Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

Why would not specifying gender on a document wreck a child's life?   

A few years ago I watched a documentary that claimed babies differentiate between male and female from before they can talk, and they can make this determination by watching a baby of the same age walk away from them.   Even if the kid's gender isn't on his/her government documents, the people in his/her life will no doubt have a pretty good notion of whether it's a boy or a girl.   

Also, did you know that people are treated differently depending on what sex they are perceived to be, with women generally considered less credible than men?   There have been countless studies on this so I imagine you are aware.   Perhaps removing gender from documents and forms would progress us all toward more equality, at least until someone is met face-to-face.  

That's why I said potentially.  The kid has one set of bits or the other.  Knowing they weren't enough to swing Mom might result in some body image issues.  And what if her little friends find out he's an "It"? 

It's an ego trip by Mom (or Dad?) in my opinion.  It doesn't have to be right. (my opinion, that is)

[GostHacked]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why would not specifying gender on a document wreck a child's life?  

Anything medical related, like hospital visits and some treatments that are different between male and female. The doctor treating the child is going to physically check the child and then make the proper analysis/diagnosis, because the doctor would treat it from a male or female perspective regardless of the parents decision to call the child genderless. Genderless is not sexless.  The sex is male, or female and in some rare cases both or none. That is a biological and physical trait. Gender is this other stupid 'construct' people put themselves into if they don't feel like they belong to a certain group.

We are confusing the lines between SEX not gender. Being gay/bi is a sexual orientation not a gender classification.

Also how can you be 'non binary' and 'trans' as the same time?  Non-binary means they don't identify as a male or femail, HOWEVER they use the term trans, meaning transitioning from one to the other. You cannot be non-binary while being trans, those two terms are conflicting with each other.

[eyeball]

On 7/5/2017 at 5:06 PM, GostHacked said:

Well that's gonna screw that kid for the rest of ...  it's life.  I am surprised they are even classifying the child as human. Why not let it figure that out too?

 

I also have to add the part where one parent is 'non-binary trans'.  Can someone explain how that works?

I don't know how a non-binary trans works but its offspring appears to be in a no-trans bind.

[Hal 9000]

On 7/5/2017 at 6:57 PM, dialamah said:

Why would not specifying gender on a document wreck a child's life?   

A few years ago I watched a documentary that claimed babies differentiate between male and female from before they can talk, and they can make this determination by watching a baby of the same age walk away from them.   There is no doubt that people are going to recognize this child as male/female even if the kid's gender isn't on his/her government documents.

Also, did you know that people are treated differently depending on what sex they are perceived to be, with women generally considered less credible than men?   There have been countless studies on this so I imagine you are aware.   Perhaps removing gender from documents and forms would progress us all toward more equality, at least until someone is met face-to-face.  

Are there any men out there who can verify this!

[SpankyMcFarland]

Universities are still centres of rigorous academic excellence and the heart of professional training. The PC pendulum will swing back. 

[Boges]

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/wilfrid-laurier-universitys-president-apologizes-to-lindsay-shepherd-for-dressing-down-over-jordan-peterson-clip

Quote

 

The meeting was called after Shepherd aired part of a 2016 debate on gender-neutral pronouns that had aired on Ontario’s public broadcaster, TVO. The debate included Peterson, who’s become famous for his opposition to being required to use such pronouns, describing them as an expression of a radical left-wing ideology.

Shepherd secretly recorded the meeting, which was organized by Rambukkana and also involved associate professor Herbert Pimlott and Adria Joel, the university’s manager of gendered violence prevention and support. She was told she had created a “toxic climate” in the class, and it wassuggested that she had broken Canadian law.

Both Rambukkana and Pimlott compared airing the clips to exposing the students to Nazi propaganda.

In the letter, Rambukkana acknowledges he mishandled the meeting, and said his main concern was “finding out why a lesson on writing skills had become a political discussion, and making sure harm didn’t befall students.”

He said he failed to provide her the support she deserved in such a meeting with faculty members. “I should have seen how meeting with a panel of three people would be an intimidating situation and not invite a productive discussion,” he said.

 

Only in a University could showing an opposing view be compared to Nazi Propaganda. She wasn't even advocating for gender neutral pronouns or not, she was just showing both sides of the argument and she gets punished for it. These professors should be ashamed of themselves. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/wilfrid-laurier-universitys-president-apologizes-to-lindsay-shepherd-for-dressing-down-over-jordan-peterson-clip

Only in a University could showing an opposing view be compared to Nazi Propaganda. She wasn't even advocating for gender neutral pronouns or not, she was just showing both sides of the argument and she gets punished for it. These professors should be ashamed of themselves. 

There is so much misinformation on this that I have to wonder if the prof himself was misinformed.  The Rebel has aligned himself with the UofT prof, and is reported to provide anti-semitic material behind their paywall.  Perhaps the prof thought that the UofT prof was a Nazi ?

 

My understanding is the UofT prof does not misgender his students either so I think that's important.

[Boges]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is so much misinformation on this that I have to wonder if the prof himself was misinformed.  The Rebel has aligned himself with the UofT prof, and is reported to provide anti-semitic material behind their paywall.  Perhaps the prof thought that the UofT prof was a Nazi ?

My understanding is the UofT prof does not misgender his students either so I think that's important.

The prof didn't claim that he was a Nazi. He just compared showing a video of someone disagreeing with gender neutral pronouns with showing Nazi propaganda. 

The irony of all this "safe space" crap is the that two men chastising a 22-year-old woman for her teaching methods is certainly not providing a safe space. And the only reason Laurier apologized was because Shepherd taped the interaction. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Boges

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

The prof didn't claim that he was a Nazi. He just compared showing a video of someone disagreeing with gender neutral pronouns with showing Nazi propaganda. 

I think he also suggested Peterson was an alt-right type and aligned his beliefs with white supremacy for some odd damned reason. As soon as the recording emerged he immediately backtracked and said he respected Peterson,  by which I assume some lawyer informed him about our slander laws.

4 hours ago, Boges said:

The irony of all this "safe space" crap is the that two men chastising a 22-year-old woman for her teaching methods is certainly not providing a safe space. And the only reason Laurier apologized was because Shepherd taped the interaction. 

Yeah I thought that too. Don't universities have policies against bullying? Three authority figures browbeating a 22 year old girl and making spurious allegations and threats should certainly be considered bullying.

[Jariax]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

And the only reason Laurier apologized was because Shepherd taped the interaction. 

No. The only reason Laurier apologized was because she taped the interaction, showed it to the press, and Laurier was bombarded by former students cancelling their annual donations. She told them she had the recording, and nobody gave a shit before. This is not the case of a couple rogue professors.

This is the climate being intentionally created at Laurier, and I highly doubt they are alone on this. The mantra seems to be 'we support free speech' as long as that free speech isn't counter to our ideals. 

Also, they seem to be dwelling more on the fact that the professor made an exaggerated comparison to Hitler's speech, than the fact that they accused this young woman of a hate crime, and causing violence against trans students by showing a TVO video. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Jariax

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Boges said:

The prof didn't claim that he was a Nazi. He just compared showing a video of someone disagreeing with gender neutral pronouns with showing Nazi propaganda. 

He said that Peterson was "alt-right" and associated with The Rebel.  

 

Edit: I saw Bob Rae posted support for the WLU Grad Student on Facebook, so alt-right free-speechers should feel safe that you have someone respectable in your corner.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[mowich]

On 11/21/2017 at 4:08 PM, Michael Hardner said:

There is so much misinformation on this that I have to wonder if the prof himself was misinformed.  The Rebel has aligned himself with the UofT prof, and is reported to provide anti-semitic material behind their paywall.  Perhaps the prof thought that the UofT prof was a Nazi ?

 

My understanding is the UofT prof does not misgender his students either so I think that's important.

https://soundcloud.com/tristin-john-...ity-professors

The above is the entire inquisition of Lindsay Shepherd by the three creeps on the board.  Have a listen, you might just learn something.  IMO, those three creeps should be fired immediately.  Lindsay Shepherd is one smart strong cookie and more power to her.  Universities should now be on notice that these types of biased and bullying interrogations will no longer be tolerated.

[mowich]

11 hours ago, Boges said:

The prof didn't claim that he was a Nazi. He just compared showing a video of someone disagreeing with gender neutral pronouns with showing Nazi propaganda. 

The irony of all this "safe space" crap is the that two men chastising a 22-year-old woman for her teaching methods is certainly not providing a safe space. And the only reason Laurier apologized was because Shepherd taped the interaction. 

Taken from a transcript of the video.  In other words straight from the horse's mouth.  Plimlott is one of Lindsay's interrogators.

"Pimlott: He’s a public figure, and a lot of people there like (American white supremacist) Richard Spencer of, I don’t like calling them alt-right, it gives them too much legitimacy, but Richard Spencer, right? The Nazis actually used, this is a historic—issues around the free speech idea in the 1920s in Weimar Germany as an issue around which which is what they’re using now. We know that someone like Richard Spencer is using theories and ideas that don’t have any academic credibility. He’s a public figure. But in terms of, if we introduce someone, we give them greater credibility in a certain condition. I agree that there are public figures out there that bring people, uh, bring hatred, target groups and if you look at statistically the degree of suicide attempts of trans people, young people, it’s the highest of any group in society. And, you know, it’s, you go through — Indigenous people — and so on. There are things that don’t have academic credibility and I just don’t think—I personally think I have some problems, I have no problems with the fact that these things are out there and people are going to engage them but we have to think of the atmosphere that we also create for the learning process. "  And this is what currently passes for a professor in one of our universities. 

[mowich]

5 hours ago, Jariax said:

No. The only reason Laurier apologized was because she taped the interaction, showed it to the press, and Laurier was bombarded by former students cancelling their annual donations. She told them she had the recording, and nobody gave a shit before. This is not the case of a couple rogue professors.

This is the climate being intentionally created at Laurier, and I highly doubt they are alone on this. The mantra seems to be 'we support free speech' as long as that free speech isn't counter to our ideals. 

Also, they seem to be dwelling more on the fact that the professor made an exaggerated comparison to Hitler's speech, than the fact that they accused this young woman of a hate crime, and causing violence against trans students by showing a TVO video. 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-heres-where-laurier-can-stick-their-apology-to-lindsay-shepherd

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, mowich said:

  Have a listen, you might just learn something.  IMO, those three creeps should be fired immediately.  Lindsay Shepherd is one smart strong cookie and more power to her.  Universities should now be on notice that these types of biased and bullying interrogations will no longer be tolerated.

Uh, yes.  We are talking about this so we have all heard it.  I don't think we need to fire people, just reiterate principles and not act like our hair is on fire.

[Jariax]

1) The professors overstepped when establishing boundaries for what is, and isn't proper in a University setting. 
2) The references to Hitler/nazis aren't really important here.  It's just used as an obvious example of free speech that should not be allowed, and public figures who should not be discussed in a neutral manner. Fair game. 
3) Firing these three wouldn't do any good. We already have a culture where people demand people to be fired for the tiniest of infractions, besides which the professors were likely just trying to cover their asses, and obey the mandates and dictates passed down by University superiors.
4) Instead of scapegoating these three, and pretending it's an isolated incident, the University should be looking to change its culture and find a better balance between free speech and letting minorities groups feel safe on campus. 
5) The professors are right in that not all speech should be permitted. But to automatically restrict any speech that could potentially hurt the feelings of any identifiable group is taking things too far. 
6) The link between allowing someone to show a TVO debate of people discussing the need to use gender-neutral pronouns, and suicide is absurd.
7) We, as a society, need to stop automatically accepting every claim of harm made by every identifiable group. Some sort of vetting process needs to occur, rather than the ubiquitous fear that engulfs all politicians and government employees, where they can not object to any claim of suffering made. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Jariax said:

1) The professors overstepped when establishing boundaries for what is, and isn't proper in a University setting. 
2) The references to Hitler/nazis aren't really important here.  It's just used as an obvious example of free speech that should not be allowed, and public figures who should not be discussed in a neutral manner. Fair game. 
3) Firing these three wouldn't do any good. We already have a culture where people demand people to be fired for the tiniest of infractions, besides which the professors were likely just trying to cover their asses, and obey the mandates and dictates passed down by University superiors.
4) Instead of scapegoating these three, and pretending it's an isolated incident, the University should be looking to change its culture and find a better balance between free speech and letting minorities groups feel safe on campus. 
5) The professors are right in that not all speech should be permitted. But to automatically restrict any speech that could potentially hurt the feelings of any identifiable group is taking things too far. 
6) The link between allowing someone to show a TVO debate of people discussing the need to use gender-neutral pronouns, and suicide is absurd.
7) We, as a society, need to stop automatically accepting every claim of harm made by every identifiable group. Some sort of vetting process needs to occur, rather than the ubiquitous fear that engulfs all politicians and government employees, where they can not object to any claim of suffering made. 

1) No, I think 'overstepped' means they went into an area they weren't allowed to.  What this was, was poor judgment.

2) He associated Peterson with the 'alt right', though, and misjudged his intentions.

3) Agreed.

4) Everyone should understand what the issues are, and the various fora and rules around discussion.  It's the frame that needs to be reset.

5) Agreed.

6) Agreed.

7) We definitely do not 'automatically' accept 'every claim of harm'.  In fact, there are definite harms that we ignore and trade off against other interests.  There is no 'ubiquitous fear' there is just thoughtlessness and rash decision making.  Someone made a claim and the person in control thought they understood more than they did.

 

I have already posted on here about people who prize their opinions so highly that they don't even respond to valid criticism or provide cites for their facts.  What we really need to do is come down on people who act this way.

[Argus]

According to Christie Blatchford it appears Laurier university's investigation of this incident is not so much about what the professors did wrong, but about what Lindsay Shepherd did wrong. Which would, if true, indicate the thought police style haranguing of her heard on tape was not an anomaly but indicative of how the institution feels and operates.

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-ominous-signs-that-lindsay-shepherds-job-not-free-speech-is-target-of-laurier-probe

Edited December 9, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

I can think of no better a description of the downfall of western universities, their shedding of intellectual rigour in argument, of merit in favour of identity, and fixation on anti-western radical left populist hatemongering than this one written by a graduate of the master of journalism course at Melbourne University. According to the author, very little of actual journalism was taught, and very little was expected of students other than to accept the indoctrination into anti-western political extremism and regurgitate all the sane views as his teachers . I have little doubt Canadian university journalism programs are much the same. And if you have any doubt you need only read a Canadian newspaper.

Another peculiar class was Terror, Law, and War, ostensibly a survey of legal and military responses to terrorism. In practice, the class focused almost exclusively on American, European, and Israeli misbehavior, and on the perceived ridiculousness of Australian anti-terrorism measures. Islamist terrorism was left unconsidered except as a hallucination of xenophobic Westerners. As if to drive the point home, one presentation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict referred to Palestinian suicide bombings as “terrorism,” in scare quotes.

We spent a period discussing a televised interview with Wassim Doureihi, spokesman for the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. During the interview, Lateline host Emma Alberici took a combative stance, demanding that Doureihi either clearly denounce the Islamic State’s tactics or admit that he condoned them. Doureihi refused to cooperate, instead pushing the conversation toward Australian mistreatment of Muslims.

The subsequent class discussion became something like a rally: we unanimously acclaimed Doureihi’s dignity and courage and took turns mocking Alberici’s hypocrisy and ill-concealed racism. The teaching assistant declared with apparent pride that she was friends with Doureihi and that he had confided in her that the interview was a trying experience, but necessary. Some of the students who rose to voice their support for Doureihi were so agitated that their voices shook. Somehow, throughout this bacchanal of self-righteousness, the fact that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an explicitly anti-democratic organization that supports the killing of apostates and whose leaders describe Jews as “the most evil creatures of Allah” escaped mention.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/22/when-the-authorities-tell-you-to-dissent/

 

[WestCanMan]

On 4/4/2016 at 7:30 AM, eyeball said:

Sure. Are we going to admit that all it takes to get up a right-wingers nose these days is a couple of handfuls of thin skinned students?

Somebody needs to get a life.

LMAO. So funny to look back in time and see how consistent and how uninformed your opinions have been.

The problem isn't that some students are thin-skinned, it's that universities are churning out fascist SJW morons in droves. They get "set off" by things that they don't understand. They are easily manipulated and lead around by the nose. That's the exact opposite of what should happen in a university.

One would hope that they were helping people to become strong, independent thinkers with the ability to process information, to look a little deeper, to try to see a problem from different angles before they seize on a viewpoint that was presented to them by someone with a sick agenda. 

 

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

LMAO. So funny to look back in time and see how consistent and how uninformed your opinions have been.

Care to elaborate exactly what opinions you're talking about and why you think they're uninformed?

Start a new thread, call it eyeballs uninformed opinions.

Edited June 2, 2019 by eyeball

[Argus]

A timely look on what the situation is in Canadian universities, and in particular, Wilfred Laurier, which pulled the cultural revolution thing with the grad student Shepherd. As we can see from this story from a professor at Laurier, nothing has improved there. If anything, the indoctrination and harsh suppression of contrary views has gotten worse.

As a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University’s Brantford, Ontario campus for the past 15 years, I’ve witnessed what happens when liberal professors deem their conservative students an “enemy to be openly opposed.” My public writing and presentations in support of conservative ideas often lead like-minded students to reach out to me. Many are Christians, although not all. Before Covid-19, it was common for me to have students sobbing in my office. Now I hear their stories via email. Many who write have never taken one of my courses; some don’t even attend Laurier. But their stories are always similar.

Typically, a professor will have brought up a social issue in class. Sometimes it relates to the course content but most times the issue is tangential to the pedagogical topic. The instructor is taking advantage of a captive audience to assert a personal conviction. The conviction, or claim, will include a contemptuous condemnation of one of the university’s approved scapegoats: white people, heterosexuals, men, Christians or Western society. 

If a student falls into one or more of the groups approved for derision, they can either take the abuse in silence or speak up and become a target. Regarding option two, once a student is identified as a heretic, their grades may suddenly and mysteriously decline.

https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/07/discrimination-approved-for-conservatives-on-campus/?fbclid=IwAR24e0Kto7wnPGFoHcrmQI6XmuGbKh2aBKgE006-Hkpd6YRMWDdSqHDYXOg

[RedDog]

I was in advertising, design and copy writing for 35 years. People should be reminded that daily newspapers and their respective websites are written to a Grade 5 reading level. That is our world of education and intelligence.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, RedDog said:

That is our world of education and intelligence.

Sure enough, but the grade levels are about vocabulary.  Understanding what they're talking about is the real challenge.

 

Even then, they can't be expected to explain complicated things like trade.  I think that a proxy system is the only reasonable way to get around this.  And discouraging people from voting if they don't know what's happening is a good idea.

[TreeBeard]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:33 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Sure enough, but the grade levels are about vocabulary.  Understanding what they're talking about is the real challenge.

 

Even then, they can't be expected to explain complicated things like trade.  I think that a proxy system is the only reasonable way to get around this.  And discouraging people from voting if they don't know what's happening is a good idea.

Do you think it’s possible that, if voting were compulsory, people would take more of an interest in getting informed?

Also, did you inform yourself on every topic of import for the election before you voted?  

What was your opinion on Bill C-12 - Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act?