Scheer's policy failure

[rustled]

^^Nope to the first. Sometimes to the second.

To use a simple response to your simple example: there's a big difference between kindergarten and uni. Still, I hope. Tom, Dick and Harry speaking in Commons isn't at all the same thing as speaking at a uni, either. Who gets to decide when it's necessary and when it's not? See "sometimes" above.

Also: still of interest is the unwillingness of so many here to denounce the incitement of violence and hatred for this specific purpose: shutting down "undesirable" speakers at university. Seems to me it's pretty subjective, since "hate filled" speakers of certain sorts are still very welcome.

More directly on topic: Will take a closer look at what Scheer was attempting to do later.

[neilsimon]

^^Nope to the first. Sometimes to the second.

Why it is okay to be intolerant of (aka hate) some things and not others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you think you should be tolerant of all things, including intolerance, you may want to think through what that ultimately means.

To use a simple response to your simple example: there's a big difference between kindergarten and uni.

So do you accept that there are places where complete freedom of speech should be curtailed, good.

Still, I hope. Tom, Dick and Harry speaking in Commons isn't at all the same thing as speaking at a uni, either. Who gets to decide when it's necessary and when it's not? See "sometimes" above.

Actually, it is very similar indeed. Universities are places for exploring ideas, researching new fields, pushing the boundaries of understanding, etc. They are not a place for you, or anyone else, to go pushing their pet theories and personal opinions. Universities should be selective as to who they invite to speak as providing a platform is often seen as support or at least a recognition of legitimacy. It is not that some things should not be said in a university, it is that a university should be careful of what speech it allows itself to be associated with.

Also: still of interest is the unwillingness of so many here to denounce the incitement of violence and hatred for this specific purpose: shutting down "undesirable" speakers at university. Seems to me it's pretty subjective, since "hate filled" speakers of certain sorts are still very welcome.

I have repeatedly denounced unnecessary violence and I certainly denounce violent protest. There is no reason that students should not be free to protest against allowing certain speakers and the university should consider multiple aspects before deciding on whether a speaker's contributions are likely to be beneficial or not. Additionally, universities should be free to determine the form that the talk will take. For instance, insisting on a debate rather than allowing a simple speech from the pulpit style monologue. Universities are not there to be somewhere for people with stupid and ignorant views to be able to express such and seek out disciples. There are plenty of other places for idiots, ignorant people, bigots, etc. to congregate without using universities to add legitimacy to their message.
If you have a message which is likely to be printed in a respectable peer reviewed journal, then I have no doubt that any reasonable university would be happy to have to speak to discuss that paper. So for instance, inviting Jordan Peterson to talk on his area of expertise, psychology is one thing, but having him espouse his personal pet theories on history, economics, etc. just lends legitimacy to them, even though he has no expertise in those areas and often spouts some rather unorthodox and unsubstantiated pet theories.

More directly on topic: Will take a closer look at what Scheer was attempting to do later.

He was attempting to win votes from those who would support the likes of The Rebel, Breitbart, etc. but I think he thought better of it after seeing their true colours.

I wish we had a Speakers' Corner in each and every major municipality and the likes of those who want to deliver their message could just go along and do so. Universities could get back down to what they are supposed to be, places of learning and advancement of human knowledge and not political footballs to be used by those who feel that their ignorance is equal to another's knowledge.

[rustled]

I often wonder if people way up there on their high horses get nosebleeds.

Quit putting words in my mouth, neilsimon. If I wished to say it's okay to be intolerant of some things and not others, I'd have said that.

Did I object to students' rights to protest? No.

Did I ever suggest there are not places where complete freedom of speech should be curtailed? Never.

Did anyone here suggest uni students should be forced to attend talks by guest speakers? Not me.

Did anyone says they have to believe everything the speaker says? Not me.

You seem to feel students at uni need to be protected. Well, perhaps I have more respect for their ability to think for themselves than you seem to give them credit for.

Peer journals? Pulpit style monologues? Good lord. It's pretty clear you're certain I'm far too lowbrow to offer any insight, which is why you offer up kindergarten and the Commons as examples and prefer schooling me on everything under the sun over thinking about what I actually did say.

Thanks for your interpretation of why Scheer did what he did. I'm sure you'll fully understand why I choose to take it with a grain of salt, and look into Scheer's policy and possible motivation for myself.

[maryjane48]

sheers beliefs are not some great mystery . the only reason he dulistanced himself from rebel is political reasons . his personal ideas line right up with the rebel

[neilsimon]

I often wonder if people way up there on their high horses get nosebleeds.

Yes, good job with starting with an ad hominem attack.

Quit putting words in my mouth, neilsimon. If I wished to say it's okay to be intolerant of some things and not others, I'd have said that.

But you said that you should never hate anything, which is just a form of intolerance. E.g. I am so intolerant of racism that I hate it.

Did I object to students' rights to protest? No.

Did I say you did? No.

Did I ever suggest there are not places where complete freedom of speech should be curtailed? Never.

Never said you did.

Did anyone here suggest uni students should be forced to attend talks by guest speakers? Not me.

Never said you did. Though no university should ever be forced or even expected to allow someone to give a public speech either, which is basically what Scheer backed down from (forcing public universities to allow pretty much anyone give a public speech).

Did anyone says they have to believe everything the speaker says? Not me.

Never said you did.

You seem to feel students at uni need to be protected. Well, perhaps I have more respect for their ability to think for themselves than you seem to give them credit for.

In large part, universities are there to help point students in the right direction in their study to avoid relatively wasteful dead-ends. We do not need each and every economics student trying to wade through all of the material with regards to economic theory, from Marxian to Keynesian, going down all the possible dead ends and ultimately developing an understanding in a void. It is just as bad to have those who are clearly ignorant engaging in a blind leading the blind style exercise. It is not efficient and can actually be potentially dangerous. Many smart people ended up following Hitler and believing in his ideas. To assume that the entire student body is composed of people more savvy than Dr. Ferdinand Porsche (one of the greatest automotive engineers of the 20th century, designed the Beetle at Hitler's request, also designed tanks, used slave labour, etc.), or Wernher von Braun (one of the greatest rocket scientists ever, designed weapons of mass destruction, also used slave labour, etc.), is just fool hardy. It is important that the ideas expressed by those officially invited to a university are either balanced by appropriate counter argument or are otherwise reasonably sensible to start with. It's why universities use debate format to discuss many of the more challenging topics and don't generally invite neo-Nazis to give a pep rally using their lecture halls. You can call that protecting the students if you wish, but I remember my first few years a university and there were lots of very impressionable minds. I know people who bought into Ayn Rand and others who bought into similarly daft stuff from the left, etc.
Perhaps more importantly, it is important for a university to protect their name and not let others usurp it to further their own political opinions.

Peer journals? Pulpit style monologues? Good lord. It's pretty clear you're certain I'm far too lowbrow to offer any insight, which is why you offer up kindergarten and the Commons as examples and prefer schooling me on everything under the sun over thinking about what I actually did say.

I read what you wrote. Nothing suggested that you understood that universities have to protect their name and their spaces from those who would use them inappropriately. That said, if you agree that universities should have control over who gets to give public speeches and talks, fine, we're in agreement and nothing more needs to be said.

Thanks for your interpretation of why Scheer did what he did. I'm sure you'll fully understand why I choose to take it with a grain of salt, and look into Scheer's policy and possible motivation for myself.

Good. His timing was very suspect and suggests that in the face of mounting understanding of what those who keep crying about universities denying their right to free speech are all about, he had to back down from an untenable position.

[Glacier]

anyone believing a invented god has mental illness to certain degree. both christianity and islam have been hijacked to commit murder for no other reason than hate and intolerance . does that mean every muslim and christian is bad ? no . but they both have equaly perverted the faith to commit murder . if you deny that your no better .

You would love this Trump guy. Socially liberal and nonreligious. Sam Harris calls him America's first atheist president. So irreligious he tried to put money in the communion plate. Also the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage before being president.

[rustled]

...
I read what you wrote. Nothing suggested that you understood that universities have to protect their name and their spaces from those who would use them inappropriately. That said, if you agree that universities should have control over who gets to give public speeches and talks, fine, we're in agreement and nothing more needs to be said.

Thanks for your interpretation of why Scheer did what he did. I'm sure you'll fully understand why I choose to take it with a grain of salt, and look into Scheer's policy and possible motivation for myself.

Good. His timing was very suspect and suggests that in the face of mounting understanding of what those who keep crying about universities denying their right to free speech are all about, he had to back down from an untenable position.

So you imply I said a bunch of things, and then you come back to school me some more about what I didn't say? WADR, you've spent altogether too much time on this thread responding directly to me about what I didn't say. And again, WADR, this comes across, to me, as another example of stomping out the voices you don't want to hear.

Look, when I pointed out what you posted sounded awfully inappropriate, all that was required was a clarification as to what you meant by what you posted.

So, you figure it's about universities protecting their names? Perhaps. I hadn't considered that angle.

And you figure Scheer's motivation was all about politics? Setting aside the snarky spin (my goodness, is that really necessary?), I'd suggest you may well be right. Politicians do political crap, don't they? Disappointing, but not surprising. Scheer has gotten off to a bad start.

[neilsimon]

...
So you imply I said a bunch of things, and then you come back to school me some more about what I didn't say? WADR, you've spent altogether too much time on this thread responding directly to me about what I didn't say. And again, WADR, this comes across, to me, as another example of stomping out the voices you don't want to hear.

Look, when I pointed out what you posted sounded awfully inappropriate, all that was required was a clarification as to what you meant by what you posted.

So, you figure it's about universities protecting their names? Perhaps. I hadn't considered that angle.

And you figure Scheer's motivation was all about politics? Setting aside the snarky spin (my goodness, is that really necessary?), I'd suggest you may well be right. Politicians do political crap, don't they? Disappointing, but not surprising. Scheer has gotten off to a bad start.

Sometimes I give a $10 answer to a $0.02 question. (and no, that isn't suggesting the value of the answer, just the verbosity)

[rustled]

...
So you imply I said a bunch of things, and then you come back to school me some more about what I didn't say? WADR, you've spent altogether too much time on this thread responding directly to me about what I didn't say. And again, WADR, this comes across, to me, as another example of stomping out the voices you don't want to hear.

Look, when I pointed out what you posted sounded awfully inappropriate, all that was required was a clarification as to what you meant by what you posted.

So, you figure it's about universities protecting their names? Perhaps. I hadn't considered that angle.

And you figure Scheer's motivation was all about politics? Setting aside the snarky spin (my goodness, is that really necessary?), I'd suggest you may well be right. Politicians do political crap, don't they? Disappointing, but not surprising. Scheer has gotten off to a bad start.

Sometimes I give a $10 answer to a $0.02 question. (and no, that isn't suggesting the value of the answer, just the verbosity)

I get that. Me, too. Incidentally, I think it's rather important to distinguish between hatred of things, which I can certainly understand (although I'm not sure I support it, as hatred's a slippery slope that generally does more harm than good), and hatred of others. Watching the protests intended to keep people from speaking, I find it really discouraging to see so many examples of people actively encouraging, inciting, instigating hatred of others. I'd like to think that's what Scheer was contemplating, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Yes, mods,

[maryjane48]

lol sam harris needs to stop taking bad drugs . facts are sheers good for the base sadly but he wont ever come close to being pm . harper had to wait until the libs were stumbling before he could win and even then folks had to hold their noses to put harper in power and came to regret it a month later

[bob vernon]

I heard an interview with Scheer the other day. He floundered and stumbled over the questions he should have been all prepared for. He couldn't answer the question about the Rebel that he had to have known was coming. His feigned "outrage" over the illegal border crossing was one of the worst acting jobs ever by a politician. THAT answer was prepared. Too prepared and recited terribly.

He's a poor communicator on top of the fact the party had to hide his website the day after they chose him as leader. His views on women and abortion are archaic. He's a embarrassment.

[Glacier]

He's a poor communicator on top of the fact the party had to hide his website the day after they chose him as leader. His views on women and abortion are archaic. He's a embarrassment.

The conservatives need a great communicator who holds modern views of women and abortion. Someone like Trump.

[Omnitheo]

I heard an interview with Scheer the other day. He floundered and stumbled over the questions he should have been all prepared for. He couldn't answer the question about the Rebel that he had to have known was coming. His feigned "outrage" over the illegal border crossing was one of the worst acting jobs ever by a politician. THAT answer was prepared. Too prepared and recited terribly.

He's a poor communicator on top of the fact the party had to hide his website the day after they chose him as leader. His views on women and abortion are archaic. He's a embarrassment.

Even his prepared speeches are terrible. At the press gallery dinner he joked about how he would get rid of the metric system before ripping off a line from the Simpsons.

[Buckeye19]

sheers out dated views on abortion and other than hetro is what will prevennt him from being pm . because even that will rightly now be tied to the intolerance of the right

Scheer has stated on CBC of all places that the CPC is not interested in reopening the abortion issue.

Try again

[Glacier]

Scheer has stated on CBC of all places that the CPC is not interested in reopening the abortion issue.

Try again

He could perform an abortion on live TV, and still the left would claim he's going to ban abortions. If he's not down with abortion, porn, and gay sex, he's an evil religious nut. If he's pro-choice, loves porn and gay sex, he's a vile unstable nut whose being funded by Putin. There's no winning with these guys.