated that I have a problem with the way Israel was founded. Doesn't make me An Anti Semite for feeling that way.

It also doesn't mean that I advocate for the destruction of Israel. If I have ever advocated for the destruction of Israel then find the quote or stop making the claim.

You won't be able to find the quote because i never made the quote.

I gave an accurate portrayal of what happened. You seem to believe that we will forget how hard it was to even get you to acknowledge that Israel deserves to exist in the Middle East.


And my rationale was that it should exist in areas that were uninhabited.

If I said all of the things which keep stating that I said then use the search function or admit that you are lying.

It's interesting how easy your interpretation ability happens to be when you wish to find a desired outcome. Now I want Muslims to "rid themselves of Israelis".

It is truly interesting how a discussion on the rights of Native people somehow turned into a discussion on Anti Semitism.

http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=102576&p=2627674&hilit=Israel+exist#p2627674

It's all over that thread. You eventually acknowledged that Israel can stay in the weakest of terms.



Here is my original thoughts on the matter. You are a liar.

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=102576&start=720&hilit=Israel+misbehaving

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
I provided your direct quote saying Israel did not have a right to exist there. Eventually after many posts you did acknowledge we can't move it now though.

You aren't convincing anyone i am lying.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I provided your direct quote saying Israel did not have a right to exist there. Eventually after many posts you did acknowledge we can't move it now though.

You aren't convincing anyone in lying.



You are a liar. My original point was always that the Palestinians had more of an entitlement to the land. That is completely different than saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist. You tried to make the case about entitlement based on it being ancestral homeland until it was established that you didn't no what you were talking about.



Now you have been called out for twisting facts. You're lying.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
I posted the links as you requested. It also is filled with me asking the same question and you ignoring it.

You either communicated incredibly poorly or you are trying to hide your true feelings. Either way stop acting like a victim for people thinking you saying Israel should leave the Middle East is anti-Semitic.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I posted the links as you requested. It also is filled with me asking the same question and you ignoring it.

You either communicated incredibly poorly or you are trying to hide your true feelings. Either way stop acting like a victim for people thinking you saying Israel should leave the Middle East is anti-Semitic.



Again me having a problem with Israel being created on land in which they were a decided minority doesn't make me Anti Semitic. If you believe it does then so be it. If I had a problem with Jewish people I'd say it. I don't and never have. I do have a problem with creating an Israeli state from territory mostly inhabited by someone else.


The Victim angle is the weakest card in the deck. I guess that's the new game in town. I will continue to call people out on their inconsistency and hypocrisy. For those that don't like it tough.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Don Tiny wrote:
Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?



I'm done with it. I've said my peace.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
tommy wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


In the most literal sense, yes. But what might also happen is that she is not allowed to teach again. This meeting was about power--the power of who gets to frame ideas. That's a significant power.

The punishment, even if it was limited to what was recorded, is actually pretty severe. They're trying to humiliate her. They're using every bad rhetorical device they can to confuse her, humiliate her, and intimidate her. What really pisses people off is that they are doing it in the name of justice and sensitivity. She also had little chance to defend herself. How Kafkaesque can you be? I thought universities were supposed to be about enlightenment? This is a trial in a back room, and one with consequences.

Pre-approved course notes and lesson plans . . . . The chances that this will go wrong are pretty damn high.

As we all know, this is a workplace issue, too. Someone does not like you? They're gonna find a way to eviscerate you. Bad fucking faith.

There are professors of courses across universities who always reserve the right to enter the sections their TAs teach without warning and likewise require complete conformity to a given lesson plan even when no single TA has actually screwed up. This is not something unprecedented for a graduate student to have to deal with, even if it wasn't the norm for this course. After all, it's the professor's name which appears on the course listing and they have a responsibility to ensure that the sections are in fact connected to what's being covered in lectures.

I also think it's kind of interesting how this thread contrasts with the Kaepernick one. MANY in that thread defended the owners on legalistic or procedural grounds, suggesting it wasn't really a free speech issue for Kaepernick to be blackballed since the owners were merely exercising their own freedoms in response to Kaepernick. In this thread however it appears we're far more concerned with what's consequentially desirable than what's technically permissible, and a far more robust understanding of free speech appears on the table as well since the mere potential of social or professional sanction is being framed as a violation rather than the mere exercise of free speech for free speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?



I'm done with it. I've said my peace.

Well stop bringing it up later then.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
long time guy wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?



I'm done with it. I've said my peace.

Isn't it "piece"? Like "I've said my piece of this conversation" or "what piece of land are we gonna stuff these Jews into".

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39597
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Can who ever invited ZephMarshack to join the board step up apologize and make him go away?

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 22543
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
pittmike wrote:
Can who ever invited ZephMarshack to join the board step up apologize and make him go away?


Yeah, we need less people who can make their own intelligent points and more people who just cheerlead for others because they can't make their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39597
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
KDdidit wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Can who ever invited ZephMarshack to join the board step up apologize and make him go away?


Yeah, we need less people who can make their own intelligent points and more people who just cheerlead for others because they can't make their own.


You can follow him.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42923
KDdidit wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Can who ever invited ZephMarshack to join the board step up apologize and make him go away?


Yeah, we need less people who can make their own intelligent points and more people who just cheerlead for others because they can't make their own.

Damn, KD throwing haymakers.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
ZephMarshack wrote:
tommy wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


In the most literal sense, yes. But what might also happen is that she is not allowed to teach again. This meeting was about power--the power of who gets to frame ideas. That's a significant power.

The punishment, even if it was limited to what was recorded, is actually pretty severe. They're trying to humiliate her. They're using every bad rhetorical device they can to confuse her, humiliate her, and intimidate her. What really pisses people off is that they are doing it in the name of justice and sensitivity. She also had little chance to defend herself. How Kafkaesque can you be? I thought universities were supposed to be about enlightenment? This is a trial in a back room, and one with consequences.

Pre-approved course notes and lesson plans . . . . The chances that this will go wrong are pretty damn high.

As we all know, this is a workplace issue, too. Someone does not like you? They're gonna find a way to eviscerate you. Bad fucking faith.

There are professors of courses across universities who always reserve the right to enter the sections their TAs teach without warning and likewise require complete conformity to a given lesson plan even when no single TA has actually screwed up. This is not something unprecedented for a graduate student to have to deal with, even if it wasn't the norm for this course. After all, it's the professor's name which appears on the course listing and they have a responsibility to ensure that the sections are in fact connected to what's being covered in lectures.

I also think it's kind of interesting how this thread contrasts with the Kaepernick one. MANY in that thread defended the owners on legalistic or procedural grounds, suggesting it wasn't really a free speech issue for Kaepernick to be blackballed since the owners were merely exercising their own freedoms in response to Kaepernick. In this thread however it appears we're far more concerned with what's consequentially desirable than what's technically permissible, and a far more robust understanding of free speech appears on the table as well since the mere potential of social or professional sanction is being framed as a violation rather than the mere exercise of free speech for free speech.


Hi Zeph--this is on a college campus, though. The issue is not so much free speech (as a general value and a possible law, at least in Canada) as much as how ideology blinds us into thinking that we are right and how that gets in the way of discussion and turns us into bullies. That's clearly what happened here, no? It really, really can't happen on college campuses. The goal is growth (not profit, like the NFL).

Besides, these people were being d-bags--and they got caught. I would not want to be in either of the professor's classes if they are that short-sighted or rhetorical underhanded (which they clearly were).

I think Kaepernick is a different issue. Not sure what you think about that, but I probably think something similar, based on what you are arguing here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?



I'm done with it. I've said my peace.

Well stop bringing it up later then.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
ZephMarshack wrote:
tommy wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:

We do know what the punishment was from the meeting itself though and it certainly did not involve Shepherd being kicked out or losing her funding but having to have lesson plans pre-approved and course notes submitted in advance.


In the most literal sense, yes. But what might also happen is that she is not allowed to teach again. This meeting was about power--the power of who gets to frame ideas. That's a significant power.

The punishment, even if it was limited to what was recorded, is actually pretty severe. They're trying to humiliate her. They're using every bad rhetorical device they can to confuse her, humiliate her, and intimidate her. What really pisses people off is that they are doing it in the name of justice and sensitivity. She also had little chance to defend herself. How Kafkaesque can you be? I thought universities were supposed to be about enlightenment? This is a trial in a back room, and one with consequences.

Pre-approved course notes and lesson plans . . . . The chances that this will go wrong are pretty damn high.

As we all know, this is a workplace issue, too. Someone does not like you? They're gonna find a way to eviscerate you. Bad fucking faith.

There are professors of courses across universities who always reserve the right to enter the sections their TAs teach without warning and likewise require complete conformity to a given lesson plan even when no single TA has actually screwed up. This is not something unprecedented for a graduate student to have to deal with, even if it wasn't the norm for this course. After all, it's the professor's name which appears on the course listing and they have a responsibility to ensure that the sections are in fact connected to what's being covered in lectures.

I also think it's kind of interesting how this thread contrasts with the Kaepernick one. MANY in that thread defended the owners on legalistic or procedural grounds, suggesting it wasn't really a free speech issue for Kaepernick to be blackballed since the owners were merely exercising their own freedoms in response to Kaepernick. In this thread however it appears we're far more concerned with what's consequentially desirable than what's technically permissible, and a far more robust understanding of free speech appears on the table as well since the mere potential of social or professional sanction is being framed as a violation rather than the mere exercise of free speech for free speech.


I don’t think anyone is arguing that the professor doesn’t have the authority to do what he did. They are arguing that the reason he did it is abhorrent in an academic setting.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
KDdidit wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Can who ever invited ZephMarshack to join the board step up apologize and make him go away?


Yeah, we need less people who can make their own intelligent points and more people who just cheerlead for others because they can't make their own.


Swung on and belted.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group