Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Sure - and the reasons that liberals are reluctant to pay attention is that conservatives overplay this card and cry wolf on it.

Actually, Liberals, by the classic definition of the term, are no more happy with the runaway idiocy of what cancel culture and the worse of wokeness has become than anybody else is.

But to Progressives, "crying wolf" simply means noticing the stupid things they do.

And if you think Lindsay Shepherd is the most egregious example of deplatforming or cancel culture or any of the other insane things wokesters get up to you really do have your head up your ass in the sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have to teach something.  I guess judgement calls have to be made. American schooling seems to do a lot more patriotic propaganda.  There's value to teaching historical accomplishments but it

I think I'm going to start collecting examples of the lunacy and hysteria of the woke police here. They seem to be growing ever more shrill, ever more fanatical, and seizing on smaller and smaller err

1) I disagree.  I think if he had worried about how it could be interpreted he wouldn't be doing his job.  It's not his job to make excuses for writers.  I think his point about being branded a racist

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Actually, Liberals, by the classic definition of the term, are no more happy with the runaway idiocy of what cancel culture and the worse of wokeness has become than anybody else is.

2.   if you think Lindsay Shepherd is the most egregious example of deplatforming or cancel culture or any of the other insane things wokesters get up to you really do have your head up your ass in the sand.

1. Agreed
2. In Canada.  I'm not following outside of our borders on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know this delightful, little, wokester with the flower in his ear is Canadian?

Kicking a woman you disagree with is apparently how the woke of Toronto can think it's OK to deal out cancel culture.

But did you see the little thumbs up/thumbs down gesture he gave the woman when he asked her his question.

Pretend he's asking you, better or worse than the Lindsay Shepherd incident.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this one?

Remember this one where the elderly couple that wanted to attend the wrong political rally were cancelled off the street by the wokesters of progressive socialism?

Whataya think? More or less egregious than poor Lindsay being "re-educated" by the wokedom of higher learning for speaking the unspeakable name to her college class? 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No - that's the reason it is the most egregious case.  

What I meant is this happens a lot more frequently than we hear about it.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Sure - and the reasons that liberals are reluctant to pay attention is that conservatives overplay this card and cry wolf on it.

Like?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. The 'setting them against each other' part is in your mind

No, it really isn't. When you tell racialized people that they are oppressed by the whites and that they always have been, and that the system is racist towards them how can that not provoke resentment and anger towards white people? And given most white people aren't racist and don't consider themselves to be oppressors how do you imagine that doesn't provoke resentment and backlash?

Lebron James once said how he hated White people because when he was growing up in the inner city he was told white people are racist and hate Blacks. Well, what kind of message do you imagine Blacks are getting today after years of the shrill media basically saying all whites, the police, government agencies, and business all hate Black people?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

People can point things out - but personal reactions like guilt and anger are up to the individual to feel.

So if I call you a child molester any reaction of 'guilt or anger' you feel that's not on me, right? That's just you.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Yes, like academia, government and business.  These traditional institutions appear to be reflecting on things and changing their outlook.

Or rather, that far left Marxist academics have succeeded in changing academia, and indoctrinating young people so that that anti-patriotic, anti-white, anti-Canada outlook has seeped into other institutions.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. This is a hysterical reframing of what they are saying. 

Nope. This is EXACTLY what they're saying. I'm just putting it in blunt language.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 Pretend he's asking you, better or worse than the Lindsay Shepherd incident.

I don't classify individual assaults and bullshit in the same box as academic freedom, nor should you.  You'll fall into the trap of labelling "everything is everything", and doing so subjectively so that any analysis of the problem just becomes a general low-level whine.

 

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

1. What I meant is this happens a lot more frequently than we hear about it.

2. Like?

3. So if I call you a child molester any reaction of 'guilt or anger' you feel that's not on me, right? That's just you.

4. Or rather, that far left Marxist academics have succeeded in changing academia,...

 

1. Oh I see.  Yes, undoubtedly.
2. You don't think that there's too much attention paid to this ?  That every single complaint on FOX and everywhere else is valid ?  Well, I don't.  Here's Tucker Carlson complaining that The Drudge Report is "woke" and leftist.
3. You are moving the bar now,  turning hyperbolic as you eventually do, becoming emotional ... and so this is where I want to exit... where you start taking my acknowledgment of a problem and turning it into a fight because I'm not as hysterical as you generally and because I won't mimic your exactly opinions on how bad things are.  I'm guessing this is all done so that you get to reinforce your binary view of people, and get to label me a radical postmodern Marxist or whatever.  If it makes you feel better, then ok.
4. In his debate, Slavoj Zizek asked Jordan Peterson to name these "Marxists".  There really aren't any, and identity politics is a subgenre of politics that may well turn out to be a fad.

If you missed it, ultra liberal and even leftists put together a letter expressing concern about academic freedom and somesuch.  So this is a mainstream area of interest, or even concern.  But it doesn't mean that every Toronto Sun article about Jessica Yaniv is something any of us should care about.  Far from it - they trade in irritating people who fly off the handle, and see everything as a war.  Sound familiar ?

Just give me the facts of some important cases (not people on the street fighting with each other) and we can look at those.  We should also figure out how to decide if this is a trend or not.

I think that's a good way to think of this. 

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

I don't classify individual assaults and bullshit in the same box as academic freedom, nor should you.  You'll fall into the trap of labelling "everything is everything", and doing so subjectively so that any analysis of the problem just becomes a general low-level whine.

 

I, of course, didn't say what you misquoted, but if you really want to know what I was referring to it was this from you:

Quote

1. No - that's the reason it is the most egregious case. 

So yes, "most egregious" means more than others, or better or worse.

Deplatforming, cancelling, censoring through thuggery, shouting down or corrupting institutional structures to favor the woke is all the same crap. Different piles maybe.

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

2. You don't think that there's too much attention paid to this ?  That every single complaint on FOX and everywhere else is valid ? 

Too much attention by whom? I see very little attention paid to this by most mainstream media. FOX is obviously the exception.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You are moving the bar now,  turning hyperbolic as you eventually do, becoming emotional ... and so this is where I want to exit... where you start taking my acknowledgment of a problem and turning it into a fight because I'm not as hysterical as you generally and because I won't mimic your exactly opinions on how bad things are.  I'm guessing this is all done so that you get to reinforce your binary view of people, and get to label me a radical postmodern Marxist or whatever.  If it makes you feel better, then ok.

Wow. Where did THAT come from? I wasn't trying to fight with you or insult you. I was using an extreme example to point out that your evident belief guilt and anger were only due to the 'reactions' of people, rather than that of those who make false accusations was frankly silly. There's nothing unnatural or wrong about having a strong reaction to false accusations or insults. 

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. In his debate, Slavoj Zizek asked Jordan Peterson to name these "Marxists".  There really aren't any,

Their names are legion. Even if they don't call themselves Marxists. Look at the Brock example, and that cadre of woke extremists gathered in fury over a few tweets. Look at the hundreds of university professors who have signed petitions demanding this or that speaker not be permitted on campuses, or demanding other professors or researchers be punished or fired for wrongthink.

Jordan actually discussed those who have accused him of not understanding how Marxism and post-modernism can't co-exist because they have such radically opposing views. But they can when you allow for the ability of people to argue themselves into what they think of as temporary compromises. I know the man has done a lot of studies on authoritarianism and in particular those of eastern Europe.  Perhaps he should write a book on this subject, tracing out the progression. But even then he's not likely to name names. That would be... not his style. He doesn't seem to really go in for personal attacks on people, or even mention them unless they've attacked him.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is an interesting dialogue on wokism and the danger of totalitarianisms the likes of which western society hasn't really seen or prepared itself for.  The two discuss how we think of totalitarianism as 1984, but we ought to also be watching out for the kind from Brave New World, a well meaning totalitarianism. 

When I first began hearing that emigres from Communist countries see America inching towards totalitarianism, I didn't take it seriously. Totalitarianism was Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the state controlled everyone through the infliction of pain and terror. Whatever our problems in America, we don't have that, or anything close to it.

It turns out that my definition of totalitarianism, formed during my Cold War youth, was too narrow. Orwell gave us one totalitarian model, based on the Soviet reality. Aldous Huxley gave us a rival version in his novel Brave New World. Huxley's totalitarian state controlled the masses not through pain and terror, but by manipulating their pleasure and comfort. The people of Brave New World were happy to surrender their political liberties in exchange for guarantees of sex, drugs, and entertainment. This "pink police state" is the form of totalitarianism coming to the United States.

https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/07d855107abf428c97583312e1e738fe/1

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 1:37 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't classify individual assaults and bullshit in the same box as academic freedom, nor should you. 

Handy for you but not so good for people being censored, doxxed, Swatted, physically attacked, deplatformed and or just in general cancelled. 

Stick around though. Your guys' day is coming. The Marxist lunatic fringe of the phenomena aren't fussy. Just publicly say the wrong thing. Wrong as in something one of them has decided they don't like this week. They don't like Liberals btw.

You wanted Canadian examples? Did you hear about the guy who was beaten, robbed and had his arm broken by a mob of 7 Marxist thugs who didn't like his sign that said, "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers." It was on St. Catherines Street in Montreal.

Now you can tell somebody to shut up the way they told that guy or you can tell somebody to shut up the way the fascist arm of Wilfrid Laurier University told it to Lindsay Shepherd. Doesn't matter. It's the same thing only different. "Shut up or else."

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

The baying hounds of the woke mob have brought down another liberal. This time the newly appointed editor of Teen Vogue. Apparently she made some 'insensitive' tweets back when she was 17 about Asians. And as we all know, remarks interpreted as racist can never be either forgotten nor forgiven. No matter how many apologies you make, how long ago they occurred, or how young you were.

As a teenager she tweeted such 'shocking things as “Give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don’t explain what I did wrong..thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. (teaching assistant) you’re great.”

And

“Now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/18/teen-vogue-editor-in-chief-alexi-mccammond-resigns-over-old-tweet-firestorm.html

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

Another example of how woke culture practices racism in the form of hierarchical rights. You can't criticize minorities if you're white. Doing so instantly draws accusations of racism.

Barbara Kay: In the progressive era, even literary critics aren't safe

Literary icon John Metcalf left his post at Humber College after being unfairly attacked for criticizing the writing of someone who happens to be of Indian descent

For 20 years, Metcalf has been on contract with Humber College in Toronto as a mentor in its School for Writers. In mid-December, he received a formal letter from Guillermo Acosta, senior dean of Humber’s faculty of media and creative arts, which informed him that one of the three students he was mentoring (“from an equity-seeking group,” according to Humber’s communications director, Andrew Leopold) had complained to the dean regarding remarks Metcalf made about the writing of Giller-winning Canadian novelist M. G. Vassanji, who is of Indian descent, in a 2009 interview with writer and bibliophile Nigel Beale.

Acosta wrote: “Your opinions in this interview can be interpreted as race-based discrimination … I find your remarks on Mr. Vassanji’s writing problematic given your position.”

Barbara Kay: In the progressive era, even literary critics aren't safe | National Post

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

I read the article.  Basically this: guy says "This writer can't even speak English" (to paraphrase) A student asks the university to say something.  They say "you know... you should think about what you say because it could be construed as racist".  He quits.

Yawn.

There were 3 professors fired at Texas A&M for criticizing the adminstration's management of Covid.  That should be bigger news than this.

Also this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/porn-utah-pornography-ban-phones-b1821748.html


This is an entire STATE banning pornography, which is protected speech.   And there are states that are considering banning the teaching of racism in schools. 

You keep framing this current situation as being about 'woke' culture, but it's about intolerance to other opinions, illiberalism and a general feeling that others shouldn't express themselves.  People are afraid of ideas that they don't share. They BAN plays like The Vagina Monologues,  they suppress the discussion of ideas.  That's illiberalism.


Call it illiberalism and you will have a better handle on the problem. 

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

I read the article.  Basically this: guy says "This writer can't even speak English" (to paraphrase) A student asks the university to say something.  They say "you know... you should think about what you say because it could be construed as racist".  He quits.

Yawn.

There were 3 professors fired at Texas A&M for criticizing the adminstration's management of Covid.  That should be bigger news than this.

Also this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/porn-utah-pornography-ban-phones-b1821748.html


This is an entire STATE banning pornography, which is protected speech.   And there are states that are considering banning the teaching of racism in schools. 

You keep framing this current situation as being about 'woke' culture, but it's about intolerance to other opinions, illiberalism and a general feeling that others shouldn't express themselves.  People are afraid of ideas that they don't share. They BAN plays like The Vagina Monologues,  they suppress the discussion of ideas.  That's illiberalism.


Call it illiberalism and you will have a better handle on the problem. 

He said he cannot write English. That would be the function of a critic.  To tell those who are interested his opinion of another writer's work.  It triggered a student, of all people, who triggered a coward in the Dean's office who told him to change his way of working to accommodate the race of those he was criticizing, such that his criticism was less critical.

I think this is reprehensible.  And cowardly.  I think  banning plays like The Vagina Monologues and suppressing the discussion of ideas is reprehensible too.  It doesn't have the same cowardice though, because they actually believe it's a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. He said he cannot write English. That would be the function of a critic.  To tell those who are interested his opinion of another writer's work.  It triggered a student, of all people, who triggered a coward in the Dean's office who told him to change his way of working to accommodate the race of those he was criticizing, such that his criticism was less critical.

2. I think this is reprehensible.  And cowardly.  I think  banning plays like The Vagina Monologues and suppressing the discussion of ideas is reprehensible too.  It doesn't have the same cowardice though, because they actually believe it's a good idea.

1.  Sure but it's pretty easy to see how that could be interpreted.  They didn't tell him to change anything, they told him to think about it.

2. It's minor compared to the other stuff.  It's only in the news because it's about "woke" culture not illiberalism.  It's not about governments banning material they don't agree with, or telling people what to think.

The culture is sick, but it's about selfishness and intolerance to other opinions in general.  It's a culture "war", ie. two sides.  

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

1.  Sure but it's pretty easy to see how that could be interpreted.  They didn't tell him to change anything, they told him to think about it.

2. It's minor compared to the other stuff.  It's only in the news because it's about "woke" culture not illiberalism.  It's not about governments banning material they don't agree with, or telling people what to think.

The culture is sick, but it's about selfishness and intolerance to other opinions in general.  It's a culture "war", ie. two sides.  

1) I disagree.  I think if he had worried about how it could be interpreted he wouldn't be doing his job.  It's not his job to make excuses for writers.  I think his point about being branded a racist is a valid one.

2) It's minor to us, but he's out of a job.  It's also absolutely rampant.  Why should a combination of narrow-minded petulance and administrative cowardice force good people to lose their jobs? (or grants or awards or speaking engagements etc.)

I'm pro freedom of speech, so I advocate tolerance for all opinions.  It's not the same as liking them or agreeing with them, and tolerance does not preclude arguing against them or opposing them.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) It's minor to us, but he's out of a job. 
2)It's also absolutely rampant. 
3) Why should a combination of narrow-minded petulance and administrative cowardice force good people to lose their jobs? (or grants or awards or speaking engagements etc.)

4) I'm pro freedom of speech, so I advocate tolerance for all opinions.  It's not the same as liking them or agreeing with them, and tolerance does not preclude arguing against them or opposing them.

1) He resigned
2) I have been following it pretty closely and it's pretty difficult to quantify how rampant it is actually.  I listened to a podcast wherein some libertarian agreed on a metric or two to follow it and there are  high and low points.  That's not reflected by the hysterical and uneven coverage of the issue.
3) Yes, that's a concern.  Framing it in terms of dry and objective principles is a good way to push the hysteria to the margins.
4) I will ask you then - what limits would you put on said freedom in the case of a teacher ? 

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

1) He resigned
2) I have been following it pretty closely and it's pretty difficult to quantify how rampant it is actually.  I listened to a podcast wherein some libertarian agreed on a metric or two to follow it and there are  high and low points.  That's not reflected by the hysterical and uneven coverage of the issue.
3) Yes, that's a concern.  Framing it in terms of dry and objective principles is a good way to push the hysteria to the margins.
4) I will ask you then - what limits would you put on said freedom in the case of a teacher ? 

1) He gave his reasons for resigning.  As I said, I think they are valid.  Given the current climate, there was no way this was going to get better for him.  Resigning might have stopped it getting worse.

2) I don't follow it, so much as note it when I see it happening.  I have the Cross of St. George as my screen on my phone.  I'm English, after all.  I've been told by someone near to me it could be "problematic" in certain quarters.

3) Okay

4) It would depend on what they are teaching.  Certainly freedom of speech does not extend to lying to students.  See Jim Keegstra.  More than entitled to hold those opinions, but not to teach them to students.  That said, I fully support the Batley, England, teacher currently searching for a cast iron neck brace.  My first job was in Batley.

Edit>  I should add, I'm not denying the rights of anyone involved in these cases.  Everyone involved in the case in question had the right to make the statements/comments/complaints they made.  It's an argument about whether or not it's right, not a right.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) He gave his reasons for resigning.  As I said, I think they are valid.  Given the current climate, there was no way this was going to get better for him.  Resigning might have stopped it getting worse.

2) Certainly freedom of speech does not extend to lying to students. 

Edit>  I should add, I'm not denying the rights of anyone involved in these cases.  Everyone involved in the case in question had the right to make the statements/comments/complaints they made.  It's an argument about whether or not it's right, not a right.

1)  You would have to drill down on this, but personally I think there are bigger fish to fry.
2)  It's hard to legislate against lying.  Even 'Hate Speech' which is pretty well-defined gets beat up when you try to ask what it really is.  

I'm not playing games here, but there are some games involved in playing devil's advocate, hence the term 'playing'.  What I'm getting at is if you can express something as a 'principle' it helps the objective execution of policy supporting that principle.  Certainly 'No Lying' is easy to administer as far as I see but it wouldn't go far enough for people on the left or the right.  So then the instinct is "let's give up the idea of a principle and go back to good old fashioned sense" which means let the culture decide, which means you will get the status quo.

I think illiberalism is a problem and although it's not at a level of 'culture war' as far as I'm concerned, it could still lead to a decline in the ability for us to move forward, and a distraction.   And our political process is already perceived as blocked, so a distraction doesn't help that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be liberal leader says Canada is not a racist country. NDP minister immediately calls him a racist. Interestingly, the minister, who is Chinese, said made some comments about Indo-Canadians a few years back, and simply apologized, but wasn't cancelled by the oh-so-woke NDP.

Conservative commentator Aaron Gunn is being called a racist for alleging Canada is not a systemically racist country. The outright accusation of racism comes from BC NDP Childcare Minister Katrina Chen and was in response to Aaron Gunn's tweet on Monday.

 

BC NDP Minister calls Aaron Gunn 'racist' for saying Canada isn't a racist country | The Post Millennial

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

1)  You would have to drill down on this, but personally I think there are bigger fish to fry.
2)  It's hard to legislate against lying.  Even 'Hate Speech' which is pretty well-defined gets beat up when you try to ask what it really is.  

I'm not playing games here, but there are some games involved in playing devil's advocate, hence the term 'playing'.  What I'm getting at is if you can express something as a 'principle' it helps the objective execution of policy supporting that principle.  Certainly 'No Lying' is easy to administer as far as I see but it wouldn't go far enough for people on the left or the right.  So then the instinct is "let's give up the idea of a principle and go back to good old fashioned sense" which means let the culture decide, which means you will get the status quo.

I think illiberalism is a problem and although it's not at a level of 'culture war' as far as I'm concerned, it could still lead to a decline in the ability for us to move forward, and a distraction.   And our political process is already perceived as blocked, so a distraction doesn't help that.

1) There are always bigger fish.  If we only ever discussed the big fish the place would be empty.

2) Lying is fine.  Teaching kids lies when you are paid to teach them the truth isn't.  I don't personally believe there should be laws against hate speech, but I'm in a minority. (given that, I don't want to read anything bad about me...)

Illiberalism is just irritating.  (To those not directly affected)  It's annoying seeing people decide that others have to toe their line, and it's even more annoying seeing those in charge agree with them.  Eventually it gets to the culture war stage, and as we are seeing in the UK right now, the political process is not just blocked.  It's moving backwards.

 

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

 

1) Lying is fine.  Teaching kids lies when you are paid to teach them the truth isn't. 

2) Illiberalism is just irritating.  (To those not directly affected)  It's annoying seeing people decide that others have to toe their line, and it's even more annoying seeing those in charge agree with them.  Eventually it gets to the culture war stage, and as we are seeing in the UK right now, the political process is not just blocked.  It's moving backwards.

 

1) as I alluded to, the left and right will insist on being able to teach... their truth if you frame it that way: the labour theory of value, or evolution.

2) Ok, sounds like we agree fundamentally.

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

1) as I alluded to, the left and right will insist on being able to teach... their truth if you frame it that way: the labour theory of value, or evolution.

Truth can be verified.  Teachers, at least in the public system, should teach knowledge/facts, and are not paid to moralize our children.  Teaching morals/values should be up to the parents.  Kids can discuss politics and issues in class but the teacher is the moderator, not the preacher and indoctrinator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1) Truth can be verified.  Teachers, at least in the public system, should teach knowledge/facts, and are not paid to moralize our children. 

2) Teaching morals/values should be up to the parents. 

3) Kids can discuss politics and issues in class but the teacher is the moderator, not the preacher and indoctrinator.

1) I doubt that your position would survive the politics.  Civics, politeness, patriotism are all forms of morality and morality colours the arts, history and politics too.  It's impossible to write a perfect definition of virtue.  I think that an open Socratic discussion on the topic of wokeness might be the best way.

2) Agreed.

3) Sorry but you won't be able to steer clear of the entire topic of right and wrong.  You can't teach slavery by saying that's how things were back then.  Lots of examples.

 

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.




  • Tell a friend

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