The Irony That Is Free Speech

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

So you think the numerous stories and studies which show that liberal professors outnumber conservative professors anywhere from 12-1 to 20-1 are... what exactly? You think there's no self-selection going on there?

Why are there no conservative stand-up comedians, or very few ?  Why are there more Jewish comics ?  Are you saying that conservatives don't want to go into academia ?  WHy not ?

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not borne out by the quality of our public dialogue today though, which surfaces unheard-of and previously-untouchable ideas. 

It does? As someone who, as a teenager, would go to the House of Commons and watch Diefenbaker and Stanfield debate Trudeau I find the quality of our public dialogue to be generally childish and emotional. And the only 'unheard-of' or 'previously untouchable' ideas which are entered into discussion are those from the far left.

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe that's true in some circles or sub-cultures but there's lots of offensive speech happening.  On this board if you call someone a racist (when they say racist things) they react like Lil Miss Muffet to a spider.

This board had, for some time, a two-faced rule, which said you could call someone a racist but if they reply giving their unvarnished opinion of what an ignorant cretin you were you'd get punished. That's why the term 'racist' was banned. I'm perfectly fine with people calling me a racist as long as I can call them a brainless moron. Both of us, after all, are giving our simple opinion of the other.

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Let me guess: YOU WERE OFFENDED.  You should tell your friend that such comments trigger you, in future.

Why not just tell her that all people under forty lack wisdom and judgement. It's certainly closer to true than her proposition, and the evidence is far more readily at hand in her own inane and thoughtless statement.

 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why are there no conservative stand-up comedians, or very few ?  Why are there more Jewish comics ?  Are you saying that conservatives don't want to go into academia ?  WHy not ?

There is something like ZERO evidence that conservatives don't want to go into academia. Nor is there any logic in such a suggestion. I"m getting the idea you find the overwhelmingly pro-liberal, pro-progressive bias in universities fine, since it matches your own political/social beliefs. Yet from previous statements you've made I'm fairly sure if a single fascist were found in academia you'd be demanding they be removed.

Why is Marxism fine but Fascism not?

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. And what has been done in the years since light has been thrown on the situation? Nothing whatsoever.

2. Universities are self-governing institutions and they are governed by progressives.

3. There are more marrxist than conservative professors.

4. You admit groupthink is happening and yet somehow believe students are not affected, and that this will somehow end on its own?

5. I doubt you would be as sanguine if it turned out there were an overwhelming number of right AND far right professors in schools.

1. How do you know that ?

2. They are governed by bureaucrats and institutional managers.  What is a 'progressive' ?  An NDP er ?  

3. Bullcrap - you're citing your nightmares and dreams.  My school was down to maybe a few Marxist economics professor by the time I left, I think.

4. It's an interesting paradox but I think that thinking follows trends and cycles.

5. There are a lot of right and far-right people in business but do you see me calling for a way to "end it" somehow ?  Trading floors are renowned as inhospitable to women - are you looking to swap affirmative action programs tit for tat ?  Come on man...

 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

So you think the numerous stories and studies which show that liberal professors outnumber conservative professors anywhere from 12-1 to 20-1 are... what exactly? You think there's no self-selection going on there?

I'm not doubting there are more liberal professors either.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

1. There is something like ZERO evidence that conservatives don't want to go into academia.

2. Why is Marxism fine but Fascism not?

1. Is there evidence that we have 50/50 and they're being blocked from entering ?

2. Marxism is a theory of history and economics.  Fascism is a system of authoritarian governments.  They've both been largely disproven as effective...

[Argus]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. How do you know that ?

I have yet to see  a single instance of any university in Canada or the United States doing a single thing to address it.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

2. They are governed by bureaucrats and institutional managers.  What is a 'progressive' ?  An NDP er ?  

I would say a progressive is likely an NDPer, yes.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

3. Bullcrap - you're citing your nightmares and dreams.  My school was down to maybe a few Marxist economics professor by the time I left, I think.

And how many decades ago was that?

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

4. It's an interesting paradox but I think that thinking follows trends and cycles.

The numbers of conservative professors has seen a dramatic decline in just the last ten years. There should be NO Marxists in universities. Why would you hire someone who by their own ideological beliefs reveals themselves to be unstable and lacking wisdom and judgement?

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

5. There are a lot of right and far-right people in business but do you see me calling for a way to "end it" somehow ?

There are probably NO far right people in business, are almost none. And business is the purview of private employers. If they want to hire fascists or communists that's up to them. I simply won't do business with them. Universities are an arm of government, and what they do impacts society.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Trading floors are renowned as inhospitable to women - are you looking to swap affirmative action programs tit for tat ?  Come on man...

If you're talking about stock brokers, they're renowned for being the home of workaholics with no lives. Women, as has been reported in numerous studies, are far and away less interested in such professions than men. But there's no such evidence about Conservatives in academia. Their lack is a recent phenomenon.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Is there evidence that we have 50/50 and they're being blocked from entering ?

Do you think the dramatic decline is out of Conservatives losing interest? What do you believe accounts for it?

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Marxism is a theory of history and economics.  Fascism is a system of authoritarian governments.  They've both been largely disproven as effective...

Marxism and Fascism are both political and economic theories. They have resulted in countless millions of brutal deaths. Yet Marxism is respected in academia and politics. Why?

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not borne out by the quality of our public dialogue today though, which surfaces unheard-of and previously-untouchable ideas.  Maybe that's true in some circles or sub-cultures but there's lots of offensive speech happening.  On this board if you call someone a racist (when they say racist things) they react like Lil Miss Muffet to a spider.

2. They would be far more astonished by the moral decay at the highest reaches of government, the advent of mass media, and Pornhub IMO.

3. Let me guess: YOU WERE OFFENDED.  You should tell your friend that such comments trigger you, in future.

4. Humans being naturally intolerant seems a reasonable idea, based on whatever the culture's experience is with outsiders.  Pacific Islanders certainly behaved differently than German Tribes.  Anyway, you seem to be giving the idea some thought so it can't be THAT outlandish !

 

1.) I think it fair to say that by-and-large the parameters of permissible discourse have contracted over the past generation, including in academia, the mainstream media, the education system and even in workplaces. I think it possible that many English-speaking Canadians underestimate this trend given our constant exposure to American media and culture, which function in a country where free speech rights remain far more robust than is the case here.

2.) I doubt it.

3.) Not at all. I found it an amusing example of reductionism, a trend that's become an all too common aspect of modern discourse. 

4.) If human beings are naturally intolerant and indoctrination and prohibition are the only ways to force this tendency into remission, why bother worrying about racism at all? Pessimists presumably assume we must legislate limitations on expression (a la M-103) and impose an increasingly rigid regime of forced tolerance. We in the democratic West seem to have become apoplectic about racism in our societies, however studies suggest that the most tolerant societies on the face of the earth include many Western countries, and particularly the Anglo-Western and Scandinavian countries. It makes me wonder whether we're really particularly racist, at least in comparison to global norms, and if we've developed an industry that's dependent for its survival on promoting a belief in the existence of widespread racism.

Edited September 6, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

1. I have yet to see  a single instance of any university in Canada or the United States doing a single thing to address it.

2. And how many decades ago was that?  The numbers of conservative professors has seen a dramatic decline in just the last ten years.

3. There should be NO Marxists in universities.  

4. There are probably NO far right people in business, are almost none.  

5. Universities are an arm of government, and what they do impacts society.

6. If you're talking about stock brokers, they're renowned for being the home of workaholics with no lives. Women, as has been reported in numerous studies, are far and away less interested in such professions than men. But there's no such evidence about Conservatives in academia. Their lack is a recent phenomenon.

1. The (bad) assumption is that moves made by a university would make the news and get to you.

2. Many.  When I was in University we had ACTUAL Marxists (not fake Fox News labelled Marxists) calling for GM and Ford to be seized by the government.  Do you have evidence of this resurgence of actual Marxism ?  WITCH HUNT !

3. Censoring of ideas is supposedly what you are against and yet here you are.

4. How are you defining 'far right' here ?  

5. The implication being that what business does DOESN'T impact society ?

6. It's really odd how you look at these various situations and decide sometimes that people prefer to not be in certain professions and then other times that people are being shut out.  It really follows your ideology every time.  You should look at your own subjectivity here: ask yourself why this alignment happens every time.

 

11 hours ago, Argus said:

7. Do you think the dramatic decline is out of Conservatives losing interest? What do you believe accounts for it?

8. Marxism and Fascism are both political and economic theories. They have resulted in countless millions of brutal deaths. Yet Marxism is respected in academia and politics. Why?

7. I don't think there is any such decline

8. You are misrepresenting these ideas.  I wouldn't say Marxism is 'respected' any more than Freud is.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) I think it fair to say that by-and-large the parameters of permissible discourse have contracted over the past generation, including in academia, the mainstream media, the education system and even in workplaces.

2.) I think it possible that many English-speaking Canadians underestimate this trend given our constant exposure to American media and culture, which function in a country where free speech rights remain far more robust than is the case here.

3.) If human beings are naturally intolerant and indoctrination and prohibition are the only ways to force this tendency into remission, why bother worrying about racism at all?

4) Pessimists presumably assume we must legislate limitations on expression (a la M-103)

5) We in the democratic West seem to have become apoplectic about racism in our societies, however studies suggest that the most tolerant societies on the face of the earth include many Western countries, and particularly the Anglo-Western and Scandinavian countries.

6) It makes me wonder whether we're really particularly racist, at least in comparison to global norms, and if we've developed an industry that's dependent for its survival on promoting a belief in the existence of widespread racism.

1)  On some axis yes but on other axis not at all.  I never heard the f-word at work and now I do all the time.  Things change.

2)  How is such speech available to Canadians other than through media ?  Is American media more permissive than Canadian in this respect ?  I remember Codco and Kids in the Hall being a lot more extreme than US Network Television in the 1980s.  It was a bit much at times.

3)  Well, behaviour modification through legal framework is a key point of dissent and fighting and so... yes we worry about it.  I imagine in the early middle ages there was a debate about whether the government should be interfering in private feuds and murders.

4)  M103 is not a limitation on expression, that is a big lie and hair-pulling hysteria campaign.

5)  I would say that so-called Patriots were not properly taught that the west was founded on PLURALISM and have tried to introduce Christianity into government.   The natural pushback is somehow seen as unnatural and un-western.  Our societies are designed for peace and prosperity and the idea that they can't handle it is an anti-western idea.

6)  Wait - if we are supposedly better than the rest of the planet and 'the most tolerant societies' why compare us to the rest of the awful globe ?  Seems like switching the rules to make ourselves feel better.

 

 

[dialamah]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Humans being naturally intolerant seems a reasonable idea, based on whatever the culture's experience is with outsiders.  

If a bunch of young kids of different faiths, colors and ideologies are put together, they'll get along just fine.  Left alone, they'll grow up together as friends.

Intolerance is taught, not inherent.  It is passed from parents to their children, the social behavior demonstrated as 'normal' by adults reflected in the kids as they grow.  

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1)  On some axis yes but on other axis not at all.  I never heard the f-word at work and now I do all the time.  Things change.

2)  How is such speech available to Canadians other than through media ?  Is American media more permissive than Canadian in this respect ?  I remember Codco and Kids in the Hall being a lot more extreme than US Network Television in the 1980s.  It was a bit much at times.

3)  Well, behaviour modification through legal framework is a key point of dissent and fighting and so... yes we worry about it.  I imagine in the early middle ages there was a debate about whether the government should be interfering in private feuds and murders.

4)  M103 is not a limitation on expression, that is a big lie and hair-pulling hysteria campaign.

5)  I would say that so-called Patriots were not properly taught that the west was founded on PLURALISM and have tried to introduce Christianity into government.   The natural pushback is somehow seen as unnatural and un-western.  Our societies are designed for peace and prosperity and the idea that they can't handle it is an anti-western idea.

6)  Wait - if we are supposedly better than the rest of the planet and 'the most tolerant societies' why compare us to the rest of the awful globe ?  Seems like switching the rules to make ourselves feel better.

 

1.) So you're equating the f-word to racism? I guess that pretty much trivializes racist speech into oblivion.

2.) American culture is much more open to controversial speech and ideas than is Canadian culture. And the difference is more or less ingrained in the respective legal systems of the two countries. American First Amendment rights are sacrosanct which is why "hate speech" laws, for instance, are much more constricted in the U.S. and some states have no such laws at all. And the mere expression of ideas and opinions that might be construed as legitimately intolerant are far less likely to land one in legal jeopardy, such as in front of a human rights commission, south of the border than is the case here. 

3.) If the Middle Ages is your starting point, I think you have much more reading to do before commenting on the motivations underlying behavior modification. Maybe you could start by reading Orwell's book, '1984'. Or perhaps you might read a book or two on the great dictators of the 20th century.

4.) I referenced M-103 as an example of a mentality by prefacing it with 'a la' to indicate 'in the style of' - a relatively commonplace rhetorical technique. M-103, of course, is not in and of itself a law but, rather, illustrates a mentality that seeks the legalized imposition of restrictions on opinion and speech and in fact emboldens the federal parliament to enact such restrictions. The best analysis of M-103's insidious impacts was a piece by Neil Macdonald that was published on the CBC's website, 'Liberals' anti-Islamophobia motion is a politically brilliant, sinister piece of work'. You might want to run a search and give it a gander.

5.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say to address my concern about whether we're undermining Westernism, which as you should know if you study history has evolved over the past few centuries largely as an oppositional response to imposed orthodoxy and hierarchy in the contexts of religion, governance, culture and economy. Our societies weren't "designed" for peace and prosperity as though we established institutions that were from the outset intended to achieve these qualities. In fact, these societies and the institutions they built emerged as consequences of centuries of messy and contentious conflict, including the Reformation and revolution-inspiring Enlightenment, where competing ideas themselves served as the fuel for change. We evolved into the world's most prosperous, open and dynamic societies without any clear plan or centrally imposed vision. If we take away the messiness, debate and conflict, there is no West. Philosophically, openness to opposition and conflict is fundamentally who were are as Westerners and why we are who we are.

6.) Why not compare us to the rest of the world if one insists on maintaining, as many progressives instinctively do, that Western societies, including our own, are deeply and hopelessly intolerant and racist, an allegation that's seldom supported by much other than anecdotal reference? At least an exercise in comparison might offer some perspective. And if objective comparisons don't suggest that we're particularly racist after all in contrast to other places then perhaps we might ponder the actual delineation between incidental intolerance and ingrained societal intolerance. As a friend of mine who is Chinese notes, Canada and North America aren't particularly racist compared to most other places to which he's traveled and in which he's lived. In China itself, he says, racism is seldom ever discussed and non-Chinese are generally and uncontroversially viewed and treated as outsiders.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The (bad) assumption is that moves made by a university would make the news and get to you.

And yet you are making the bad assumption that they have happened despite zero evidence. Which would seem to be considerably less logical than my assumption.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Many.  When I was in University we had ACTUAL Marxists (not fake Fox News labelled Marxists) calling for GM and Ford to be seized by the government.  Do you have evidence of this resurgence of actual Marxism ?  WITCH HUNT !

You are assuming the Marxists at university now are 'fake' for some reason known only to you and your ideological preconceptions.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7678

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Censoring of ideas is supposedly what you are against and yet here you are.

And you are for freedom? Are you okay with Fascist university professors?

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. The implication being that what business does DOESN'T impact society ?

Individual businesses rarely impact society, and they are not an arm of government.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. It's really odd how you look at these various situations and decide sometimes that people prefer to not be in certain professions and then other times that people are being shut out.  It really follows your ideology every time.  You should look at your own subjectivity here: ask yourself why this alignment happens every time.

Uhm, mirror mirror. My beliefs are based on readings. Your beliefs are based on ... what exactly? I've seen many, many writeups on why women self-select out of the STEM professions, for example, as well as the higher levels of business. Have you seen even one that shows conservatives self-select out of academia?

Would you call this conservatives self-selecting out of academia?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/15483/study-heres-one-way-universities-are-weeding-out-james-barrett

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. I don't think there is any such decline

And your thinking is based on what, exactly? 
https://heterodoxacademy.org/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

8. You are misrepresenting these ideas.  I wouldn't say Marxism is 'respected' any more than Freud is.

It is respected enough that university professors have no fear of openly describing themselves as Marxists. How many are going to dare describe themselves as Fascists?

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

If a bunch of young kids of different faiths, colors and ideologies are put together, they'll get along just fine.  Left alone, they'll grow up together as friends.

Intolerance is taught, not inherent.  It is passed from parents to their children, the social behavior demonstrated as 'normal' by adults reflected in the kids as they grow.  

Right, but cultures and tribes also evolve and that counts IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) So you're equating the f-word to racism? I guess that pretty much trivializes racist speech into oblivion.

2.) American culture is much more open to controversial speech and ideas than is Canadian culture. 

3.) If the Middle Ages is your starting point, I think you have much more reading to do before commenting on the motivations underlying behavior modification. Maybe you could start by reading Orwell's book, '1984'. Or perhaps you might read a book or two on the great dictators of the 20th century.

4.) I referenced M-103 as an example of a mentality by prefacing it with 'a la' to indicate 'in the style of' - a relatively commonplace rhetorical technique. M-103, of course, is not in and of itself a law but, rather, illustrates a mentality that seeks the legalized imposition of restrictions on opinion and speech and in fact emboldens the federal parliament to enact such restrictions.  

5.)  Our societies weren't "designed" for peace and prosperity as though we established institutions that were from the outset intended to achieve these qualities.  

6.) Why not compare us to the rest of the world if one insists on maintaining, as many progressives instinctively do, that Western societies, including our own, are deeply and hopelessly intolerant and racist, 

1) Nope.  Just responding to your claim.  Read your claim again if you missed it.

2) I don't think you acknowledged my point though.

3) I don't understand your point.  You said "prohibition are the only ways to force this tendency into remission" and I was commenting that this has been happening since a long time.  Orwell talked about one kind.  Jaywalking laws are another.  Copyright laws yet another.  Doesn't seem to be a new idea is all.

4) So say you, but I don't buy it.  There are no new laws based on M103 and the hysteria was undeserved IO.

5) I stopped after this sentence.  Have you heard of the 'pursuit of happiness'?  The USA was definitely a democracy designed on constitutional rights and the right to 'pursue happiness'.

6) Well - do YOU think that ?  Pick a metric and stick with it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

1. And yet you are making the bad assumption that they have happened despite zero evidence.  

2. And you are for freedom? Are you okay with Fascist university professors?

3. My beliefs are based on readings. Your beliefs are based on ... what exactly? I've seen many, many writeups on why women self-select out of the STEM professions, for example, as well as the higher levels of business. Have you seen even one that shows conservatives self-select out of academia?

4. Would you call this conservatives self-selecting out of academia?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/15483/study-heres-one-way-universities-are-weeding-out-james-barrett

And your thinking is based on what, exactly? 
https://heterodoxacademy.org/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/

5. It is respected enough that university professors have no fear of openly describing themselves as Marxists. How many are going to dare describe themselves as Fascists?

1.  I'm not saying anything happened, I am asking you to prove nothing happened.  Well, at least one thing happened: the incident at Laurier came to light and there has been a public response.  

2.  Fascist university professors ?  What ?  I guess I would be ok with professors having unpalatable ideas but: 1) Let's not pretend these people exist and 2) Let's just try and create some hypothetical monster to prove that I'm a hypocrite or something.  There's a basic amount of humanity someone has to engage in just to have a job.  There are unpalatable ideas that deserve airing.  Sometimes these things come into conflict and we may need to discuss those cases, such as with Jordan Peterson.  Discussion is a good thing.

3.  No they're not.  You arrive on the scene with your conclusions ready to go and will bend the meaning of the numbers to suit your ideology.  You do this with statistics on police statistics, immigration for example.  I believe that numbers should support a hypothesis, but you start with hypothesis and then investigate.  I am open-minded, and I can say that I have had my position changed by numbers presented by you.  That's my proof and you don't have anything comparable.

4. I will look at these.

5. Respected 'enough'=moving the bar.  Definitely saying "the state should own all capital" is somewhat more respected than "we should eliminate the right of expression".  Is this something that we really need to parse ?  I think both POVs are viewed a little... sideways.. at least.

 

[Argus]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I'm not saying anything happened, I am asking you to prove nothing happened.  Well, at least one thing happened: the incident at Laurier came to light and there has been a public response.  

After which nothing happened.

Quote

2.  Fascist university professors ?  What ?  I guess I would be ok with professors having unpalatable ideas but: 1) Let's not pretend these people exist and 2) Let's just try and create some hypothetical monster to prove that I'm a hypocrite or something.  There's a basic amount of humanity someone has to engage in just to have a job.  There are unpalatable ideas that deserve airing.  Sometimes these things come into conflict and we may need to discuss those cases, such as with Jordan Peterson.  Discussion is a good thing.

Your obsession with Jordan Peterson demonstrates your ideological biases on this subject. Nothing Peterson has said offends the general public. It only offends the more hysterical elements of the Left. Using him as an example of a professor with unpalatable ideas which is still open for discussion simply demonstrates the degree of your bias. You have not the slightest concern about professors from the far left, but even a Jordan Peterson, who most definitely is NOT far right, practically makes you go into a rage every time his name comes up simply because he, at one point, accepted money from a GoFundMe campaign started by the Rebel. Which, by the way, was to fund research after his grant was cancelled because of his political views.

Quote

3.  No they're not.  You arrive on the scene with your conclusions ready to go and will bend the meaning of the numbers to suit your ideology. 

Have we met? You know almost nothing about me nor how I arrive at conclusions, nor what prompted those conclusions. You say I arrive at these conclusions and then find numbers to suit them, but that raises the question of what caused me to arrive at those conclusions in the first place. Do you imagine I plucked them out of thin air? Is it not possible my conclusions are based upon things I read of and have encountered and are thus held for good and sufficient reason? You have long faulted anyone who cannot support a case with cites, yet now you attack me for providing cites which support the positions I take. Make up your mind.

Quote

5. Respected 'enough'=moving the bar.  Definitely saying "the state should own all capital" is somewhat more respected than "we should eliminate the right of expression".  Is this something that we really need to parse ?  I think both POVs are viewed a little... sideways.. at least.

Your comparison is illegitimate. There is nothing in fascist ideology about eliminating the right of expression - although any fascist government always does so. But then, so does every Marxist government. The point remains there are many Marxists at universities, and this is accepted and respected. Yet not a single Fascist. This, to me, indicates the median for political acceptance is way over on the Left of the political fence. You can be a lunatic of the far left and still be hired, promoted and given responsibility to educate the young. But anyone even a little bit over on the Right is considered dangerous - ie, Jordan Peterson.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Nope.  Just responding to your claim.  Read your claim again if you missed it.

2) I don't think you acknowledged my point though.

3) I don't understand your point.  You said "prohibition are the only ways to force this tendency into remission" and I was commenting that this has been happening since a long time.  Orwell talked about one kind.  Jaywalking laws are another.  Copyright laws yet another.  Doesn't seem to be a new idea is all.

4) So say you, but I don't buy it.  There are no new laws based on M103 and the hysteria was undeserved IO.

5) I stopped after this sentence.  Have you heard of the 'pursuit of happiness'?  The USA was definitely a democracy designed on constitutional rights and the right to 'pursue happiness'.

6) Well - do YOU think that ?  Pick a metric and stick with it.

 

You're spouting nonsense in an apparent attempt to defend your weak and generally circular and trivial critiques.

If you really don't understand the problems associated with state-sponsored and enforced behavior modification in relation to political, cultural and ideological matters, perhaps there's a dictatorship somewhere where you'd be happier.

If you don't understand the kind of ideological autocracy inherent in the attempts either by fiat or indirectly to limit free speech, including the risible M-103, which is an example of a mentality as I've clearly stated, perhaps you shouldn't live in a democracy.

If you can't be more sophisticated than to glibly equate the American constitution's aspirational affirmation of the "pursuit of happiness" (while at the same time accommodating slavery, which presumably you're willing to discount) with some kind of institutional master plan that's directed the future of all Western democracies, perhaps you might consider the almost 250 years of subsequent history. Furthermore, if the U.S. constitution, which is grounded in Enlightenment ideals) does serve as an ideal or template for Westernism, if not an institutional master plan, it also contains the free-speech affirming First Amendment, which clearly implies that the effective pursuit of happiness isn't possible in the absence of unfettered free speech. Free speech is the oxygen of democracy. The enterprise can't succeed without it.

Westernism, as I stated, is messy and contentious and confrontational and oppositional and even in many aspects intolerant and offensive in the view of some. And yet somehow it's spawned what are widely believed to be among the most open and attractive societies in human history. Why mess with a good thing in order to impose some sort of controlled utopia that in all likelihood would for many end up being or becoming a nightmare? The West's greatest achievement is democracy and I'll stick with Churchill's assessment that it's "the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Meanwhile, if you'd rather live in a society dedicated to behavior modification and thought control, surely you can find one somewhere. But it's a journey on which I and many others don't wish to embark.

Edited September 7, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

23 hours ago, turningrite said:

1) You're spouting nonsense in an apparent attempt to defend your weak and generally circular and trivial critiques.

2) If you really don't understand the problems associated with state-sponsored and enforced behavior modification ...

3) If you don't understand the kind of ideological autocracy inherent in the attempts either by fiat or indirectly to limit free speech, including the risible M-103 

4) If you can't be more sophisticated than to glibly equate the American constitution's aspirational affirmation of the "pursuit of happiness" (while at the same time accommodating slavery, which presumably you're willing to discount) with some kind of institutional master plan that's directed the future of all Western democracies, perhaps you might consider the almost 250 years of subsequent history.

1) I gave specific criticisms for each point above, and now you're giving a general dismissal and throwing your cards in.  That's perfectly fine.

2) I do but you have decided to declare certain laws 'behaviour modification' and others just ... laws based on subjective criteria.

3) M-103 doesn't limit free speech.  That's ridiculous.  You just keep repeating things without proof.  I guess you are used to talking to people who agree with you.

4) I don't know what this means.  You stated this: "Our societies weren't "designed" for peace and prosperity as though we established institutions that were from the outset intended to achieve these qualities.  "  But our societies WERE designed by a team of brilliant Americans called the founding fathers.  
What are you saying about 250 years of history exactly ?  

Here's the preamble to the US Constitution: 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^{[note 1]} promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

'our Posterity' is 250 years or more of history and counting...

You go on about 'Westernism' but gingerly step around the fact that America allowed and allows freedom of religion.  That was one of the unique guarantees of this new nation and if you want to say it wasn't THE defining characteristic I will agree. 

Put your money where your mouth is: should church and state not be separated ?  How would you design YOUR constitution ?

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:20 PM, Argus said:

1. After which nothing happened.

2. Your obsession with Jordan Peterson demonstrates your ideological biases on this subject.

3. Nothing Peterson has said offends the general public. It only offends the more hysterical elements of the Left. Using him as an example of a professor with unpalatable ideas which is still open for discussion simply demonstrates the degree of your bias.

4. You have not the slightest concern about professors from the far left, but even a Jordan Peterson, who most definitely is NOT far right, practically makes you go into a rage every time his name comes up simply because he, at one point, accepted money from a GoFundMe campaign started by the Rebel. Which, by the way, was to fund research after his grant was cancelled because of his political views.

5. Have we met?  

6. Your comparison is illegitimate. There is nothing in fascist ideology about eliminating the right of expression.

7. You can be a lunatic of the far left and still be hired, promoted and given responsibility to educate the young.

8. But anyone even a little bit over on the Right is considered dangerous - ie, Jordan Peterson.

1.  How do you know there weren't staff meetings, directives, emails and workshops ?  Do you work there ?  They don't publicize everything for obvious reasons.

2.  Definitely not obsessed with JP, just using him as an example of a professor that fits the criteria of 'controversial' or whatever.  And a real example is better for our discussion than an imaginary Marxist and an imaginary Fascist prof.

3.  Jordan himself says his statements are offensive.  They are offensive at a minimum to the University public of which he is a part.  But we're going down a rabbit hole on my example.  Let's pop back to where this came from: No, I don't think a true Fascist university professor would work, or be acceptable.  There are a lots of other examples of unpalatable ideas that professors have that I wouldn't support, I assume.  For you it's Marxism, it looks like.  Now if a professor was teaching that Fascist or Totalitarian governments have some advantages I'd be ok with that.

4.  I'm not in a rage about JP not sure what you think that.  I don't agree with his funding being cut.

5. Yes, online.  Many times.

6.  Really ?  I confess I don't know of a manifesto or anything but where are you getting this wrong.  I may be incorrect based on your assertion.

7. No, lunatics should not be hired.

8. I never said JP was dangerous, and I use him as an example to provide an example of how separate cultures (ie. yours and mine) can build a set of principles about how to deal with 'controversial' ideas.  If you don't think his ideas were controversial in the academic world, you're wrong.  That's all he is.  

Furthermore,   

1) I am trying to reach out and understand how we could possibly build an objective way to look at controversial figures.

2) I pick a controversial figure to see if we can build a way forward on that

3) You indicate that this person is not controversial and imply that I'm unreasonable for thinking so.  

I don't see how we can move forward if you don't see what I'm trying to do here, or don't trust me.  Believe it or not, despite the flaws I perceive in you methods I do trust your honesty.  If it's not recipricol then maybe you should try doing what I'm doing in #1.

Otherwise, I dunno... the loudest shall win, and JP will get his funding cut by the government and nobody will care because reasonable people aren't uniting to rise above politics I guess.

 

 

 

 

[Centerpiece]

On 9/4/2018 at 9:17 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Unless you have any proof that overwhelming numbers of conservative academics are being denied careers, or being killed or somehow disappearing, I will be forced to come to a natural conclusion vis-a-vis conservatism and education...

Here's a good study that identifies the depth of the issue - admittedly, it's a US study but the details clearly parallel what's been going on in Canadian academia. Could you now acknowledge that an issue exists?

 

Quote

 

Liberal Professors outnumber Conservatives nearly 12-1, study finds

A new study confirms what even the most casual observer of higher education has long known — that conservative professors are vastly outnumbered by liberal ones — but it also shows that the problem is getting worse.

Published in Econ Journal Watch last month, the study looks at faculty voter registration at 40 leading universities and finds that, out of 7,243 professors, Democrats outnumber Republicans 3,623 to 314, or by a ratio of 11 1/2 to 1.

The study comes after a tumultuous few years at American colleges and universities, marked by campus race protests, the disinvitation of conservative speakers and the popularization of phrases such as “trigger warning” and “safe space.”

Out of five departments analyzed by the authors, the field friendliest to conservative scholars is economics, where there are only 4.5 liberal professors for every conservative.

Conversely, history is by far the least conservative-friendly department, where liberals outnumber conservatives by a 33 1/2-to-1 ratio.

...............................................................

Kim R. Holmes, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the ascendance of multiculturalism in the humanities makes it difficult for conservatives to find work teaching.

“If you’re going to have a Gender Studies Department, or something like that, the progressive assumptions are built into the very idea of the department, so you’re not going to hire any conservative professors,” said Mr. Holmes, who is the author of “The Closing of the Liberal Mind.” “Because of this, the imbalance has proliferated.”

The disparity is highest at the most prestigious universities, the study finds. Pennsylvania State University, for instance, has a comparatively balanced faculty ratio of 6 to 1, while Ohio State University enjoys even closer ideological parity at 3.2 to 1. But a pair of Ivy League universities, Columbia and Princeton, both weigh in at 30 to 1.

The university with the most even ratio examined in the report is Pepperdine University, which has a reputation for being a conservative school but still has 1.2 Democrats for every Republican on the faculty.

Link: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

 

 

  

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Centerpiece said:

Here's a good study that identifies the depth of the issue - admittedly, it's a US study but the details clearly parallel what's been going on in Canadian academia. Could you now acknowledge that an issue exists?

Argus posted another survey that seems more academically based (and also disagrees with these more inflammatory results).  I am satisfied with that one.

[Centerpiece]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Argus posted another survey that seems more academically based (and also disagrees with these more inflammatory results).  I am satisfied with that one.

Sorry I missed it - it was actually based on the same study which I came across some time ago. Glad I read through it though - it actually details some of the "diversity statements" that are embedded in the hiring process - which in themselves are inflammatory.

[Centerpiece]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3.  Jordan himself says his statements are offensive.  They are offensive at a minimum to the University public of which he is a part.  But we're going down a rabbit hole on my example.  Let's pop back to where this came from: No, I don't think a true Fascist university professor would work, or be acceptable.  There are a lots of other examples of unpalatable ideas that professors have that I wouldn't support, I assume.  For you it's Marxism, it looks like.  Now if a professor was teaching that Fascist or Totalitarian governments have some advantages I'd be ok with that.

You're being slippery here - that's not really what he said. It would be better if you could actually provide the statement from your source. All I could find is this very rational, pragmatic reference - which is not an admission of being offensive - it's an example of the growing intolerance of this "University public" that you speak of.

 

Quote

 

He hit back at the suggestion being sensitive to causing offence was akin to good manners. “It’s a terrible problem,” Dr Peterson said. “Imagine the rule is you can’t offend anyone. Let’s say you’re speaking to one person.

“I can’t offend you — all right, fair enough. What if I’m speaking to 10 people? Do I get to offend one in 10? How about one in 100? How about one in 1000? You’re going to come out onstage and you’re going to say something important about something vital and you’re not going to offend one person in 1000?

“You can’t say something important about anything ever, without offending. Important speech about important issues, especially contentious issues, is instantly offensive.”