Opinion: Quebec commission proposes bold new approach to protect academic freedom from woke mobs

[Army Guy]

Is this the start of the end of being woke, are we finally starting to wake up, and could the rest of Canada take a look at what Quebec is doing....or is the rest of Canada just going to miss this opportunity and protest Quebec's ruling. Our education institution need a little bit of the right side of the spectrum to balance all the lefts wokeness. 

Opinion: Quebec commission proposes bold new approach to protect academic freedom from woke mobs (msn.com)

[Benz]

The woke mouvement started in USA and was slowly introduced in Quebec through English universities such as Concordia and McGill. Eventually, several French were also "contaminated" by that ideology. However, the course is reversing faster here than the rest of America. People here are not afraid to fight back the woke and the majority reject them fair and square. It seems that in the rest of America, the people are still afraid of the woke but, I expect that it will change eventually. Woke doesn't quite fit in common sense. I always get at least a chuckle every time I see Bill Maher making fun of the woke. 

[Michael Hardner]

51 minutes ago, Benz said:

1. Woke doesn't quite fit in common sense. 

1. Do you want to try to define 'woke' ?  Was the civil rights movement 'woke' ?  Are all fights for rights 'woke' ?  What about gay marriage ?  Or is it just a catchy word to describe academic-type arguments you find ridiculous ?  If it's the latter, I get it, but it's also inextricable for peoples' needs for entertainment.

Maybe we can help by defining NON-woke requests for rights and accommodating that are reasonable

[Benz]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Do you want to try to define 'woke' ?  Was the civil rights movement 'woke' ?  Are all fights for rights 'woke' ?  What about gay marriage ?  Or is it just a catchy word to describe academic-type arguments you find ridiculous ?  If it's the latter, I get it, but it's also inextricable for peoples' needs for entertainment.

Maybe we can help by defining NON-woke requests for rights and accommodating that are reasonable

None of the examples you listed are the work of the woke. The woke are irrationals. For an identified issue, they always find out the worst imaginable solution. It always create more problems than it solves and it is always arranged in a way that it creates as much conflicts as possible. The woke do not ground with reality and they avoid facts.

If Matt Damon admits he once used a sexist expression that he won't use anymore, the woke will do a public trial against him  and request that ne never do anymore movie ever. If a racist director at university that is long time gone, gave a racist nickname to a 3 billions years old rock, the woke will blame the rock and accuse the rock of being racist. If a white guy is doing surf on the sea, he will be accused of cultural appropriation by the woke, just because people of Hawai were doing it before the whites. That is what woke look like. 

[Faramir]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Do you want to try to define 'woke' ?  Was the civil rights movement 'woke' ?  Are all fights for rights 'woke' ?  What about gay marriage ?  Or is it just a catchy word to describe academic-type arguments you find ridiculous ?  If it's the latter, I get it, but it's also inextricable for peoples' needs for entertainment.

Maybe we can help by defining NON-woke requests for rights and accommodating that are reasonable

Woke would include the nonsensical assertion that only white people can be racists. It is a implicit but also often very explicit part of the woke movement.  The idea that every sitcom or TV show MUST have a gay couple.  That's woke.  The civil rights movement was not woke, but what is woke is to not acknowledge how much we have come since then, and act as though we are still stuck in the 1960s with race relations.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Faramir said:

1. Woke would include the nonsensical assertion that only white people can be racists. It is a implicit but also often very explicit part of the woke movement. 

2. The idea that every sitcom or TV show MUST have a gay couple.  That's woke. 

3. The civil rights movement was not woke, but what is woke is to not acknowledge how much we have come since then, and act as though we are still stuck in the 1960s with race relations.

1. Ok, that's a statement you consider 'woke'.  Since the woke define all their own terms, they build their own logical structures and you can debate it but you'll fall into the weeds on basic terms like 'white' and 'racist' and the argument wouldn't even get going.  But that's something 'woke' people are said to believe in, not a definition of woke.

2. Ok, something that Hollywood does with their shows you see as 'woke'.  Still not a definition.

3. Ok... I'm baffled by people saying that fighting for rights is NOT woke, since they are doing that for gay marriage, trans people etc.  Are those fights 'woke' ?

And woke still has no definition, it's just a set of ideas you think are bad that people say when fighting for rights.  Oddly, you're not against fighting for equality just some specific ideas.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Benz said:

1. The woke are irrationals. For an identified issue, they always find out the worst imaginable solution. It always create more problems than it solves and it is always arranged in a way that it creates as much conflicts as possible. The woke do not ground with reality and they avoid facts.

2. If Matt Damon admits he once used a sexist expression that he won't use anymore, the woke will do a public trial against him  and request that ne never do anymore movie ever.

3. If a racist director at university that is long time gone, gave a racist nickname to a 3 billions years old rock, the woke will blame the rock and accuse the rock of being racist.

4. If a white guy is doing surf on the sea, he will be accused of cultural appropriation by the woke, just because people of Hawai were doing it before the whites. That is what woke look like. 

1. So they're just idiots who believe in social justice ?  Social justice itself is ok, but these people believe in crazy theories in support of their goals ?
2. OK so Matt is NOT woke for apologizing for using a sexist oppression then ?  I'm just trying to learn here.
3.  If people support the renaming of things are they automatically 'woke' ?  Or could your assessment of the feasibility/popularity of the idea be off and it wasn't woke after all ?
4. If somebody says something to him politely about that and he decides he doesn't want to offend people, is he woke or has he been convinced by the woke ... and since he's normal the idea of it being 'woke' doesn't apply anymore... ie. it's just an idea that has been picked up ?
 

 

[myata]

I do have that impression that on the intellectual landscape of this country Quebec is pretty much the only area that can be still called alive.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

I do have that impression that on the intellectual landscape of this country Quebec is pretty much the only area that can be still called alive.

Because they fire teachers who express their religious freedom, against the constitution ?  

[myata]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because they fire teachers who express their religious freedom, against the constitution ?  

Maybe because they still dare to think for themselves?

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

Maybe because they still dare to think for themselves?

You seem to admire bold governments who take away rights...

[myata]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

who express their religious freedom

Sure anyone should be free to express their freedoms. But if and when it's in a public position of authority, in a public place and with no choice for the members of public who have to face it, while on its (the public's) paycheck the public and should have a say in that, ne c'est pas? This is not about prosecution of freedoms, but about dogma that is above reason and critical questioning. And there's nothing new that can be found there, no matter what the dogma is called.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, myata said:

1. Sure anyone should be free to express their freedoms. But if and when it's in a public position of authority, in a public place and with no choice for the members of public who have to face it, while on its (the public's) paycheck the public and should have a say in that, ne c'est pas?

2. This is not about prosecution of freedoms, but about dogma that is above reason and critical questioning. And there's nothing new that can be found there, no matter what the dogma is called.

1. The crucifix isn't banned though right ?  So there's pretty clearly something else going on.  People in the public being 'offended' and cancel culture etc.
2. Except they wouldn't dare cancelling a nun's habit because people aren't "offended".

It's not just me - it's Conservatives and Liberals in the ROC that are uncomfortable with this.

[myata]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You seem to admire bold governments who take away rights...

No there are no absolute rights that trump anything. The right to express is still there, just not in some specific environments and circumstances where public interests are concerned. And by the way the arguments are stronger than those for mandatory vaccinations as a ground for firing that you seem to have no problem with. Talk about "rights".

P.S. any religious symbol is fine as long as it's carried in a private manner and is not exposed to the public while in a position of authority where it cannot be avoided. There's a difference between exercising a right and imposing it on others as a mandatory duty. And by the way, in what is called wokism they tend to forget about this line; or even admit its existence.

Edited December 24, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Benz said:

1. The woke are irrationals. For an identified issue, they always find out the worst imaginable solution.  

1. If someone expresses a rational reason - right or wrong - for an action then they're not 'woke'.

I'm curious about another example - efforts by Ontario teachers to give white males an advantage when applying for teaching positions.

[ironstone]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If someone expresses a rational reason - right or wrong - for an action then they're not 'woke'.

I'm curious about another example - efforts by Ontario teachers to give white males an advantage when applying for teaching positions.

What specific advantage would give white males an advantage for teaching positions?

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, ironstone said:

What specific advantage would give white males an advantage for teaching positions?

Basically moving them to the front of the line, ie. quotas

[ironstone]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Basically moving them to the front of the line, ie. quotas

I see a few articles about the disproportionate number of females to males in teaching but didn't see anything about giving while males any hiring advantage. If they did it would be wrong as it should be  to bend or lessen the requirements for any ethnic group or gender. I favour giving the job to the best qualified person regardless of race or gender.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

1. I see a few articles about the disproportionate number of females to males in teaching but didn't see anything about giving while males any hiring advantage.

2. If they did it would be wrong as it should be  to bend or lessen the requirements for any ethnic group or gender. I favour giving the job to the best qualified person regardless of race or gender.

1. This is something that I know is de-facto done as I have known women and men going through the recruiting system but there are calls for quotas from both School Trustees and Academic Journals and organizations as described in the Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/part-2-the-endangered-male-teacher/article4330079/

2. If they don't lessen requirements is it ok ?  Such as fast-tracking men or women for police work and teaching ?

I get 'the best qualified person' but in the end that assessment is based on subjective values and we shouldn't forget that. 

[ironstone]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is something that I know is de-facto done as I have known women and men going through the recruiting system but there are calls for quotas from both School Trustees and Academic Journals and organizations as described in the Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/part-2-the-endangered-male-teacher/article4330079/

2. If they don't lessen requirements is it ok ?  Such as fast-tracking men or women for police work and teaching ?

I get 'the best qualified person' but in the end that assessment is based on subjective values and we shouldn't forget that. 

But is the objective to get more white males or just males in the classroom? I know there are  certain kinds of jobs that may be dominated by one gender or the other so in my opinion they should not lower the standards for hiring.  I just have trouble with the notion of not hiring or hiring someone because of race and/or gender. There must be some little thing to give one candidate a very slight edge over another to tip the balance.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, ironstone said:

1. But is the objective to get more white males or just males in the classroom?

2. I know there are  certain kinds of jobs that may be dominated by one gender or the other so in my opinion they should not lower the standards for hiring.  

1. Males, which is defacto... white males

2. They can discriminate without lowering standards, and I understand that you find this unfair.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. If they don't lessen requirements is it ok ?  Such as fast-tracking men or women for police work and teaching ?

I get 'the best qualified person' but in the end that assessment is based on subjective values and we shouldn't forget that. 

if they don't lessen the requirements

then there is no need for quotas

there would be plenty of qualified candidates in whatever "underrepresented" demographic you want to hire more of

the equality of opportunity would be available to all

regardless of race, gender or any other identity category

the only reason for these identity quotas

is there isn't enough qualified candidates in the "underrepresented" demographics

so they need to lower the standards in order to hire them to avoid political blowback from the woke and their idiotic demands for equity over equality

 

that's how affirmative action works

it's not about equality of opportunity for all

it's about equity of outcome for identity groups

it's a stupid, racist and sexist policy

that hurts the very people that supporters of the policy thinks it helps

they claim to be fighting racism and sexism

but do so by being racist and sexist

claiming that two wrongs make a right, so long as they are in charge

the believe the only way to fight past discrimination against the oppressed is with present and future discrimination against the oppressors

that's what the term anti-racism means, it's race marxism

you wanted a definition of woke

there it is

identity marxism

intersectional commies instead of class commies

Edited December 24, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

diversity = intersectional monoculture that demands compliance with their beliefs, with no diversity of opinion

the opposite of actual diversity 

equity = reparations and redistribution for groups that undermines equality of opportunity for individuals 

the opposite of the equality they claim to champion

inclusion = exclusion via safe space segregation

the opposite of inclusion

 

the woke are orwellian af

their terms literally mean the opposite of what they say they mean

they are the epitome of everything they claim to oppose

the iron law of woke projection

they project their own faults on everyone who doesn't approve of their bullshit

 

they are either

nefarious silver tongued liars

exploiting glaring contradictions to grab as much power as possible

or

oblivious hypocrites with no self awareness

who don't understand how destructive and contradictory their beliefs are

take your pick

Edited December 24, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Benz]

On 12/24/2021 at 6:59 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. So they're just idiots who believe in social justice ?  Social justice itself is ok, but these people believe in crazy theories in support of their goals ?
2. OK so Matt is NOT woke for apologizing for using a sexist oppression then ?  I'm just trying to learn here.
3.  If people support the renaming of things are they automatically 'woke' ?  Or could your assessment of the feasibility/popularity of the idea be off and it wasn't woke after all ?
4. If somebody says something to him politely about that and he decides he doesn't want to offend people, is he woke or has he been convinced by the woke ... and since he's normal the idea of it being 'woke' doesn't apply anymore... ie. it's just an idea that has been picked up ?
 

 

1. No, they are idiots that think that what they are doing, is social justice. They think they have a moral superiority above anyone to a point where they don't even need to justify themselves.

2. Of course not.

3. They did want to rename the rock, they accused the rock of being racist because one racist guy decided to give it a non official racist nickname.

4. In your scenario, the guy would be just a carpet. If someone tells me, "you can't surf because you are white and only people of my origin can surf based on my belief that we invented that sport", I would politely answer the most appropriate response... fuck off. The only real offense I could do is, if I pretend that I (or the whites) invented that sport. Then it would be bad because it would be cultural appropriation. But just surfing on the waves, no it is not.

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Benz said:

1. No, they are idiots that think that what they are doing, is social justice. They think they have a moral superiority above anyone to a point where they don't even need to justify themselves.

2. In your scenario, the guy would be just a carpet. If someone tells me, "you can't surf because you are white and only people of my origin can surf based on my belief that we invented that sport", I would politely answer the most appropriate response... fuck off. The only real offense I could do is, if I pretend that I (or the whites) invented that sport. Then it would be bad because it would be cultural appropriation. But just surfing on the waves, no it is not.

1. Well you are trying to tell us what they are thinking which is pretty much impossible to prove.  At best, a guess.
2. I don't think surfing is going away anytime soon.