Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Universities are disgusting

Joined
23 November 2004
Posts
3,974
Reactions
849
I am disgusted with where universities are now positioned in regard to free speech, free thought and free debate.


Universities used to be places where there was free thought and where different ideas were fostered. They could be freely discussed , debated and analysed. This is no longer the case.

Read this blog from Andrew Bolt and take the time to listen to the audio. You too will be disgusted in the way Lindsay Shepherd was treated and how the University now acts and thinks.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...e/news-story/a783b931c6a4bdb221745e74e8b9605a


For a full recording, listen to this:





I am ashamed to call myself a university graduate if this is the bullsh#t they are serving up now.

Don't go to university if you want a rounded education It's just not available any more.


“University education” - RIP
 
Joined
1 October 2008
Posts
3,733
Reactions
391
It gets worse

PS Jordan Peterson is awesome!
 

Attachments

  • China control in universities and media worldwide.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 165

wayneL

Digging myself a fallout shelter
Joined
9 July 2004
Posts
24,171
Reactions
10,395
Wait, they are comparing Milo Yianopoulos to Hitler?

This is why moderate folks are starting to vote as far right as they can stomach.
 

Tisme

Apathetic at Best
Joined
27 August 2014
Posts
8,931
Reactions
1,098
Almost ironic that the very thing the bullies are trying to explain as wrong, they are grossly guilty of themselves.

Appalling communication skills.

There's going to be real upset in the future, what with Socialist parties wiping away the last remnants of social freedom policies in favour of control and the Conservatives bookending those freedoms onto their own planks. Will we see unions moving away from socialist political parties in support of hierarchy, tradition and freedom of religion: I'm going to say yes I think its happening already e.g. ETU in Victoria.
 

Logique

Investor
Joined
18 April 2007
Posts
4,290
Reactions
768
I am disgusted with where universities are now positioned in regard to free speech, free thought and free debate.
Universities used to be places where there was free thought and where different ideas were fostered. They could be freely discussed , debated and analysed. This is no longer the case.
Read this blog from Andrew Bolt and take the time to listen to the audio. You too will be disgusted in the way Lindsay Shepherd was treated and how the University now acts and thinks...
...I am ashamed to call myself a university graduate if this is the bullsh#t they are serving up now.
Don't go to university if you want a rounded education It's just not available any more.
“University education” - RIP
I share your outrage. And apparently there's no link between SSM and religious and speech freedoms :rolleyes:

They're getting Phillip Ruddock to hold a "review" (until the heat is off).
 
Joined
23 November 2004
Posts
3,974
Reactions
849
"The fourth and final reason is that there is a short supply of bigotry, but a high demand for it. Students want to be offended, and for that, they need offensive people. But as racism and sexism have declined, they have to maintain their high level of outrage by lowering the bar for what’s considered offensive."


I’m a student. Here’s how free speech died at university.

http://www.news.com.au/national/im-...y/news-story/748b6979096c523fb7c8cbc89fef7102
 

Tisme

Apathetic at Best
Joined
27 August 2014
Posts
8,931
Reactions
1,098
"The fourth and final reason is that there is a short supply of bigotry, but a high demand for it. Students want to be offended, and for that, they need offensive people. But as racism and sexism have declined, they have to maintain their high level of outrage by lowering the bar for what’s considered offensive."


I’m a student. Here’s how free speech died at university.

http://www.news.com.au/national/im-...y/news-story/748b6979096c523fb7c8cbc89fef7102


You don't need to dissect our universities to see nouveau social obedience, hurt feelings and cry babies. They are here in numbers and boy are they a handful to keep from blaming the candy floss for their sticky hair.

:troll:
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
You don't need to dissect our universities to see nouveau social obedience, hurt feelings and cry babies. They are here in numbers and boy are they a handful to keep from blaming the candy floss for their sticky hair.

:troll:
We havn't reached 2018 yet and our resident All Righeters are hard at again.
As usual quoting vacuous stories from News Ltd which echo more poisonous "speakers" who are somehow deemed to be worthy of serious consideration for their radical, challenging ideas.

As usual utter shite. Let's look at Ben Shapario a poster boy Alt right who the writer screamed was not allowed to speak at Berkley University. Check out this guy's form. He seems to be Milo in a suit and one degree less incoherant.

But just as rapid, incoherant and poisonous.

Ben Shapiro

168px-Ben_Shapiro_at_Mizzou.jpg

Shapiro, president of youth who already look like old men.
One of the
Pundits
100px-Icon_pundit.svg.png

e
“”The immature rantings of Shapiro as a college student weren't something he grew out of. Instead, his dumbest beliefs were reinforced by a right-wing culture that nurtured every nutty idea he had, and pressured him never to stray from a far right ideology. As a result, Ben Shapiro has become a professional idiot.
—John K. Wilson[1]
Ben Shapiro (1984–) is one of the youngest and (along with Bill Still) most visible conservatives outside mainstream media. He is a pseudo-intellectual, if we have to pick a movement conservative who doesn't moonlight as a "comedian" like Steven Crowder, or an exhibitionist like Milo. He has also written several books, including a "Post-Obama thriller" called True Allegiance. Shapiro identifies as Jewish.

Ben earned his spurs as a writer for Townhall and WND, but is better-known for his close association with Andrew Breitbart—even becoming an editor (and then Editor-At-Large) for Breitbart.com. He acrimoniously resigned after Breitbart.com refused to defend one of their own reporters after she accused Corey Lewandowski (then Trump's campaign manager) of forcefully manhandling her. Since then, Shapiro has been a frequent (and pointed) critic of Steve Bannon and the alt-right movement.[2] He is perhaps best known, however, for his outspoken, direct, pseudo-intellectual, and almost entirely inaccurate criticisms of "left-wing" concepts such as white privilege and toxic masculinity.

He hosts his own podcast, the Ben Shapiro Show, which can be viewed on the YouTube channel of his website the Daily Wire.

Contents
Ben-Durr
“”As a general matter, the left’s favorite three lines of attack are (1) you’re stupid; (2) you’re mean; (3) you’re corrupt.
—Shapiro, How to Debate Liberals
One should be hesitant to read Shapiro for any reason. Whereas the ramblings of other extremists in the clogosphere can be mildly entertaining, his sheer smugness and exclusive reliance on strawmen pretty much sucks out any potential "fun" that could be had with his articles.

Basically, Ben's shtick is to mewl about the persecution of straight, white, conservative men in Hollywood and academia where "east/west coast elites" are hard at work, indoctrinating the unwitting public into communism. (He infamously cited Sesame Street as an example of liberal propaganda.)[3] As shown below, just getting out of the house once in a while could easily prove how absurd many of Shapiro's claims are to readers at a personal level.

Didaskaleinophobia
He is a believer in some sort of homosexual recruitment taking place at colleges. In full irony mode he gets upset whenever someone accuses the right-wing of homophobia.

The Christian Science Monitor summarized his book Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth thusly,

Shapiro makes sweeping—and many would say absurd—charges that they promote atheism, sexual perversion (including pedophilia and statutory rape), and rampant environmentalism.[4]
It's here we discover Shapiro has this odd habit of engaging in ad hominem attacks against anyone who is perceived to be even moderately left-wing. For instance, he labels a professor's wife "brainless" when she talked about how much she treasures the Constitution, and in the same book he accuses liberal professors of spreading "evil". Said professor later accused Shapiro of grossly distorting aspects of this fairly meaningless event.[5]

Shapiro is himself a UCLA and Harvard educated lawyer who lives in California, making him the very definition of a "west coast elite".

Militant homosexual agenda
“”If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If your child majors in English, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. Tell Billy to major in math.
—Ben Shapiro[6]
In 2013, he published a book Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Is Silencing America, basically a tone argument stretched over 300 pages. For instance, Shapiro interprets a federal judge's 2010 ruling against California Proposition 8 as "using the power of his gavel to justify his sex life."[7]

Ben Shapiro is also a virulent transphobe. During a discussion about Caitlyn Jenner on the HLN network, Shapiro repeatedly addressed correspondent Zoey Tur, a transgender woman, as "Sir", to which Tur placed her hand on Shapiro's shoulder and replied “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” While not the most polite rejoinder, it's an understandable reflex action when sitting within 10 feet of Ben Shapiro.[8] Ben roared back "Jane, you ignorant slut" that he would immediately file a police report against Tur for battery, and that he planned to pursue any applicable charges.[9] [10][11]

Shapiro does not believe that trans women are women.[12]

In a stunning but not wholly unexpected display of the Dunning-Kruger effect, Shapiro also asserted that all transgender people are simply delusional during this discussion and argued this point with the rest of the panel including Dr. Drew Pinsky, though the good doctor had spent much of the segment up to that point explaining to him the neurobiology of sex and gender differences. Drew Pinsky is a psychiatrist, ie. the medical specialty that specializes in both delusional disorders and - you guessed it - the gender dysphoria that transgender people have pre-transitioning. In other words, Ben believes he is more of an expert on the human mind than an actual expert on the human mind is.[13]

Where's my Nobel Peace Prize?
In 2003 he wrote that Israel should force the Palestinian population out of the West Bank, writing that "if Germans, who had a centuries-old connection to the newly created Polish territory, could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, can be expelled." A decade later Ben decided that wouldn't work, so he now advocates doing...nothing. Just continue the "occupation" because "the problem is intractable." Genius Ben figures that will cut down on Palestinian violence.[14]

Climate
He's a pretty vehement climate change denier. In 2007 he penned a weird article "mocking" liberals who believe in global warming and affirmed Gore's Law.[15] He doubled-down in another article which compares belief in global warming to a religion, with Al Gore as its "Prophet".[16]

His point that the Earth is not getting warmer is false, according to NOAA,[17] and he overlooks[18] the fact that China is a leading developer of Solar energy.

The troof is out dere
Ben Shapiro is somewhat of a conspiracy nut. He got in some hot water when he pushed the "Friends of Hamas" manufactroversy, but that's really only the tip of the iceberg that is his madness.[19] He is also the founder of TruthRevolt, a conservative media watchdog group who openly state that their mission is to "unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases."

Shapiro has also written about birtherism and while trying to avoid being an out and out birther, his writings are extremely sympathetic to it.[20] He believes that it is perfectly logical for someone to believe someone as "un-American" as Obama was born overseas, but he concludes that it's more likely that Obama was indoctrinated with Marxism while in an American school. It seems he is willing to float the idea that the location of birthplaces have a possibility to change based on how he feels about them.

Along with his amazing superpower to interpret anything being fed into his frontal cortex as "propaganda", he's even able to trace it back to the source: the (secular) Jews, of course![21]

He is also (unsurprisingly) a DDT denier, pushing the urban myth that Rachel Carson caused less DDT to be produced which led to millions dying of malaria.[22]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro
 
Joined
26 March 2014
Posts
18,740
Reactions
10,437
As usual utter shite. Let's look at Ben Shapario a poster boy Alt right who the writer screamed was not allowed to speak at Berkley University. Check out this guy's form. He seems to be Milo in a suit and one degree less incoherant.

But just as rapid, incoherant and poisonous.

The whole point of this is not whether you personally like or dislike someone or their views, it's about whether they should be allowed to present those views in a forum such as a university.

To me, this is or should be an exercise in rational thinking for students. Is the guy/gal talking bull$hite or not ? If they are, then argue with them, or walk out if you think they are a waste of time. Universities should be places where anyone can present an argument and have it torn down if it doesn't live up to the standards required.

PS, did you mean rapid or vapid ? ;)
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
The whole point of this is not whether you personally like or dislike someone or their views, it's about whether they should be allowed to present those views in a forum such as a university.

To me, this is or should be an exercise in rational thinking for students. Is the guy/gal talking bull$hite or not ? If they are, then argue with them, or walk out if you think they are a waste of time. Universities should be places where anyone can present an argument and have it torn down if it doesn't live up to the standards required.

PS, did you mean rapid or vapid ? ;)

From all of the evidence to date I do not believe their is any policy point of view in the extreme right platform. By policy I mean some coherant argument critiquing what is currently happening in society and then proposing, with persuasive argument and evidence an alternative direction.

What I see happening is a continual assault on people and institutions that these actors despise and wish to see destroyed.

It is hate speech. It uses lies and fabrications to demean/destroy individuals, institutions and organisations that are seen as the enemy. I copied out the analysis of Ben Schapiros views to illustrate how intellectually bankrupt and poisonous his presentations are.

The voice of the Alt Right is the voice of demagoguery. As far as I can see attempting to calmly use argument, logic and evidence against such weapons is not going to be successful. European countries introduced laws around hate speech, vilification and Holocaust denial to counter efforts of the far Right in the 80's to revive the ideals of Nazi Germany and renew their attack on Jews. It's interesting to note that the Alt Right today reserve their strongest condemnation against laws like hate speech and vilification which would circumscribe their capacity to further inflame the community.

How about Milo ? Brought to Australia to stir the pot so to speak. To use his hyperbole to create change. What does he actually say ? What would his publication Dangerous have looked like ? The would be publishers of his book had plenty to say to Milo about how he might at least seem to have some coherant argument beyond mindless, nasty hate. I'll post their comments on What does the Alt Right want thread.

(And yes I meant vapid..)


Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side.

Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn't based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it's based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people. For example, a politician who stirs up a fear of immigrants to distract from other issues is using demagoguery. Demagoguery is one of the most negative aspects of politics, but it's also one that's all too common.
 
Joined
25 February 2011
Posts
5,679
Reactions
1,190
From all of the evidence to date I do not believe their is any policy point of view in the extreme right platform. By policy I mean some coherant argument critiquing what is currently happening in society and then proposing, with persuasive argument and evidence an alternative direction.

What I see happening is a continual assault on people and institutions that these actors despise and wish to see destroyed.

It is hate speech. It uses lies and fabrications to demean/destroy individuals, institutions and organisations that are seen as the enemy. I copied out the analysis of Ben Schapiros views to illustrate how intellectually bankrupt and poisonous his presentations are.

The voice of the Alt Right is the voice of demagoguery. As far as I can see attempting to calmly use argument, logic and evidence against such weapons is not going to be successful. European countries introduced laws around hate speech, vilification and Holocaust denial to counter efforts of the far Right in the 80's to revive the ideals of Nazi Germany and renew their attack on Jews. It's interesting to note that the Alt Right today reserve their strongest condemnation against laws like hate speech and vilification which would circumscribe their capacity to further inflame the community.

How about Milo ? Brought to Australia to stir the pot so to speak. To use his hyperbole to create change. What does he actually say ? What would his publication Dangerous have looked like ? The would be publishers of his book had plenty to say to Milo about how he might at least seem to have some coherant argument beyond mindless, nasty hate. I'll post their comments on What does the Alt Right want thread.

(And yes I meant vapid..)


Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side.

Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn't based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it's based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people. For example, a politician who stirs up a fear of immigrants to distract from other issues is using demagoguery. Demagoguery is one of the most negative aspects of politics, but it's also one that's all too common.
Are you truly opposed to hate speech bas?

If so then why are you expressing such hateful sentiments towards ben, milo etc.?
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Are you truly opposed to hate speech bas?

If so then why are you expressing such hateful sentiments towards ben, milo etc.?

Really ? I'm observing the hateful nature and character of their work. I'm observing how almost all their activity is directed to demeaning and destroying individuals, institutions, interest groups et al.

It is their activity I find hateful Cynic. Get that clear please.
 
Joined
25 February 2011
Posts
5,679
Reactions
1,190
Really ? I'm observing the hateful nature and character of their work. I'm observing how almost all their activity is directed to demeaning and destroying individuals, institutions, interest groups et al.

It is their activity I find hateful Cynic. Get that clear please.
The only thing clear, at this stage, is that you seem to have no problem accusing others of your very own behaviours.

Perhaps you believe persecution of persecutors to be justified.

Even so, the question remains, on what basis do you determine your justification for persecution of others?

How do you know you aren't, just as (or possibly even more) guilty, of offense, than those you so readily accuse?
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Hmn Cynic. That's pretty good. I mean that is really good. Indeed a Cynic special.

I'm calling out the Alt Right on the objectively proven basis of what they say in terms of denigration of women, blacks, liberals (which covers anyone they don't like) Jews and so on. I'm saying that their modus operandi is continued verbal assault in the name of freedom.. That's all on the record Cynic. That is why Milo revels as a "troll extraordinaire"

Your response is to hypothesise ! that I could, might be, probabvy even, be doing exactly the same thing perhaps even worse. In a court of law for example it would be the equivalent of an alleged thief/rapist/murderer opening the defense gambit with hypothesing on the possible immorality of the judge, the prosecutor, perhaps even the jury!

Your are of course allowed to express such a hypothetical. ( Good luck with actually finding anything.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn your attention to what the Alt Right is saying and how they go about it ?
 
Joined
25 February 2011
Posts
5,679
Reactions
1,190
Hmn Cynic. That's pretty good. I mean that is really good. Indeed a Cynic special.

I'm calling out the Alt Right on the objectively proven basis of what they say in terms of denigration of women, blacks, liberals (which covers anyone they don't like) Jews and so on. I'm saying that their modus operandi is continued verbal assault in the name of freedom.. That's all on the record Cynic. That is why Milo revels as a "troll extraordinaire"

Your response is to hypothesise ! that I could, might be, probabvy even, be doing exactly the same thing perhaps even worse. In a court of law for example it would be the equivalent of an alleged thief/rapist/murderer opening the defense gambit with hypothesing on the possible immorality of the judge, the prosecutor, perhaps even the jury!

Your are of course allowed to express such a hypothetical. ( Good luck with actually finding anything.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn your attention to what the Alt Right is saying and how they go about it ?
Thanks for that bas.

Getting back to my question, what entitles you to decide whom deserves persecution?

What leads you to your conviction of righteous innocence, whilst engaging in the vilification of your opponents?
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Thanks for that bas.

Getting back to my question, what entitles you to decide whom deserves persecution?

What leads you to your conviction of righteous innocence, whilst engaging in the vilification of your opponents?

Good luck with that line in court Cynic. Some of us are dealing with objective evidence. Others are just making up hypotheticals that are as relevant and provable as the numbers of angels that can dance on a pinhead.
 
Joined
25 February 2011
Posts
5,679
Reactions
1,190
Good luck with that line in court Cynic. Some of us are dealing with objective evidence. Others are just making up hypotheticals that are as relevant and provable as the numbers of angels that can dance on a pinhead.
Bas. When you actually start demonstrating some regard for objective evidence, I will start responding to your posts more seriously - until then enjoy your self righteous fantasy.
 

wayneL

Digging myself a fallout shelter
Joined
9 July 2004
Posts
24,171
Reactions
10,395
The only thing clear, at this stage, is that you seem to have no problem accusing others of your very own behaviours.

Perhaps you believe persecution of persecutors to be justified.

Even so, the question remains, on what basis do you determine your justification for persecution of others?

How do you know you aren't, just as (or possibly even more) guilty, of offense, than those you so readily accuse?
Ding ding ding, bingo Cynic.
 

wayneL

Digging myself a fallout shelter
Joined
9 July 2004
Posts
24,171
Reactions
10,395
Hmn Cynic. That's pretty good. I mean that is really good. Indeed a Cynic special.

I'm calling out the Alt Right on the objectively proven basis of what they say in terms of denigration of women, blacks, liberals (which covers anyone they don't like) Jews and so on. I'm saying that their modus operandi is continued verbal assault in the name of freedom.. That's all on the record Cynic. That is why Milo revels as a "troll extraordinaire"

Your response is to hypothesise ! that I could, might be, probabvy even, be doing exactly the same thing perhaps even worse. In a court of law for example it would be the equivalent of an alleged thief/rapist/murderer opening the defense gambit with hypothesing on the possible immorality of the judge, the prosecutor, perhaps even the jury!

Your are of course allowed to express such a hypothetical. ( Good luck with actually finding anything.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn your attention to what the Alt Right is saying and how they go about it ?
Bas, those to the right of center are a broad church. Your characterisation of everyone to rhe right of Pol Pot as alt right, is asinine and ludicrous.

You sir, are nothing more than a propagandist with a sinister agenda of totalitarian communism here.

See what I did there Komrade?
 
Top