Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Michael Hardner

Spam Cop
  • Content Count

    31,903
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1. I'm not sure my opinions are unconventional, unless you think that the liberal tradition has already disappeared. And, I do believe that there are millions in Canada whose politics are close to mine. 2. Now ? From your meaning, I think that you are saying 'STILL the silent majority'. 3. 4. 5. At first I disagreed with your entire premise, but then I reread it as referring to public figures and I agree. ... The woke crowd and the anti-woke crowd seem to be saying that this is about: cancel culture. I don't think that it is, exactly. That's part of it, but few of the people here (signatories to the letter) produce cancellable product. The woke crowd doesn't want to come to terms with the idea that wise minds comprise an actual PUBLIC that disagrees with the direction we are taking... and that they're warning us IN the public interest. The anti-woke crowd think that their freedoms are somehow threatened. Neither crowd is exactly right. What has happened is the last vestiges of a true PUBLIC has emerged from the sarcophagus, undead, to remind us that everything has changed. We are once again both responsible for what WE say, as well as responsible for allowing our opponents to speak. The public has been reborn. Like the teenager who babysits their sibling for the first time, it's nerve-wracking.
  2. Ie. The tacit dismissal from the woke class of the importance of liberalism.
  3. I wouldn't mind if this thread had some new perspectives on the degeneration of the centre. For my part, I am somewhat alarmed by the warning raised by this collective of great minds but even more concerned with the response.
  4. That's where I got the idea that you think others are racist but not you. See ? Cites explain things...
  5. The assertion that left-wing ideology is creeping into every sector is hyperbolic. A long post wherein you assert that you are free of racism, implying that I am am projecting racism, provide no cites and ASK that we don't add cites... is just not a serious post. But I am concerned with academic freedom, and have started a thread on that.
  6. 1. I never said comedy was my day job. 2. 10 months ago is a long time. 3. Discussion on this topic requires precision and seriousness, or it won't work. 4. If you are paying attention, I am well aware of this statement by lead liberals, and in fact have started a whole thread supporting it.
  7. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ There is a recent assessment of temperature models posted by NASA Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
  8. 1. He doesn't even live in Canada now. I doubt he would say anything about our politics. 2. Also not a factor. Sorry that you don't post anymore.
  9. Ha. Fantastically witless. Do you have anything to offer other than taking offense to Tweets?
  10. 1. I'm really trying to understand what you refer to. People are losing their jobs over statements, though. Like Tweets. I would think that's bad enough? You may be thinking about #metoo which isn't this. 2. It's not about being offended, it's about not conforming. In the past, people lost jobs for being Communist, making unpatriotic statements, being atheist, gay or what have you. Now it's for not wearing a mask, denying 'systemic' racism, or going viral as a new media a-hole. 3. They destroyed the centre, so there's nobody left to talk about a 'reasonable' line. When Trudeau, who 'bravely' legalized gay marriage when it had 51% support is derided as a social justice warrior and Stephen Harper is declared a fascist... The middle ground starts to look like a moonscape.
  11. Those aren't conservatives, they are trolls. They finally got their own gloriously pure party last election, the hilariously named People's Party of Canada. So, that's solved now. Please continue to help us find the centre. That's where politics happens most of the time.
  12. 1. Let's say someone says that there's a world wide Jewish conspiracy. Do you expect them to be hired as a client relationship manager in a big city? What about if they say trans women aren't women ? You get in the weeds if you try to over-legislate morality. 2. That's as good as you are going to get, really. And if you understand how reputation works in academia, it's likely enough. 3. Sorry, I lost the point but at no point do I think about Argus with these posts. 4. Sort of. Maybe both top down and bottom up are two varieties of power to consider here. The civil rights act had a huge effect but small changes in attitude allowed that to happen. If you aren't familiar, I also recommend looking up the Free Silver controversy in the United States.
  13. They are liars. Because they are supported by fake personas ( not even talking about anonymous posters ) their dead and disproven ideas need to be destroyed with prejudice.
  14. I don't see the value in these fake posters. Facebook loves them, but they are clearly a cancer on society. Plus the ones that come here are have stupid points to make.
  15. 1. This seems far too liberal to expect a community to follow. Maybe, though, but... discriminatory and inconsiderate are too broad. 2. They had to publicly apologize. And as public figures that's significant. 3. Then YOU have to curate then, and come to the table with the good points. Obviously, The Rebel has good points to make or nobody would follow them. But those have to be extracted like healthy organs from a timorous corpse. 4. An insight I have learned is that big changes happen slowly, glacially. Whatever little gestures support hysterical viewpoints, don't do them. Even 'likes' ...
  16. By the way, the mob is attacking the signatories to the Harper letter. Some of it is ageist, some of it is guilt by association, ie. you signed the same statement as JK ROWLING... I think that traditional conservatives can help centrist thinking by telling us how we should express disgust with people we find to be inhumane maybe. How do you express disgust with a Castro or a Chavez?
  17. 1. Yes, but the public sphere is explicitly mentioned, as you point out. Also, there's a lot less that you can do about boycotts. 2. Some of that is the moral sphere, ie. that part of mob mentality we have to live with. 3. That's why I identify as conservative now. The newbies who call everyone Marxists, and hate global trade think that they are conservative but they are not.
  18. 1. "Is seen" ... By whom? Part of having a serious discussion is talking about audiences and stakeholders. And definition of the public comprises both of these elements. For example, I would include tenured academics, the National Post, the NDP, an elected student leader or activist associated with a known group. Writers are a bit dicier. I wouldn't include professional trolls like Jessica Yaniv, or Gavin MacInnes. 2. I don't photograph well.
  19. I agree with you. As the letter says, the response to extremism to isn't more of the same.
  20. A lot of people are taking the letter as a warning against general criticism and moralizing, but I think that it was more specifically about public intellectual forums.
  21. Exactly what I am talking about. Aren't you trying to Stoke fear with this warning of a conspiracy? Look at the issues one by one and reject alarmism. That's what I am doing. You are right that there's a movements to inflame. Don't be part of it.
  22. 1. I read most of it. It's pretty plainly written and pretty clear, as I remember anyway, that there were many examples of this person making their views very clear and very loud. Is that ok ? For sure. Do people get to be outspoken and not get fired ? No. Lots of examples of this not working out for the free expressor. 2. The answer is to keep your controversial views to yourself, in practical terms. There's no legal protection for being controversial. 3. 4. 5. You are looking for legal protection for correct behaviour. I see why, but there's also no law saying that you have to fire a virulent racist, either. 6. Enforcement of language laws against those who question them is oddly specific. It's also hard to find an example of someone who questions these laws but hasn't themselves broken them. Do you have one ? 7. No, this is old stuff. Redefine words for political reasons has been done forever. What about Ms. ? 8. So you want to exclude ME from the debate? The devil is in the details, and no two people will agree on what is reasonable. That said, there needs to be a definitive line of reasonability. 9.You can easily deplatform Shepherd's accusers, as they were shown to be wrong. Aside from that, you have a tough task to forge a public that would be able to assess the questions before it. 10. So do the work of going into the details, and don't rely on inflammatory agents to help us out with the discussion. I think that the Harper's thread I started is a natural next station in the discussion.
  23. Well, the liberal elites at Harper's have issued a letter, and that's a good continuing point for the discussion. Let me be clear that I have acknowledged the groupthink issue, but I won't subscribe to extremism in the face of extremism. This is a critical discussion, so seriousness and responsible statements are a requirement.
×
×
  • Create New...