The Irony That Is Free Speech

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

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.

 

 

I doubt it's possible to speak on any subject these days without offending someone.  It's definitely not something one should worry about.

Speak freely, and damn the torpedoes.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

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.

Maybe it's better to say that 'some are offended' by him.  Or that he is controversial.  

In any case I agree with him.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe it's better to say that 'some are offended' by him.  Or that he is controversial.  

In any case I agree with him.

That's another trick of this far Left element that has gripped academia. Anyone who fails to see things their way - is tagged as controversial or polarizing. The fact that Jordan Peterson is constantly referred to in those terms is a perfect example of the intolerance that this topic is probing.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Based on the response of one of the professors who DOES work there to the op ed piece the head of Sir Will put out about free speech, he certainly didn't think anything had been or would be done.

Quote

3.  Jordan himself says his statements are offensive.  They are offensive at a minimum to the University public of which he is a part. 

Yes, but because those university campuses have strayed so far from the public norms of culture and values. By way of example, how do you think it would go over on university campuses if a professor said there was too much immigration, and that immigrants needed to do more to assimilate? These are positions supported by 49% and 67% of the population, respectively, in widely published surveys. But I'm willing to bet any professor who said that would face very strong demands that he or she be terminated immediately. If he then went on to defend a Sir John A Macdonald statue, and also say he felt women in burkas shouldn't be able to hide their faces at citizenship ceremonies, he'd be echoing 70% and 75% of the population according to polls, but he'd be denounced as  a racist, bigot and xenophobe who must be driven off campus.

Quote

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

Not controversial by comparison to the mainstream of Canada. Controversial to the progressives on campus and in the mainstream media and perhaps politics. But that is not the same thing. The idea girls can wear bikinis on the beach is not controversial but it certainty would be among a conference of Muslims. I think our media creates controversy often because it sells, and often because they're mostly progressives and they somehow think something that offends them must offend Canadians at large - and it doesn't. I just don't see how echoing a view that 70% of the population espouses can really be described as 'controversial'

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

That's another trick of this far Left element that has gripped academia. Anyone who fails to see things their way - is tagged as controversial or polarizing. The fact that Jordan Peterson is constantly referred to in those terms is a perfect example of the intolerance that this topic is probing.

Meh.  The decay of etymology is something that has happened on both sides and even popular media.  See the decline of politics.  We have M103 discussed as governmental behaviour control on this thread too.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Based on the response of one of the professors who DOES work there to the op ed piece the head of Sir Will put out about free speech, he certainly didn't think anything had been or would be done.

2. Yes, but because those university campuses have strayed so far from the public norms of culture and values.  

 

1. Ok, well that is evidence.  All I wanted, thank you.

2. Ok, let's take your assessment as true. The response is what it is.  Environments change.  Right or wrong.  Campuses have 'strayed'... ok so what do you want to do - have administrations unilaterally make declarations whether campuses support them or not ?  There's divisiveness, is your response just to clamp down ?

Guess what - based on your inability to even come to the point of being able to discuss the topic without declaring me unreasonable for my assertions... I don't buy it.

Look - what I am trying to do is come to an acceptable way to discuss acceptable ideas.  You even acknowledge some are unacceptable.  I asked for a manifesto of fascism somewhere back there as a way to explore that but you didn't give one.

How would you do this ?  You want to bring the 'mainstream of Canada' into it... why ?  Why should a campus in Toronto care what seniors in BC think ?  Why not talk about the mainstream of the world ?  People are changing their minds about trans people and JP protested one aspect of that change.

Yes, I believe that people didn't give him his due with regards to his opinion but you are unable to bridge this divide, and you are unwilling to follow my attempts to try to define this conversation - and object to everything I have said, so I give up.

You go ahead and try - I'm done.

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/30/2018 at 12:43 PM, Argus said:

All the media organs are utterly terrified that someone will post an offensive comment that will outrage the so-easily outraged progressive set. 

This is an example of the irony right here.

You want to shut down people from protesting ideas... and you want to define what is acceptable based on what Canadians think.  Well, that's called censorship.  I don't care what Canadians think - we are fighting for peoples' rights and looking to change the laws because it's the right thing to do.  I'm not offended by stupid oppressive ideas, but I know that they are wrong.

I'm not going to allow people to oppress others because it's what 80% of Canadians want.  Sorry, but rights don't work that way.  You can get Doug Ford and campus cops to shut people down for protesting but the protest will just be bigger next time.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Michael Hardner
missed something

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is an example of the irony right here.

You want to shut down people from protesting ideas based on what Canadians think. 

I do? Where have I ever suggested such a thing?

Quote

I don't care what Canadians think - we are fighting for peoples' rights and looking to change the laws because it's the right thing to do.

If it's the right thing to do why do Canadians not think it's the right thing to do, and who are you to decide it is if they think it's not?

Quote

I'm not going to allow people to oppress others because it's what 80% of Canadians want. 

Are these real rights or the imaginary new rights that the Left keeps coming up with? What 'rights' are you talking about being oppressed?

Quote

Sorry, but rights don't work that way. 

Yes, that is how they work. Rights are what people support and believe should be rights. And if they people believed such and such should not be a right then they'd elect politicians to change it and take away that right.

Quote

You can get Doug Ford and campus cops to shut people down for protesting but the protest will just be bigger next time.

I don't have a problem with protest. I have a problem with violent protest. I have a problem with protest that is specifically designed to prevent someone from doing something they're legally entitled to do through violence or force. If that's the kind of protest you're willing to man the ramparts to defend then go ahead. But I would suggest Ford's response to 'bigger' such protests would be to order the cops to bust heads and make lots of arrests.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. I do? Where have I ever suggested such a thing?

2. If it's the right thing to do why do Canadians not think it's the right thing to do, and who are you to decide it is if they think it's not?

3. Are these real rights or the imaginary new rights that the Left keeps coming up with? What 'rights' are you talking about being oppressed?

4. Yes, that is how they work. Rights are what people support and believe should be rights.

5. And if they people believed such and such should not be a right then they'd elect politicians to change it and take away that right.

6. I don't have a problem with protest. I have a problem with violent protest. I have a problem with protest that is specifically designed to prevent someone from doing something they're legally entitled to do through violence or force.

7. If that's the kind of protest you're willing to man the ramparts to defend then go ahead. But I would suggest Ford's response to 'bigger' such protests would be to order the cops to bust heads and make lots of arrests.

 

1. I tried to present Professor Peterson as an example of a controversial professor, with unpopular ideas on campus.  He is protested on his home campus for his views.  However your response is to say that he's actually not controversial, meaning that there shouldn't be protests.  "...those university campuses have strayed so far from the public norms of culture and values."  Isn't that what you want ?  Doug Ford's latest idea is to disallow protests.  I assume you are leading me to a point where you are supporting that.

2. Do you think Canadians are always right ?  I don't.  I am allowed to have my own views. 

3. Real rights.  The right to not be harassed, for example.

4. That's a really weird point of view.  Rights are granted by law.  If I don't believe in private property, you're saying I can come and steal from you then ?  Weird.

5. Again, that's not how it works.

6. You are contradicting yourself.  What if people don't support something but I'm legally allowed to do it ? Didn't you just say above it's not a right ?

7. I hope not, as that will invoke true populism.  Not fake populism, eg.fatcat politicians who are upset about not being allowed to use the N-word when they want, but people with nothing to lose being attacked by fascist mobs because they want to be free from harassment.  

Where's the fascist manifesto you were going to post ?  The one that I was going to read to see if I could see a way to allow the army of fascist university professors from not being discriminated against ?  Oh, I guess it was burned in the fire at the Etobicoke ramparts ! 

Seriously, the right invoking Marxist methods has obvious limits...

 

[DogOnPorch]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I tried to present Professor Peterson as an example of a controversial professor, with unpopular ideas on campus.  He is protested on his home campus for his views. 

 

 

The rabid left would protest a can of peaches for not being diverse enough to include onions.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The rabid left would protest a can of peaches for not being diverse enough to include onions.

Because you, sir, are an onion racist !

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because you, sir, are an onion racist !

 

I'm sure it would be in the form of a chant.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not going to allow people to oppress others because it's what 80% of Canadians want.  Sorry, but rights don't work that way.  You can get Doug Ford and campus cops to shut people down for protesting but the protest will just be bigger next time.

How so, if it's what 80% of Canadians want? Because the other 20% are louder?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

How so, if it's what 80% of Canadians want? Because the other 20% are louder?

How so what ?  Do you think if 80% of Canadians want something it necessarily will happen ?

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How so what ?  Do you think if 80% of Canadians want something it necessarily will happen ?

Sometimes small groups of protesters shout loudly, acting as though they are the voice of the majority.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Sometimes small groups of protesters shout loudly, acting as though they are the voice of the majority.

Back to my question though...

[OftenWrong]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Back to my question though...

Back to mine, which it seems you misunderstood. How would protests from a 20% (minority) continue to grow? I mean, if the opposing view is held by 4 times as many people.
If the majority has the political power, all they need to do is work within the system. 

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. How would protests from a 20% (minority) continue to grow? 
2. If the majority has the political power, all they need to do is work within the system. 

 1. Lots of ways but they don't have to.

 2. I concur that a persistent 80% majority on an issue would provide weight behind *major* changes but it would have to be broad support across the country.  That means, if 100% of Ontario and Quebec are for something but nowhere else, then any constitutional change would go nowhere.

That's what I was getting at. 

[Centerpiece]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

  2. I concur that a persistent 80% majority on an issue would provide weight behind *major* changes but it would have to be broad support across the country.  That means, if 100% of Ontario and Quebec are for something but nowhere else, then any constitutional change would go nowhere.

That's what I was getting at. 

How does that square with Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage - or all the letters and numbers that have been somewhat arbitrarily added to LGBTQ2 - each of which have resulted in "rights" with far, far less than an 80% majority? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

How does that square with Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage - or all the letters and numbers that have been somewhat arbitrarily added to LGBTQ2 - each of which have resulted in "rights" with far, far less than an 80% majority? 

A wise man (actually, no, it was Glen Clark) once said that a government can't put minority rights to the majority.

I agree with that.  Regardless of the popularity of the rights.

[Argus]

50 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

A wise man (actually, no, it was Glen Clark) once said that a government can't put minority rights to the majority.

I agree with that.  Regardless of the popularity of the rights.

The idea that law protects rights without the will of the people is an arrogant fiction on the part of lawyers. If the people decide they want to put Jews in oven badly enough they will elect governments that support doing that and then simply amend or do away with the constitution. It is the will of the majority which protects rights. That is the ONLY thing which ultimately protects rights.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

The idea that law protects rights without the will of the people is an arrogant fiction on the part of lawyers. If the people decide they want to put Jews in oven badly enough they will elect governments that support doing that and then simply amend or do away with the constitution. It is the will of the majority which protects rights. That is the ONLY thing which ultimately protects rights.

I said I agree with it.  I didn't say it always happens like that.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

How does that square with Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage - or all the letters and numbers that have been somewhat arbitrarily added to LGBTQ2 - each of which have resulted in "rights" with far, far less than an 80% majority? 

Yes, I think you are proving my case.  I guess we are both saying:

1) You don't need a majority to decide on every single issue

2) Having a majority doesn't mean policy will necessarily go your way

Agreed.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I think you are proving my case.  I guess we are both saying:

1) You don't need a majority to decide on every single issue

2) Having a majority doesn't mean policy will necessarily go your way

Agreed.

In general, I am in agreement but remember - you started the discussion saying that even if 80% of Canadians were in favour - that might not be enough on a major issue. That's a cavalier attitude. It's precisely these "major issues" where we have to listen very carefully to that 80% - or any majority - more so that a much smaller minority. Ignore them at your own peril. Democrats did - and look what happened in the US.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

In general, I am in agreement but remember - you started the discussion saying that even if 80% of Canadians were in favour - that might not be enough on a major issue. That's a cavalier attitude. It's precisely these "major issues" where we have to listen very carefully to that 80% - or any majority - more so that a much smaller minority. Ignore them at your own peril. Democrats did - and look what happened in the US.

Yes.  I am not saying it's a good or bad thing.  I would probably agree with Canadians some times and not others.  

I hear more and more people wanting to remove rights for religions, for example.  I think it will happen at some point but it will be a test of our institutions and it should be.  It should not be a mob of people saying they want something, and having it pushed through without consultation or process.