Leave it to Long Time Guy to make a terrible thread even worse.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

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.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

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).

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.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

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

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.

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.

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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Where can one hire the Palestinians to bomb this thread?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

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.

Well stop bringing it up later then.

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'm a big dumb shitlib baby

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.

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.