Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

And that's perfectly fine with this guy who claims to believe in freedom of speech.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 11:15 PM, Michael Hardner said:

6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

**I'm not much of a weekend poster, so my apologies if you've moved on by now. **

The judgement doesn't tell you much other than that they were throwing the book at her.  It gives you very little insight on what she's actually trying to say or what her arguments are.  Read what she actually said and her reasoning behind it, then talk about it.  In case you don't feel like it, her position is very close to Jordan Peterson's initial podcast (which you supported?).  

You're clearly talking about censorship, and from your responses it's equally clear you support it (though you claim otherwise).  Within limits,  I suppose I support it too, but not to the extent we're seeing with this sort of stuff.  It's worth noting, as you said, that her contract wasn't renewed (rather than her being fired), but how is that any different than Jordan Peterson having his research funding denied (which you thought was wrong, IIRC)?  

What we're seeing with examples like this is systematic word-and-thought policing.  Though we're hardly in Orwellian territory at this point, we are watching our ability to disagree with one another curtailed and the standards being applied are very lopsided.   One the one side, folks who are questioning and wanting to debate the language, implications and conclusions of social value issues are being cowed into silence.  The other side of the debate is not only emboldened by the inability of their opponents to speak up, they're also being given what seems to be carte-blanche to loudly and angrily throw their rhetoric wherever they please with little/no consequences. 

This is a feedback loop and it's not just a matter of reddit trolls flinging insults and threats at each other.  It's being reinforced at an institutional level and especially at our universities. 

You keep saying "let's debate", but that's being facile.  Where and how do we debate?  When it's okay for university professors to call me transphobic for saying I don't want to date trans women, what platform do I have?  What platform does a university professor have if he gets de-funded for speaking against the prevailing winds?  How do I share an opinion or criticize exaggerated hyperbole when I can lose my job for it (or "not have my contract renewed")?  

You're criticizing Argus' OP for being too broad and vague, but you're arguing semantics and not really addressing the issue itself.  

Edited by Moonbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pure progressive insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. **I'm not much of a weekend poster, so my apologies if you've moved on by now. **

2. The judgement doesn't tell you much other than that they were throwing the book at her. 

3. ... her position is very close to Jordan Peterson's initial podcast (which you supported?).  

4. You're clearly talking about censorship, and from your responses it's equally clear you support it (though you claim otherwise). 

5. how is that any different than Jordan Peterson having his research funding denied (which you thought was wrong, IIRC)?  

6. ...we are watching our ability to disagree with one another curtailed and the standards being applied are very lopsided.   

7. Where and how do we debate?  When it's okay for university professors to call me transphobic for saying I don't want to date trans women, what platform do I have?  What platform does a university professor have if he gets de-funded for speaking against the prevailing winds?  How do I share an opinion or criticize exaggerated hyperbole when I can lose my job for it (or "not have my contract renewed")?  

8. You're criticizing Argus' OP for being too broad and vague, but you're arguing semantics and not really addressing the issue itself.  

1. No worries.

2. Did you read the full judgment?  It's something like 26 pages u think ?

3. Not at all.  Peterson was against 'forced speech' meaning the government forces you to say a word.  He wasn't denying the womanhood of trans women.  Further to that, he said he might use requested pronouns depending on how it was asked of him.

4. Censorship occurs when the government disallows you from saying something - not counting hate speech.  You can be fired for saying something merely distasteful, and that is not censorship.

5. At the point where the funding was denied he was expressing concerns over forces speech only.

6. I can see why you think that.  At the point where a group is declared as protected from discrimination, the debate starts to close and we move on. In 1965, people who were still expressing support for segregation started experiencing reactions for their views.  This is what we're seeing here.

7. Ok, so for this I am lacking a good answer.  I would say that a good debate includes folks with authority, and a clear purpose to progress a question.  That's off the top of my head.

8. If you have a response to my point #7, maybe we could discover something together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people run the biggest cities in America!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Censorship occurs when the government disallows you from saying something - not counting hate speech.  You can be fired for saying something merely distasteful, and that is not censorship.

The idea that no one can censor you but government flies in the face of common sense when the public sphere is now controlled by a few very large, woke, oligarchs It also flies in the face of common sense. Can only government discriminate? Can only government have systemic racism?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I can see why you think that.  At the point where a group is declared as protected from discrimination, the debate starts to close and we move on. In 1965, people who were still expressing support for segregation started experiencing reactions for their views.  This is what we're seeing here.

And there you have it. All issues of transgenderism are "closed" subjects. The Left has made its decision and it's time to move on. Further discussion is now forbidden. Of course, the fact that the whole issue of trasngenderism is still wide open as far as the public is concerned is apparently irrelevant.

Let me quote a small portion of the public letter Glen Loury wrote in response to his university's chancellor issuing a long, woke manifesto in the wake of the George Floyd death.

"... or more menacingly , it asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they were axiomatic certainties."

Glen Loury was the first black economist given tenure at Harvard. I posted a discussion he had with John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia on the "as seen on youtube" topic the other day. It's interesting that even two eminent black scholars, towards the end of the discussion, talked about the risk to their jobs and careers for going against the woke religion. They both referred to it as that, btw. Yes, they're both black, which helps protect them from the zealots somewhat, but both acknowledged their opposition to the themes of identity politics, intersectionality, white fragility, reparations and the whole idea racism plays a major role in the lives of blacks today, makes them targets for their colleagues. The woke crowd considers the whole notion of black conservatives to be blasphemous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Argus said:

The woke crowd considers the whole notion of black conservatives to be blasphemous.

Just as you consider it impossible to consider there might be progressives who don't give a shit.  This is what you should expect from an ideology that maintains virtually everyone to their left is a communist.

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

These aren't conservatives, they're bandwagon jumpers who never thought about politics before Facebook existed and voice shallow opinions for their own angertainment.

There's now a huge void of thoughtful conservatives that needs to be filled.

Jim Flaherty was Harper's #2 man, and voted for trans rights in the first vote on that issue.  Now THAT is a conservative, someone who cares about rights.

These sputtering globalist-haters are mostly just trolling... There's an 'ignore' feature for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Just as you consider it impossible to consider there might be progressives who don't give a shit.  This is what you should expect from an ideology that maintains virtually everyone to their left is a communist.

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

That kinda sounds like a knee-jerk characterization.  Come up with something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...