Jump to content

JB33

Suspended Users
  • Content Count

    7,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JB33

  1. 3 hours ago, doublejack said:

    Your position is full of straw man arguments. It is possible to open the economy responsibly and have the federal government lend assistance where there are gaps. This is not an either-or situation. We don't have to embrace the death of hundreds of thousands just for a few bucks.

    That's....exactly what's going on right now though. Sooo we're in agreement?

  2. 5 minutes ago, dudalb said:

    A society that values money over human lives is doomed in the long run.

    SOrry, but you have been a "let the virus run it's course' guy for along time. Maybe if one your friends or relatived dies your tune will change.

    Until the virus is under control, the economy will consider to suffer.

    The economy isn't just about the money. It's the structure of our society as we know it. You make it sound like it's a simple matter of greed.

    • Disbelief 1
  3. 1 minute ago, cannastop said:

     

    Everyone has given up in the US, I think. I don't know how many people will have to die for another lockdown.

    If we completely kill the economy, many many more will die. People just don't get it. We can't all hunker down until there's no trace of the virus or we get a vaccine and then flip a switch and go completely back to normal. We have to get going now while we can still salvage our society and do our absolute utmost to limit the damage.

     

    There's no win here. It's just the lesser of two evils.

    • Disbelief 1
  4. 2 hours ago, SnokesLegs said:

    Exactly, it’s not a comparable thing at all. Food shopping is a necessity, watching a film surrounded be other people who may or may not give you the disease definitely isn’t.

     

    If July happens, just wait for the first Deadline report about how a screening of Tenet was abandoned after someone sneezed and people ran for the exits...

    I sneezed the other day in a store and everyone looked at me horrified. It was the funniest shit ever! I'm like "People do just sneeze, ya know?".

     

    Sheeple, I tell ya.

  5. 7 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

     

     

    There is great disagreement between many health authorities across the country and many local and provincial leaders no longer reference the WHO when they are asked which health guidelines they are following.

     

     

    Personally me and my fiance are heading to a national park on june 20 as that is when the province fully opens all parks. 

     

     

     

    Nice! Went to a park with some friends recently. I dont think I've ever appreciated such a simple thing more. How about theatres in Ontario? Any word?

    • Like 1
  6. 13 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

     

    WHO backtracks on claim that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is 'very rare'

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-covid-19-asymptomatic-spread-1.5604353

     

    1mqgfw.jpg

     

     

    The Who is its worst enemy right now.

    And people gave me sanctimonious scoldings for not taking the WHO seriously. 

     

    @Lordmandeep what do you think of the government of Canada maintaining their allegiance to the WHO and not their own internal health authorities?

  7. 9 hours ago, antovolk said:

    I'm sorry but while I appreciate the business arguments, people advocating for even longer theatrical exclusivity windows and getting all up about the sanctity of the theatrical experience while we are still in the middle of a pandemic, which means there is still a risk attached to said experience, that won't be over on July 17 can fuck right off.

     

    After vaccine/accessible treatment? Perhaps.

    This is a huge overreaction.

  8. 25 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

    Believe it or not JB, Canadian universities are not as idiotic as some American universities have become on free speech issues. In your case the teacher was not fired: 

     

    Mostly has to do with the 2017 Lindsay Shepard Scandal at Laurier University.

     

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

     

    Canada universities are much more cautious to fire people over viewpoints. 

     

    Where a TA sort of got the Spanish Inquisition against her for playing a Jordan Peterson interview that was a debate on state sponsored broadcast television (TV Ontario) when the class was about pronouns and communication.

     

    She recorded the meeting and one prof said "the professor compared the Peterson clip to "neutrally playing a speech by Hitler"

     

    The whole scandal caused a huge push-back against Universities in Canada firing people or going after people for sharing different viewpoints and have since cooled off a bit. 

     

    I'm very familiar with the Lindsay Shepherd incident and have continued to follow her via True North. You're absolutely right that Canadian Universities don't have the reputation for intolerance that US Universities do. It was just frustrating to read about even a small example of it in the news today.

     

    I was pretty impressed with the response to the Laurier thing. It feels like Conservative Canadians are more willing to speak up and fight back in comparison to the US. 

  9. 1 minute ago, Eric Atreides said:

    I'm well aware of that. I'm advocating for theatrical/VOD day-and-date releases for all movies, especially kids movies because of all this. I just think Grim mentioning splitting parents and kids apart doesn't seem believable to me.

    It wouldn't be logical anyway. Parents and kids are together at home.

  10. 13 minutes ago, filmlover said:

    If anything it's gonna be fun seeing this (and Mulan) sticking around in the top 10 for a while since the paucity of releases that's looking to last until Labor Day weekend (unless a whole bunch of movies either move up or get added to the schedule) means we won't have an official box office top 10 again for another couple of months.

    Would you say March 13-15 was the last "official" weekend? Asking because I'm just trying to guage your definition of official

  11. 28 minutes ago, aabattery said:

     

    Not sure where you're getting the outside student angle; it explicitly says in the article that the complaints were informal and anonymous. She can claim that everyone in her classes like them, but she's not a mind-reader. Regardless, she's not losing her teaching position so the people who don't have an issue with her views can still go to those classes. She's just not going to be in the front-facing student service role, which honestly just makes sense; if you hired a receptionist at some imaginary business who kept pissing people off and was driving customers away, would you be inclined to keep them on? Except in this case, she's not even getting fired; they're just pulling her back from an administrative position where she was not able to fulfill her duties without pushing people away from the faculty. 

     

    No, she's not a mind-reader, but I think one can tell if your students are clearly opposed to or uncomfortable with your views you shared. Maybe not, who knows?

     

    I get what you're saying. It makes sense for her superiors to do this on some level. What I'm protesting is the fragility of the students. It would be one thing if the professor was out right discriminatory, but that wasn't the case at all. Saying how you view sex and gender, especially from a biological and scientific standpoint, should not justify complaining to the dean and result in action being taken, whether she lost her job or just moved positions. 

     

    In a nutshell, I'm saying that the intolerance is still there. It just switched sides. It's scary how fragile today's youth and young adults are, how easily they feel intimidated and unsafe. How much do you want to bet that whoever complained didn't have a dog in the fight at all?

  12. 36 minutes ago, aabattery said:

     

    Reading up on it the situation there seems more nuanced than you're painting it here.

     

    She didn't lose her job, she's still employed as an associate professor and I can't see anything to suggest that her ability to research or publish has been infringed. In general these types of roles don't actually garner you any extra pay; they just get you a release from some of your teaching responsibilities, so her bank account isn't going to be weeping. She has simply been removed from a service role as a Chair of Undergraduate programs. Obviously I'm not intimately familiar with how the University of Alberta's admin works, but to me that sounds like a role that would place her in direct contact with a lot of students, including trans-people (this is how it would work at my uni). If she was making students uncomfortable in that role, I don't see why it is outrageous to suggest that maybe she take a step back and focus on other areas of her job.

    That's why I said "or kicked out of their positions". I read the article, she's not happy with it. It's also not as innocent as "hey maybe you should step back because students feel uncomfortable. That IS the situation, but it's not innocent. Other views often can make one uncomfortable, but they're just views. She made sure to tell the students that they dont have to see it her way at all. She's just clarifying her views. She also firmly believes the complaints didnt come from her students at all.

     

    So she basically got shoved out of her role because some outside students "felt unsafe". This is a horrible precedent to set. What about if people feel uncomfortable with opposite views? That doesnt matter does it because only one way of thinking is allowed.

     

    @Barnack you always have interesting things to say. What are your thoughts on this?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.