Scientist protest song....its a hit!

[ReeferMadness]

Back then? First, the media would have cared since anonymous writings on a little known web site would not have drawn any attention. On the other hand, if some of the things I said about my department came to the notice of my director who was a miserable, incompetent A-hole who spent most of his time trying not to ever make a decision he could be blamed for - well, he would have been very unhappy. And if my department's ethics rules are anything like others, they're completely open to the interpretation of the department, who get to decide if their interpretation was the right one or not.

I don't expect you to get this but there is a material difference between talking about your job and general political commentary. If this scientist was complaining about his department, how he was managed, how they studied birds, that would be different.

But he is entitled to critique his government for government policies, regardless of whether he works for the government. If he was a senior official or political appointee, that would be different. But he's a scientist studying migratory birds. His job has nothing to do with his protest.

Now can you get it? No?

[ReeferMadness]

Not the same at all if you listen to the actual scientists.

Why would they?

The Harper echo chamber listens to nothing but the words of their one true savior.

[Evening Star]

I don't expect you to get this but there is a material difference between talking about your job and general political commentary. If this scientist was complaining about his department, how he was managed, how they studied birds, that would be different.

But he is entitled to critique his government for government policies, regardless of whether he works for the government. If he was a senior official or political appointee, that would be different. But he's a scientist studying migratory birds. His job has nothing to do with his protest.

Now can you get it? No?

Tbf, it's not COMPLETELY unrelated. He does critique government science policy in a broad sense in the song.

[The_Squid]

Whether the singer is right or wrong about Harper is irrelevent. He shouldn't be fired for simply expressing an opinion.

He was not acting as a public servant... he was not at work... he has a right to political opinions.

[ReeferMadness]

Tbf, it's not COMPLETELY unrelated. He does critique government science policy in a broad sense in the song.

In a very broad sense. And he is critiquing government policy, not his department's policies or practices.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's exactly what you said:

Those are different claims.

This story is being picked up internationally because it's a common bureaucrat who's been suspended for expressing his political opinion in his own personal time without any reference to his job. This looks exactly like political persecution, plain and simple.

How do you not see how similar this is to the microaggression issue? What mental gymnastics do you do in your head to convince yourself your positions are consistent?

[Evening Star]

Those are different claims.

This was your claim:

But if a professor in certain universities expresses online that they think the most qualified individual should get the job, that would be a 'microaggression' and they would face 'disciplinary action'.

Can you support this claim by giving an example of a professor who has faced disciplinary action for doing this or even an example of a university that has this policy on the books? I am not going to dig through other threads to find it. Can you provide a cite here?

[ReeferMadness]

Whether the singer is right or wrong about Harper is irrelevent. He shouldn't be fired for simply expressing an opinion.

He was not acting as a public servant... he was not at work... he has a right to political opinions.

Not according to the Harper echo chamber. Harper is the CEO. His power should be unlimited. Why aren't you genuflecting?

[-1=e^ipi]

This was your claim:

Can you support this claim by giving an example of a professor who has faced disciplinary action for doing this or even an example of a university that has this policy on the books? I am not going to dig through other threads to find it. Can you provide a cite here?

I claim that if a professor does X, Y will happen.

You ask me to support this claim by showing there are professors that have had Y happen to then.

But that's conditional on professors doing X.

Which they are too scared to do because they know Y will happen to them if they do X.

Edited August 29, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Evening Star]

I claim that if a professor does X, Y will happen.

You ask me to support this claim by showing there are professors that have had Y happen to then.

But that's conditional on professors doing X.

Which they are too scared to do because they know Y will happen to them if they do X.

Can you support this claim by giving an example of a professor who has faced disciplinary action for doing this or even an example of a university that has this policy on the books?

[Evening Star]

Also this:

I am not going to dig through other threads to find it. Can you provide a cite here?

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Evening Star - I did in the microaggression thread. For example, Berkley. Go to the microaggression thread if you want to go through the examples I have given.

[Evening Star]

I didn't read the other thread, and you didn't give a cite here, but I just read two articles on UC Berkeley's microaggressions guidelines:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-university-of-california-s-insane-speech-police.html

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-microaggression-what-not-to-say-at-uc-20150624-story.html

and looked at the guidelines themselves:

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf

While I don't agree with some of what is there, even articles that are critical of the guidelines make clear that these are requests, not policies backed up with the potential for disciplinary action. The guidelines were supplemental material provided at non-mandatory workshops for deans and department heads. So, yes, it does seem like a different situation.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Evening Star

[Bonam]

I claim that if a professor does X, Y will happen.

You ask me to support this claim by showing there are professors that have had Y happen to then.

But that's conditional on professors doing X.

Which they are too scared to do because they know Y will happen to them if they do X.

I think this article talks nicely about the fear that some professors now face in regards to discussing any issue that anyone might consider "sensitive":

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

I think some of the most salient points made there are the growing focus on identity politics and emotional well-being to the detriment of a focus on objectively verifiable information, rational discussion, and the merit of the ideas being discussed.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bonam

[Evening Star]

I think this article talks nicely about the fear that some professors now face in regards to discussing any issue that anyone might consider "sensitive":

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

I think some of the most salient points made there are the growing focus on identity politics and emotional well-being to the detriment of a focus on objectively verifiable information, rational discussion, and the merit of the ideas being discussed.

That article was already linked here, and I responded in post #22, explaining why I think the article contains very little to no objectively verifiable information or rational discussion.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Evening Star

[-1=e^ipi]

@ EveningStar - I don't want to completely derail this thread over microaggressions. Maybe just partially to point out the hypocrisy of certain members such as Cybercoma. Why not just go to the other thread and read it? It's not a very old thread. Many universities are mentioned: Berkley, McGill, University of Wisconsin, University of New Hampshire, Rutgers University, etc.

[Smallc]

This, in a nutshell, is how right wingers see the Prime Minister. He's like a CEO.

Not only is he like one, he is one. That's his exact position in government.

[Evening Star]

@ EveningStar - I don't want to completely derail this thread over microaggressions.

That's fair.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not only is he like one, he is one. That's his exact position in government.

No he's not. The government is not a private company, therefore the PM is not a ceo.

[ReeferMadness]

Not only is he like one, he is one. That's his exact position in government.

And CEO's are dictators. Democracy is irrelevant.

[Smallc]

No he's not. The government is not a private company, therefore the PM is not a ceo.

He occupies the exact same position in the structure. Cybercoma explained it very well recently.

[scribblet]

If you badmouth your boss on social media or anywhere, don’t expect to be employed by them.

[On Guard for Thee]

He occupies the exact same position in the structure. Cybercoma explained it very well recently.

Oh there are similarities for sure, but the legal situation is quite different.

[Smallc]

Oh there are similarities for sure, but the legal situation is quite different.

Explain the difference.

[On Guard for Thee]

Explain the difference.

As has been pointed out here already on this thread, if you work for the gov. of Canada, you don't work for the PM.