Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

1.No, and I don't suppose you did either?  While they're usually written in plain language, the full 26 pages is meant for lawyers and legal scholars, particularly in a precedent-setting case like this one.  Forstater's tweets (the subject of the case) are an easier chew.

2. Forstater was against being forced to change her definition of woman - or being forced to say the word in a way she disagreed with. 

3. The topic is declared closed and anyone who doesn't just fall in line is automatically considered "hateful" and essentially excommunicato.  

4. That's an incorrectly narrow definition of censorship.  It's far more broad than that.  While I agree that you can be fired for being rude/distasteful, that in itself can be a form of censorship.

5.  If standards were applied more equitably, I'd not be complaining. 

6. Where I do feel our institutions are failing us (on a academic, cultural and political level) is the both the draconian enforcement of the new language "laws" against those who question them , and then the blind pass their critics get when they bully, threaten and shout their opposition into silence.  

7. This is not the same thing at all.  Unlike the black civil rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, transgender activists are redefining the use of words that others were already using to describe themselves.  

8. You can't say you want to see that debate if you're also supporting the behavior that makes it impossible to happen.  

9. It means disciplining and de-platforming the more inflammatory and militant among the activists as well, like professors who make accusations of transphobia when presented with anything but meek acquiescence to conclusions, or who try to censor people like Lindsay Shepherd for basically nothing. 

10. It's one thing to censor a deliberately inflammatory or egregiously ignorant mouthpiece, but what we're seeing today is absurd.  

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 643
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anybody can be racist against any other race, but most people are not racist.  I guess that was what Day was commenting on.  Obviously intolerance goes far beyond mere racism.

I think we have given too many special interest groups a voice, and a stage to be heard, (more on the left side) and now today they are all screaming at the same time, and nobody is really hearing any

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scho

Posted Images

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's wider than that, but still ridiculous.

2. Never heard of that term.

3. Sure.  Maybe another way to look at it, is that the system was not designed for:

- universal suffrage

- pervasive and massive government

- Globalism

- Mass media

More wider than that even. Today even just the symbol of some old white man who was successful and ran things is seen as overt racism.

Speaking of which, your avatar...

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Today even just the symbol of some old white man who was successful and ran things is seen as overt racism.

2. Speaking of which, your avatar...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

No, I'd not exclude you.  You've shown the ability to debate my arguments and opinions, rather than attack me personally and try to get me fired and generally ruin my life. As for "definitive line of reasonability", it's not black and white.  I think we can at least start with people being allowed to voice their opinions without having their lives ruined, and that cancel-culture should be restricted to only the intentionally rude, demeaning and discriminatory (or the obstinately ignorant and inconsiderate).  Folks should have a chance to explain their positions , to be corrected (where warranted), to be educated and to have an opportunity to apologize in good faith rather than have their employers panic and fire them.  

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

What sort of consequences did they face?  None from their employer.  They (and the university) are being sued, and this will be a precedent-establishing case and (hopefully) a warning signal to overzealous academia.  We'll have to wait and see, but I don't expect much.  

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

10.  So do the work of going into the details, and don't rely on inflammatory agents to help us out with the discussion.

They have a point, and I'll argue to support it where I feel it's warranted.  I can agree with Donald Trump on certain issues, though I loathe the man himself and think he's danger to humanity.  

I don't even know where to begin on how we fix things.  I can't speak up myself publicly.  Most people can't.  It's going to require a bold stand from self-reliant (privately wealthy) public figures and probably a good number of martyrs to start making any meaningful change.  Barring that, the alternative is a culture war, as you've said before.  That will likely work itself out eventually, but at what cost?  

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. The answer is to keep your controversial views to yourself, in practical terms.  There's no legal protection for being controversial.

Views which dispute the transgender activists and their view that trans-women should have total equality with real women in all areas of society are NOT controversial among 90% of the population. The problem is that the very loud activists and their supporters in academia and media have settled on a narrative which excludes, ignores and vilifies the opinion of everyone else.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 ?

I already presented a case where two academics are discussing their opposition to the current identity politics narrative (posted on the youtube topic) and then discuss the ramification to their careers they worry about, what has happened to other academics, who ran afoul of the identity brigade.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. No, this is old stuff.  Redefine words for political reasons has been done forever.  What about Ms. ?

Poor choice of example. Ms. was a new word invented to be unspecific about a woman's marital status.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

9.You can easily deplatform Shepherd's accusers, as they were shown to be wrong.

And yet that has not happened.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1.  I think we can at least start with people being allowed to voice their opinions without having their lives ruined, and that cancel-culture should be restricted to only the intentionally rude, demeaning and discriminatory (or the obstinately ignorant and inconsiderate). 

2. Folks should have a chance to explain their positions , to be corrected (where warranted), to be educated and to have an opportunity to apologize in good faith rather than have their employers panic and fire them.  

2. What sort of consequences did they face?  None from their employer.   

3. They have a point, and I'll argue to support it where I feel it's warranted.  I can agree with Donald Trump on certain issues, though I loathe the man himself and think he's danger to humanity.  

4. I don't even know where to begin on how we fix things.  I can't speak up myself publicly.  Most people can't.

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' ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This seems far too liberal to expect a community to follow.  Maybe, though, but... discriminatory and inconsiderate are too broad. 

Why?  

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. They had to publicly apologize.  And as public figures that's significant.

No, that's a symbolic slap on the wrist.  Relatively speaking, it's nothing.  

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

What have I been doing then?  I think I've been pretty clear on how/why I support Argus's original point.  

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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' ...

I disagree.  I think big changes are resisted, and resisted and resisted until resentment and discontent reaches a critical mass.  At that point, all you need is a spark to blow the whole thing up.  Changes then come fast and hard.  George Floyd is an example.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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' ...

A letter signed by 150 prominent people demonstrates how out of control cancel culture and the leftwing mob has gotten.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I disagree.  I think big changes are resisted, and resisted and resisted until resentment and discontent reaches a critical mass.  At that point, all you need is a spark to blow the whole thing up.  Changes then come fast and hard.  George Floyd is an example.  

And what changes has Floyd wrought? Made white liberals feel even more guilty about their skin color? Emboldened the far left? Gotten some crappy local governments to cut the budgets of police departments? Gotten lots and lots of people murdered as police pull back from minority areas? I can't see anything to date which has been positive from the Floyd mess.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. Why?  

2. No, that's a symbolic slap on the wrist.  Relatively speaking, it's nothing.  

3. What have I been doing then?  I think I've been pretty clear on how/why I support Argus's original point.  

4. I disagree.  I think big changes are resisted, and resisted and resisted until resentment and discontent reaches a critical mass.  At that point, all you need is a spark to blow the whole thing up.  Changes then come fast and hard.  George Floyd is an example.  

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 11:16 AM, marcus said:

Our society is always changing. This is how societies have always worked. Most changes that occur, when you look at our history, have been for the good. Things have obviously improved, but the playing field is not equal and there are still people (with different backgrounds) who will still make decisions and comments based on the ethnicity of another person. Unfortunately, in general, minorities in most sectors have a disadvantage, just because they are a minority. 

The Old Stock Canadians are being flushed out. Many are in denial, because they're too busy listening to their own voices or watching their own typing to really listen and understand those who are being effected. 

Saying "Old stock Canadians" is no more appropriate than saying nigger you racist piece of garbage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Saying "Old stock Canadians" is no more appropriate than saying nigger you racist piece of garbage.

People like him say things like "the old stock Canadians are being flushed out" and then are amazed that anyone might object to this. Or that it might cause a backlash and make those 'old stock' Canadians oppose things like immigration.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

People like him say things like "the old stock Canadians are being flushed out" and then are amazed that anyone might object to this. Or that it might cause a backlash and make those 'old stock' Canadians oppose things like immigration.

Exactly.

I come from a long line of people who worked hard and built this country and it's not ok for some mouthy losers to come along and act like they were some kind of troglodytes that we need to be ashamed of. My last name isn't Trudeau.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"My grandpa worked hard so you have to listen to me.  Also he was a slave owner but don't blame me for that!"

:lol:

Come on, old stock Canadians, pick a position... You people...

We the left don't have any more Don Cherry's to fire...

 

Yes, that was sarcastic.

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"My grandpa worked hard so you have to listen to me.  Also he was a slave owner but don't blame me for that!"

:lol:

Come on, old stock Canadians, pick a position... You people...

We the left don't have any more Don Cherry's to fire...

Yes, that was sarcastic.

"You have to listen to me. My whole family has been on welfare for generations"

:lol:

C'mon ya buncha Fascist/Racist Extreme Dolts. Your DNA is as tainted by slave ownership as anyone else's is. 

There are no FREDS to fire, almost none of you have jobs to begin with and we like our coffee made by people with basket-weaving degrees. 

That was sarcastic too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Margaret Wente talks about how she got 'cancelled' from Massey College by the indignant woke mob.

It doesn’t take much to get cancelled these days. Last month, my turn came around. The experience was unpleasant, but also completely ludicrous. And I learned a lot. I learned how easily an institution will cave to a mob. I learned how quickly the authorities will run for cover, notwithstanding the lip service they may pay to principles of free speech.

After all, they’re terrified. They’re afraid that if they don’t beg forgiveness and promise to do better, they’ll be next at the guillotine.

https://quillette.com/2020/07/09/it-wasnt-my-cancelation-that-bothered-me-it-was-the-cowardice-of-those-who-let-it-happen/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

This is kinda funny. When woke and racist is the same thing and agree on everything.

 

 

  • Like 1
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.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...