(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

If so, it would not be the first alleged "culture" on college campuses to be more self-serving myth than grounded reality.

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I have been thinking something similar regarding the influence of the MSM on the public perception of Trump.

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When you start chipring on McCarthyism from the right when you dont mention the cancel culture of the leftist version of McCarthyism, you kind of lost the case right there.

As for anti-Constitutionalists, well, perhaps you should chime in on that since you proffered that miasma of thought there. And lets have a discussion on the scope of anti-Constitutionalism from the left and right.

And back to the first point, lets have a solid discussion on the scope and effect of 'McCarthyist activity' from the left and the right, and let's decide which one has more activity, and which one is far more prevalent and effective.

Which shitbird firing of a professor do you want me to start out with?

Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

(07-05-2020 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

Of course. Statements like "I'm going to kill you" or "kill cracker babies" cannot be tolerated. Statements like "I don't agree with the objectives of BLM" or "I don't agree with Trump" can be. Statements like "I want a raise" can go either way.

(07-05-2020 07:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd point out that Big did the exact same thing, when he noted that comparing Biden in Ukraine to Trump, that he feels Trump has profited from his election, so he's okay with it.

That is not remotely what I said. I'm not OK with it in the way the Trump family has obviously done it (Trump staying at Trump properties and forcing other government employees like Secret Service to stay at his properties is the easiest example). I'm not OK with it in the way that OO asked in his hypothetical (and I said as much). What I said was that even if Trump and Biden were equally bad in that way (and for the record, I do not think they are), that issue would merely cancel out in my mind but I would still have other reasons to vote for Biden.

No, no... Big.... YOU don't get to make distinctions if I don't. You guys have all denied us any nuance to our positions... so you as well are denied.

You said that you would vote for Biden even if he used his political position for personal gain... you are thus (by the rules YOU guys have put in place) 'indistinguishable' from those who are okay with it, thus YOU are okay with it.

Can you see why someone might get upset at people doing that to them, repeatedly?

Sure! Except I did the opposite of that. Give it up, either you don't get it, I don't get it, we both don't get it, or we both get it. Go Rice

I will say this. You and I met in person and got along. George and I have met in person and got along. I have no doubts whatsoever that if we were having these kinds of discussions over a pitcher of beer, we wouldn't be running into these kinds of roadblocks, misconceptions, and difficulties communicating. I have shed any of those at this point and I hope you do the same if we are ever fortunate enough to meet again. Maybe something we can all agree on is that these kinds of discussions are much more difficult to engage in via written word, where we can say or insinuate things that we would often not do to each other's face (or at least we would be able to see the humor in the other's eyes when making a subtle prod).

(07-04-2020 10:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kanye West announced tonight he's running for President. I guess these folks who don't like Trump but can't stand the Democrats can vote for him. Of course he probably can't get on the ballot in Texas because it's too late, but maybe you can write him in somehow.

My first thought was how many states can he actually get on the ballot at this point?

(07-05-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.


I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

Of course. Statements like "I'm going to kill you" or "kill cracker babies" cannot be tolerated. Statements like "I don't agree with the objectives of BLM" or "I don't agree with Trump" can be. Statements like "I want a raise" can go either way.

Hence my question about when something becomes “being canceled.”

I’ve not thought about it a lot, and where it would lie for me. But the instance Tanq provided, where a U Chicago prof was being called to step down from a journal because of what he has tweeted got me wondering, especially since the calls were coming from his peers.

Edit: ironically, the article Tanq posted had this nugget, which supports my initial comment:

Quote: Christopher Brunet, an economist and freelance coder, told Fox News: "There are a million screeching Berkeley PhDs on Twitter, but the silent majority of economics professors aren't on Twitter -- they are buttoned up, and they overwhelmingly support Harald and freedom of speech."

My God, I should have read this article more carefully last night. This quote, from the person Gregg Re is trying to defend stands out as impressively in-self aware.

Quote: "Don’t get me wrong," Uhlig wrote in the post, apparently to no avail. "Of course, these football players have the right to express their views about the treatment of blacks by the police, they have the right to protest President Trump and they have the right to kneel during the national anthem. Club owners have the right to fire them because of it, by the way: so Trump actually did not attack the constitutional rights of football players, but what an annoying and pesky detail, right?"

I guess the difference is that are isn’t arguing that the movement isn’t unconstitutional? But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.

(07-06-2020 05:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.

But there is a distinct difference between an at-will employee and tenured faculty. In fact, the reason for tenure is so that precisely this sort of thing does not happen.

Ward Churchill probably stretched the envelope as far as possible, and was dismissed (in the opinion of this academic, rightly so) although many in academia have argued that he should have been retained. His academic credentials were suspect, he was grated tenure in what can only be described as an irregular manner, and there were a number of criticisms of plagiarism and other violations in his research. His termination was at least nominally based upon those criticisms, although arguably if he hadn't pushed the limits quite so far in his political commentary, he would have kept his job.

Academia is a leftist socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber. Not where I am, fortunately, but that is by far the prevailing sentiment.

(07-06-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 05:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.

But there is a distinct difference between an at-will employee and tenured faculty. In fact, the reason for tenure is so that precisely this sort of thing does not happen.

I know the professor is a tenured faculty at U Chicago, but the uproar has nothing to do with his faculty position. It's in regards to his position with a journal, where tenure doesn't have any bearing.

Quote:Ward Churchill probably stretched the envelope as far as possible, and was dismissed (in the opinion of this academic, rightly so) although many in academia have argued that he should have been retained. His academic credentials were suspect, he was grated tenure in what can only be described as an irregular manner, and there were a number of criticisms of plagiarism and other violations in his research. His termination was at least nominally based upon those criticisms, although arguably if he hadn't pushed the limits quite so far in his political commentary, he would have kept his job.

Academia is a leftist socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber. Not where I am, fortunately, but that is by far the prevailing sentiment.

No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

edit: to add a bit more to the discussion:

Quote:A University of Chicago economics professor will return to his journal editor post after the school reviewed a claim that he scorned Martin Luther King Jr. during class, determining there was “not a basis” for more investigation.

The university announced on Monday that it finished reviewing claims that professor Harald Uhlig made discriminatory comments during class and that he will be reinstated as lead editor of the Journal of Political Economy, a renowned academic publication printed by the school’s press.

“The University has completed a review of claims that a faculty member engaged in discriminatory conduct on the basis of race in a University classroom,” university spokesman Gerald McSwiggan wrote in a Monday statement. “The review concluded that at this time there is not a basis for a further investigation or disciplinary proceeding.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/brea...story.html

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

Thats really a loaded question. I am a 'right to work' state type of guy through and through. Think about that conjunction.

I think it abhorrent that an outside group should use efforts to get people fired, or dismissed, based on non-illegal speech in a non-work concept.

For example, lets use the above. The group of shitbirds was calling on a rather esteemed publication to fire the professor for denoting 'All lives matter'. The publication is a top flight economics journal, so your point about 'he isnt being fired from his U Chi post' really doesnt fly, as an aside.

If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability. Much as would not care whom they voted for. If I heard a white dude telling a fried chicken and watermelon joke on site, I would tell them that that is and should be solely reserved for their own private spaces.

After pondering, I would say that if I heard someone say 'all crackers who disagree with me should be killed' or 'all the mud people should be strung up', then the indication of violent behavior might be a factor to consider a termination.

If you are a proponent of all sorts (or any sort) of arbitrary social/political lines that states the 'viability of working', then there are replete examples of such types of groups, times, and societies that should make you equally as proud: Cultural revolution, China, mid 60s; Soviet Union, 1925 - 1990; The Great Social Credit system of China, present day, courtesy of the shitbirds at Google.

So the answer for the great part is no, I dont support what you propose. And especially so in face of outsiders trying to impose a political and/or social correct 'groupthink'.

A comment of 'all lives matter' should not mean the ouster of someone from a position. Nor would I find a comments of: “For the family of George Floyd, the good police officers who keep us safe, my students, faculty and staff. Praying for peace on this #BlackOutTuesday” as a firing offense.

I will leave it to others to act in the stead of the Maoists, the Stalinists, and the current thuggery of the Chinese state to attach the prerequisite of a goodthink social message to employment. If you want to lean to that side, go for it.

(07-06-2020 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

Thats really a loaded question. I am a 'right to work' state type of guy through and through. Think about that conjunction.

I think it abhorrent that an outside group should use efforts to get people fired, or dismissed, based on non-illegal speech in a non-work concept.

For example, lets use the above. The group of shitbirds was calling on a rather esteemed publication to fire the professor for denoting 'All lives matter'. The publication is a top flight economics journal, so your point about 'he isnt being fired from his U Chi post' really doesnt fly, as an aside.

If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability. Much as would not care whom they voted for. If I heard a white dude telling a fried chicken and watermelon joke on site, I would tell them that that is and should be solely reserved for their own private spaces.

After pondering, I would say that if I heard someone say 'all crackers who disagree with me should be killed' or 'all the mud people should be strung up', then the indication of violent behavior might be a factor to consider a termination.

If you are a proponent of all sorts (or any sort) of arbitrary social/political lines that states the 'viability of working', then there are replete examples of such types of groups, times, and societies that should make you equally as proud: Cultural revolution, China, mid 60s; Soviet Union, 1925 - 1990; The Great Social Credit system of China, present day, courtesy of the shitbirds at Google.

So the answer for the great part is no, I dont support what you propose. And especially so in face of outsiders trying to impose a political and/or social correct 'groupthink'.

A comment of 'all lives matter' should not mean the ouster of someone from a position. Nor would I find a comments of: “For the family of George Floyd, the good police officers who keep us safe, my students, faculty and staff. Praying for peace on this #BlackOutTuesday” as a firing offense.

I will leave it to others to act in the stead of the Maoists, the Stalinists, and the current thuggery of the Chinese state to attach the prerequisite of a goodthink social message to employment. If you want to lean to that side, go for it.

Tanq, what am I proposing?

One bit of your response that needs to be fleshed out more is your comment "If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability."

In this instance, the professor was posting on Twitter, which is a public forum and one where he is clearly representing U Chicago. This wasn't exactly a private conversation between individuals. Plus, it also related to a supposed conversation he had with a student in 2014 (as I posted to Owl#s, the university found insufficient evidence of that conversation to do anything). I find the Twitter thread to be akin to a talk at a large conference, where views/opinions are projected to the masses and connected back to the employer.

Before you take this comment as an endorsement of the actions of those asking for his firing, that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking to flesh out and explore the issue a bit more.

My personal thoughts - I've got no problem with people who are associated with the journal advocating for his removal if they feel he crossed the line. I think his tweets were wrong, but that he apologized for them and the issue should be dropped, without repercussions.

(07-06-2020 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

My "ilk" doesn't have to preach anything. It's true, and pretty self-evident, that the vast majority of academia lean hard left and seek to indoctrinate. I teach at a pretty conservative school, and my students complain of it form other faculty there. If you are seriously attempting to maintain that academia is not a left-wing socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber, then that casts extreme doubt upon your ability to reason and understand.

As Thomas Sowell said, if you want to talk about diversity, tell me how many republicans are in your sociology department. Rice had an advantage when I was there in that regard, in that the faculty was heavily science-engineering oriented, and science-engineering faculty did not seem to lean as far left (or at least not seek so much to indoctrinate in that direction). From what I am seeing and hearing now, I'm not sure that is still the case.

As I've written elsewhere, I chose Rice because I wanted an Ivy-League-quality education, with big-time athletics, and without the Ivy League leftist socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber. I pretty much got that on all counts. I am not sure that any, save perhaps the first, exist today.

(07-06-2020 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 05:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.

But there is a distinct difference between an at-will employee and tenured faculty. In fact, the reason for tenure is so that precisely this sort of thing does not happen.

I know the professor is a tenured faculty at U Chicago, but the uproar has nothing to do with his faculty position. It's in regards to his position with a journal, where tenure doesn't have any bearing.

Quote:Ward Churchill probably stretched the envelope as far as possible, and was dismissed (in the opinion of this academic, rightly so) although many in academia have argued that he should have been retained. His academic credentials were suspect, he was grated tenure in what can only be described as an irregular manner, and there were a number of criticisms of plagiarism and other violations in his research. His termination was at least nominally based upon those criticisms, although arguably if he hadn't pushed the limits quite so far in his political commentary, he would have kept his job.

Academia is a leftist socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber. Not where I am, fortunately, but that is by far the prevailing sentiment.

No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

edit: to add a bit more to the discussion:

Quote:A University of Chicago economics professor will return to his journal editor post after the school reviewed a claim that he scorned Martin Luther King Jr. during class, determining there was “not a basis” for more investigation.

The university announced on Monday that it finished reviewing claims that professor Harald Uhlig made discriminatory comments during class and that he will be reinstated as lead editor of the Journal of Political Economy, a renowned academic publication printed by the school’s press.

“The University has completed a review of claims that a faculty member engaged in discriminatory conduct on the basis of race in a University classroom,” university spokesman Gerald McSwiggan wrote in a Monday statement. “The review concluded that at this time there is not a basis for a further investigation or disciplinary proceeding.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/brea...story.html

But the point is very interesting in the small details as well.

Are you aware of the reputation of U Chi -- or the U Chi School of Economics? Think about it. It is probably *only* because of the school's predilection that there was a reinstatement.

A neighbor's kid got accepted to U Chi two years back. In the acceptance package the "welcome and congratulations" letter then said, and still says, 'Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own'.

Think about that culture that is being engendered with the letter above, and with the actions of Krugman.

I mean that thuggery translates elsewhere. I noted earlier that the City of Austin yanked 100 million (25%) from the police budget. And they did it on a fantastically rushed basis. I cant tell you how many people I have talked to that are disgusted by the move, but would not sign a widely circulated petition against the action due to concerns about *their* jobs, or concerns about threats to *their* business.

One client did so. And he is now a target of actual threats of both economic and physical reprisal from private groups. And he has been told in no uncertain terms to not bother trying to renew his city contracts.

I mean, dance all you want, thuggery is thuggery. I guess my client's issues are 'overblown' as well in light of your analysis. I will be sure to tell him so. I am also quite certain he will be relieved that you say it is so.

No offense, notwithstanding all the dancing about Republicans going fascist in the last 30 years, it is in fact the progressives that are running full throttle into Maoism and fascism at the current juncture. The cancel culture is simply one of the facets of that new found crush on the Cultural Revolution from the left.

(07-06-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

Thats really a loaded question. I am a 'right to work' state type of guy through and through. Think about that conjunction.

I think it abhorrent that an outside group should use efforts to get people fired, or dismissed, based on non-illegal speech in a non-work concept.

For example, lets use the above. The group of shitbirds was calling on a rather esteemed publication to fire the professor for denoting 'All lives matter'. The publication is a top flight economics journal, so your point about 'he isnt being fired from his U Chi post' really doesnt fly, as an aside.

If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability. Much as would not care whom they voted for. If I heard a white dude telling a fried chicken and watermelon joke on site, I would tell them that that is and should be solely reserved for their own private spaces.

After pondering, I would say that if I heard someone say 'all crackers who disagree with me should be killed' or 'all the mud people should be strung up', then the indication of violent behavior might be a factor to consider a termination.

If you are a proponent of all sorts (or any sort) of arbitrary social/political lines that states the 'viability of working', then there are replete examples of such types of groups, times, and societies that should make you equally as proud: Cultural revolution, China, mid 60s; Soviet Union, 1925 - 1990; The Great Social Credit system of China, present day, courtesy of the shitbirds at Google.

So the answer for the great part is no, I dont support what you propose. And especially so in face of outsiders trying to impose a political and/or social correct 'groupthink'.

A comment of 'all lives matter' should not mean the ouster of someone from a position. Nor would I find a comments of: “For the family of George Floyd, the good police officers who keep us safe, my students, faculty and staff. Praying for peace on this #BlackOutTuesday” as a firing offense.

I will leave it to others to act in the stead of the Maoists, the Stalinists, and the current thuggery of the Chinese state to attach the prerequisite of a goodthink social message to employment. If you want to lean to that side, go for it.

Tanq, what am I proposing?

One bit of your response that needs to be fleshed out more is your comment "If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability."

In this instance, the professor was posting on Twitter, which is a public forum and one where he is clearly representing U Chicago. This wasn't exactly a private conversation between individuals. Plus, it also related to a supposed conversation he had with a student in 2014 (as I posted to Owl#s, the university found insufficient evidence of that conversation to do anything). I find the Twitter thread to be akin to a talk at a large conference, where views/opinions are projected to the masses and connected back to the employer.

Before you take this comment as an endorsement of the actions of those asking for his firing, that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking to flesh out and explore the issue a bit more.

My personal thoughts - I've got no problem with people who are associated with the journal advocating for his removal if they feel he crossed the line. I think his tweets were wrong, but that he apologized for them and the issue should be dropped, without repercussions.

Yet you show a good support for mob social justice to enforce the policing and clean up of double ungood think in your last paragraph.

How *dare* bad speak or bad thought exist. They must be made to conform. Sounds like a fing smashing great society there lad.

How is that any different from the tactics and goals of the Cultural Revolution or the current Social Credit Society?

How are tweets of 'All lives matter' so wrong that a job or position must be threatened? You seriously believe that?

If you think that, then you should send off for your "I passed the first test of the Proto fascism club" Good job there.

(07-06-2020 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 05:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But his subject did seem more than fine with political speech and at-will employment resulting in someone’s firing.

But there is a distinct difference between an at-will employee and tenured faculty. In fact, the reason for tenure is so that precisely this sort of thing does not happen.

I know the professor is a tenured faculty at U Chicago, but the uproar has nothing to do with his faculty position. It's in regards to his position with a journal, where tenure doesn't have any bearing.

Quote:Ward Churchill probably stretched the envelope as far as possible, and was dismissed (in the opinion of this academic, rightly so) although many in academia have argued that he should have been retained. His academic credentials were suspect, he was grated tenure in what can only be described as an irregular manner, and there were a number of criticisms of plagiarism and other violations in his research. His termination was at least nominally based upon those criticisms, although arguably if he hadn't pushed the limits quite so far in his political commentary, he would have kept his job.

Academia is a leftist socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber. Not where I am, fortunately, but that is by far the prevailing sentiment.

No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

edit: to add a bit more to the discussion:

Quote:A University of Chicago economics professor will return to his journal editor post after the school reviewed a claim that he scorned Martin Luther King Jr. during class, determining there was “not a basis” for more investigation.

The university announced on Monday that it finished reviewing claims that professor Harald Uhlig made discriminatory comments during class and that he will be reinstated as lead editor of the Journal of Political Economy, a renowned academic publication printed by the school’s press.

“The University has completed a review of claims that a faculty member engaged in discriminatory conduct on the basis of race in a University classroom,” university spokesman Gerald McSwiggan wrote in a Monday statement. “The review concluded that at this time there is not a basis for a further investigation or disciplinary proceeding.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/brea...story.html

But the point is very interesting in the small details as well.

Are you aware of the reputation of U Chi -- or the U Chi School of Economics? Think about it. It is probably *only* because of the school's predilection that there was a reinstatement.

A neighbor's kid got accepted to U Chi two years back. In the acceptance package the "welcome and congratulations" letter then said, and still says, 'Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own'.

Think about that culture that is being engendered with the letter above, and with the actions of Krugman.

I mean that thuggery translates elsewhere. I noted earlier that the City of Austin yanked 100 million (25%) from the police budget. And they did it on a fantastically rushed basis. I cant tell you how many people I have talked to that are disgusted by the move, but would not sign a widely circulated petition against the action due to concerns about *their* jobs, or concerns about threats to *their* business.

One client did so. And he is now a target of actual threats of both economic and physical reprisal from private groups. And he has been told in no uncertain terms to not bother trying to renew his city contracts.

I mean, dance all you want, thuggery is thuggery. I guess my client's issues are 'overblown' as well in light of your analysis. I will be sure to tell him so. I am also quite certain he will be relieved that you say it is so.

No offense, notwithstanding all the dancing about Republicans going fascist in the last 30 years, it is in fact the progressives that are running full throttle into Maoism and fascism at the current juncture. The cancel culture is simply one of the facets of that new found crush on the Cultural Revolution from the left.

Again, I have not argued that cancel culture doesn't exist. I've explicitly stated it does - why do you keep acting like I haven't? When they actually occur they are not overblown. I am saying that the supposed frequency of them are overblown - either they happen with less frequency than purported or the outcomes are less severe (somehow U Chicago reinstating the professor is a small detail).

And what actions did Krugman take? Per the article he wrote a criticizing tweet, but I didn't see it reference any concrete actions taken by Krugman.

(07-06-2020 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.


I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

Thats really a loaded question. I am a 'right to work' state type of guy through and through. Think about that conjunction.

I think it abhorrent that an outside group should use efforts to get people fired, or dismissed, based on non-illegal speech in a non-work concept.

For example, lets use the above. The group of shitbirds was calling on a rather esteemed publication to fire the professor for denoting 'All lives matter'. The publication is a top flight economics journal, so your point about 'he isnt being fired from his U Chi post' really doesnt fly, as an aside.

If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability. Much as would not care whom they voted for. If I heard a white dude telling a fried chicken and watermelon joke on site, I would tell them that that is and should be solely reserved for their own private spaces.

After pondering, I would say that if I heard someone say 'all crackers who disagree with me should be killed' or 'all the mud people should be strung up', then the indication of violent behavior might be a factor to consider a termination.

If you are a proponent of all sorts (or any sort) of arbitrary social/political lines that states the 'viability of working', then there are replete examples of such types of groups, times, and societies that should make you equally as proud: Cultural revolution, China, mid 60s; Soviet Union, 1925 - 1990; The Great Social Credit system of China, present day, courtesy of the shitbirds at Google.

So the answer for the great part is no, I dont support what you propose. And especially so in face of outsiders trying to impose a political and/or social correct 'groupthink'.

A comment of 'all lives matter' should not mean the ouster of someone from a position. Nor would I find a comments of: “For the family of George Floyd, the good police officers who keep us safe, my students, faculty and staff. Praying for peace on this #BlackOutTuesday” as a firing offense.

I will leave it to others to act in the stead of the Maoists, the Stalinists, and the current thuggery of the Chinese state to attach the prerequisite of a goodthink social message to employment. If you want to lean to that side, go for it.

Tanq, what am I proposing?

One bit of your response that needs to be fleshed out more is your comment "If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability."

In this instance, the professor was posting on Twitter, which is a public forum and one where he is clearly representing U Chicago. This wasn't exactly a private conversation between individuals. Plus, it also related to a supposed conversation he had with a student in 2014 (as I posted to Owl#s, the university found insufficient evidence of that conversation to do anything). I find the Twitter thread to be akin to a talk at a large conference, where views/opinions are projected to the masses and connected back to the employer.

Before you take this comment as an endorsement of the actions of those asking for his firing, that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking to flesh out and explore the issue a bit more.

My personal thoughts - I've got no problem with people who are associated with the journal advocating for his removal if they feel he crossed the line. I think his tweets were wrong, but that he apologized for them and the issue should be dropped, without repercussions.

Yet you show a good support for mob social justice to enforce the policing and clean up of double ungood think in your last sentence.

How *dare* bad speak or bad thought exist. They must be made to conform. Sounds like a fing smashing great society there lad.

How is that any different from the tactics and goals of the Cultural Revolution or the current Social Credit Society?

How are tweets of 'All lives matter' so wrong that a job or position must be threatened? You seriously believe that?

If you think that, then you should send off for your "I passed the first test of the Proto fascism club" Good job there.

Dude, what the **** are you talking about?

(07-06-2020 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No urge to go down this rabbit hole again, but suffice to say I disagree with the premise of academia as a whole, and across the board, being an indoctrination/echo chamber. But you and your ilk continue to preach that from the mountain tops until it becomes a fact in the eyes of many.

And I find it astonishing that even someone who leans as far left as you do can fail to see this. I guess when you lean left, it just seems like normal, middle-of-the-road, just like some righties probably think Liberty is normal, middle-of-the-road.

It is a fact in the eyes of many because it is a fact. Liberty's not, Hillsdale is not, BYU is not, aTm is not, but most of the rest are.

It's kind of like the news. The leftist all say that Fox leans right. That's because it does. But many of them refuse to admit that the rest of them lean left. I'll concede that Fox leans right in any conversation with any leftist who admits that the rest of the MSM all lean left.