The PC Police are shutting down tenured professors now

[f/22]

so i will ask a simple question. what does the pc movment prevent you from doing or saying ?

Please watch and listen from approximately 4:20 to 6:05 in this video that Glacier posted.



That pretty much spoke for me until today.

That doesn't mean I'll be abusive though.

Like you, I'll still continue to try to put some thought into what I say and write.

[f/22]

Ooooo. Why Ezra and Jordan are having a bromance.

I did some more homework this morning and found out . . ..

Peterson’s research finds, “. . . . being easily aroused, in general, may help create the mindsets that lead to conservative worldviews. . . . The high arousal pleasant pictures consisted of content including erotic . . .."
(https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Stimuli).

Plug another dime into Ezra’s fundraiser so Jordan can raise the shade to reveal more in his next study, (Glacier's second OP video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb5WlbAdAw4).

[Merry]

One comment in the video posted by Glacier that resonated with me was

we need to start talking and listening [to each other]

Attempting to silence all those who hold views we disagree with, or find offensive, simply serves to drive those views underground. If we want to even begin to attempt to influence such views, we need to be willing to talk to those who hold them, listen to what they have to say, and then discuss with them the reasons why we think they're wrong.

However, we also have to be willing to consider that there may be some elements of what they have to say that may have merit. Because that is how societies grow and evolve. Sticking stubbornly to our pre-conceived ideas is not the best way forward. History is littered with examples of people being ostracized or punished for disagreeing with main stream views that were not always correct. For example, at one time most people believed the earth was flat, and ridiculed all those who disagreed. And in Roman times you could be severely punished for speaking out against the Roman Gods. Even today, if you live in a place controlled by radical islamists, you can be beheaded for going against the mainstream view and speaking out against their prophet. And the list goes on.

The fact is that "freedom of speech" is not merely the right to speak out in favour of main stream views. It is the right to disagree with those views, even when it is unpopular to do so.

[maryjane48]

people cant learn if they dont communicate. but like i said if i have a strong opinion on something i think most the time i can express it with out having to drag in a race faith or sexual orientation . everyone on here knows i have said i totaly disagree with having faith in a god of some type and said humans would be better off with out it. but what i have not said is people cant choose to have a faith . i firmly believe if a person chooses to have a faith they should be able to practice with out fear of discrmination or harm .


so the way i see the pc movment is what shouldnt be needed is because of human nature we cant police ourselves on large scales . its why we have laws at all right?

[f/22]

Still lots of meat on ‘d’em OP bones.

In Glaciers’ third video, when speaking about pro-life groups on campus, John Carplay says,

I’m sad to say that in most of these cases when a pro-life group is getting censored by the university or by the student union in most cases they get no help from the campus Christian clubs, they get no help from the campus Jewish, campus Muslim, campus Conservative clubs, and they’re there all alone, (19:55).

However, check out the masthead on this article:

“Campus prolife group launches suit against UofA”

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/This-Week/Stories/entryid/7470

So why wouldn’t the children who may be members of these clubs not speak up on this issue if they believed in it?

Is it, as I highlighted at the top of the page in the segment of Glacier’s first video, and as Jordan Peterson tells us, the kids are ‘afraid to speak their minds.’ ‘The (campus) PC police are in their heads?’

[Merry]

people cant learn if they don't communicate.

Agree

but like I said if I have a strong opinion on something i think most the time i can express it with out having to drag in a race faith or sexual orientation

. Agree with this too, for the most part. But what if the conversation is ABOUT race, faith or sexual orientation? Are those subjects completely taboo, or is it OK to have some discussion or debate about certain aspects of those topics? If so, who decides what it is OK to say, and what is not?

I firmly believe if a person chooses to have a faith they should be able to practice without fear of discrimination or harm .

Totally agree with this statement. But I also believe, as you clearly do, that people who don't practice a faith should also be able to do so without fear of harm. Which, as we all know, is NOT a view shared by everyone in this imperfect world of ours. But when people try to discuss that issue, all too often some of the over zealous politically correct crowd will try to "shut them down" by claiming they are racists. Which is very unfair, because the threat from radical religious terrorists is a very real one, that needs to be discussed openly and without fear of being socially ostracized.

so the way I see the pc movement is what shouldn't be needed is because of human nature we cant police ourselves on large scales . its why we have laws at all right?

Laws are necessary to protect us from those who would do us harm. But sometimes the law goes too far, by trying to protect us from ideas that are different to those held by the mainstream. The politically correct movement goes even further, by using social alienation to completely stamp out ideas or thoughts that the politically correct crowd deems unsuitable. And that is a dangerous path to follow, because who decides what is or is not suitable, and how far down that path are people prepared to go? It may be your neighbour's ideas that are under threat today, but tomorrow it may be your own.
Those of us who don't agree with what we are witnessing need to speak out, because if we don't it might one day become impossible to do so. This whole situation reminds me of the following poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

For me, this poem means we each need to be willing to speak out against that which we see as injustice by the mainstream against identifiable groups - the tyranny of the majority. But that can apply just as much to those who hold different ideas as it can to religious groups, or political groups, and so on. People who have concerns about mainstream beliefs and/or ideas deserve to have the ability to discuss those views, just as much as those who share the mainstream views. It is not right for the majority to use that majority to squash dissent, which is exactly what the "politically correct" crowd try to do.

For the record, I'm not talking about things like inciting violence etc. when I talk about being open to opposing ideas. We already have laws on the books to prevent that sort of thing. I'm talking about using social pressure to silence those we disagree with.

[f/22]

Want to gain some self-improvement or get better grades?

Found in Glacier’s second video.

There’s an app for that!



And it’s on sale now!

http://www.selfauthoring.com/

[Ccrider]

The Liberal Party, is full of hypocrites, ready to shut down, demean, or bully anyone who has a viewpoint contrary to their own. The Democrats in the USA are no different.

Remember the cries about Stephen Harper silencing the scientists? Things only got worse once Trudeau took the helm. Where are those protesters now? Well nowhere of course, proving the point of hypocrisy.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/08/mu ... ike-harper

[f/22]

'Disgusting!' -- a word I've seen used on this forum now and then.

Therefore, some might like to be aware of another key word in this section of the article you posted.

<snip>

Nonetheless, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) -- the union that represents tens of thousands of federal government scientists -- says the Trudeau government is continuing a Harper government communications policy that prevents scientists from participating in conferences.
Moreover, "a communications policy was issued by (the Trudeau government) with the intention to end 'muzzling' but its implementation remains uneven across science-based departments," PIPSC says in a submission to Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/08/mu ... ike-harper

<snip>

However, thanks for giving me the opportunity to read the article, and I agree with your post.

[maryjane48]

The Liberal Party, is full of hypocrites, ready to shut down, demean, or bully anyone who has a viewpoint contrary to their own. The Democrats in the USA are no different.

Remember the cries about Stephen Harper silencing the scientists? Things only got worse once Trudeau took the helm. Where are those protesters now? Well nowhere of course, proving the point of hypocrisy.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/08/mu ... ike-harper

was it the libs who tried the niqab bigot law ? was it the libs who rant against rainbow crosswalks ? was it the libs who want a test for imganinary kelly lietch canadian values?. most canadians know what party is the hypocrites and polls show them losing again because of the hypocrasy in the con party

[Ccrider]

The Liberal Party, is full of hypocrites, ready to shut down, demean, or bully anyone who has a viewpoint contrary to their own. The Democrats in the USA are no different.

Remember the cries about Stephen Harper silencing the scientists? Things only got worse once Trudeau took the helm. Where are those protesters now? Well nowhere of course, proving the point of hypocrisy.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/08/mu ... ike-harper

was it the libs who tried the niqab bigot law ? was it the libs who rant against rainbow crosswalks ? was it the libs who want a test for imganinary kelly lietch canadian values?. most canadians know what party is the hypocrites and polls show them losing again because of the hypocrasy in the con party

Sorry, what has trying to free women from slavery, or complaining against spending government money on rainbow sidewalks, or vetting new immigrants to Canada, have to do with hypocrisy? People are still entitled to their own views, even though some people would slander them as islamaphobics, homophobics, and bigots. You are not a hypocrite if you have different views than someone else.

Your ranting about opinions contrary to your own, only reinforces the point of the post.

[f/22]

Conservative leader, Andrew Sheer, says, “I will withhold federal grants from universities that shut down debate and can’t stand different points of view.”

Elamin Abdelmahmoud: “Andrew Sheer said, ‘Liberals can take their cues from the cocktail circuits and we’ll take ours from the minivans and the Legion halls,’ . . . the real people care about these issues.”

[maryjane48]

The politically correct movement has a lot in common with those who burned books in Nazi Germany. Both groups tried to silence all who disagree with them.

oh really . you have links to the pc movement setting up deathcamps ? i would love to compare camps

[Ub2]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided "correct" positions on many political matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

By BILL KELLER, Special to the New York Times
Published: February 4, 1989

MOSCOW, Feb. 3— A Soviet weekly newspaper today published the most detailed accounting of Stalin's victims yet presented to a mass audience here, indicating that about 20 million died in labor camps, forced collectivization, famine and executions.

Between 1934 and 1939, Stalin organised the "Great Purge", in which millions of so-called "enemies of the working class", including senior political and military figures, were interned in Gulag-run prisons, exiled or executed, often without due process.[4][5]

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html

[Poindexter]

Suppose the debate is whether liberals have choosen to ditch one of its most socially beneficial characteristics by making the exception to be intolerant of the intolerant. A mistake in my opinion because liberalism at its core is about open debate between views that are sometimes contrary, not shutting up those that you don't agree with.