I’m a Brit, so my knowledge of American political history is limited. But didn’t the liberal/conservative alignment of the Republican & Democratic Parties switch at some point, well after Lincoln? Or at least the names of the major parties were different and the Republicans weren’t always the most conservative?
( I guess the other flaw in your claim is that the liberals immediately after Lincoln probably didn’t know who Hitler was, so maybe I’m taking the hyperbole too seriously. )
“I Like Hitler Ike” was a surprisingly successful campaign slogan in 1952.
No. Voting is also secret for this reason.
See, you agree that there’s a line beyond which a private organization like the CPA should be allowed to take action against a member they deem Toxic. Me too! Who someone votes for should certainly not be that line. We agree!
We don’t seem to agree on whether or not where the CPA (who you have not seemed to acknowledge is a private entity) drew that line in this case. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree, and you’re free to disagree with the line drawn by a professional organization of which you’re not a member, in a professional you don’t practice, in a country you don’t live in.
But you’re doing that thing that you do where you pretend like your opinion should carry more weight by erroneously wrapping it in an argument about the left, and free speech absolutism, and fundamental liberty. Bah. Quit trying to tread on the liberty of the CPA. This isn’t the fight you want it to be. Deal with it.
I’m sure you censorious folks agree with this firing as well.
Do you want to start a new thread about that?
Now you’re doing that thing you do where you ignore the substance of posts that you find challenging I guess. Neat!
That’s paywalled for me, got a synopsis please?
Yes, I agree with it. Even I know enough not to display images of Muhammed to a bunch of practitioners of his Faith. To do so in this manner was purposely using their faith to attack them via forcing them to violate a tenet of their faith, merely to make an ideological/religious point which went well beyond the subject of art appreciation.
It was abusive.
And, to go further, I would say that posting open, non-spoilered images of Muhammed here is also condemnation-worthy and, if done often enough, ban-worthy.
This isn’t difficult, man.
Funny that, that took place in a private institution, most of the critics of the school are blaming the administration for not protecting the academic freedom of the educator. And this is because in this case the educator actually did bother to warn beforehand about the context and content of the lesson, that used images that are historical.
If there is something to blame, this is more likely related to the fears imposed to schools by the idiotic anti CRT hysteria that empowered parents in ways that were predictable. (The article I linked here makes note that the school was concerned about the “harm” caused to the community, IOW, parents of the kid complaining)
This neglects certain pertinent facts—such as the instructor taking numerous measures to accommodate the religious beliefs of her students.
Prior to displaying the image, the professor clarified the purpose of the exercise: “I am showing you this image for a reason,” she is quoted in The Oracle as having stated beforehand. “And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture.”
The images were prefaced in the lecture with a two-minute introduction and content warning—and had been mentioned, as well, in the course syllabus. In her apology email to the offended student, the instructor recalled giving religious students “an ‘out’” by offering time to shut off the video component of the online lecture—after which, she claims to have “described every subsequent slide… with language to indicate when I was no longer showing an image of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Nonetheless, on Nov. 11, the AVPIE told The Oracle that Hamline’s administration “decided it was best” that the instructor “was no longer part of the Hamline community.”
Berkson informed The Daily Beast that, throughout the whole affair (from the time the AVPIE referred to the lecture as “undeniably… Islamophobic” to The Oracle interview confirming that the professor had been let go), there had been “no communication whatsoever” with the instructor.
What is silly for your part is that nowhere in this case, the educator was involved in curricular or extracurricular activities disparaging Islamic people or students. Indeed, nowhere near what Jordan Peterson did.
Eh, I still think the educator was wrong. This is, simply, a violation of the don’t be a jerk rule.
Well would you look at that, this guy likes when private entities, as a result of their own exercise of legally protected essential liberties, nevertheless suffer professional consequences at the hands of the quasi-governmental institutions that license them subject to a code of conduct!
The student describes being “blindsided” by the painting, so either the teacher is lying about providing multiple warnings including one moments before the reveal, or the student is lying, or the student wasn’t paying any attention to the warnings provided.
Since one of the warnings was supposedly in the syllabus, that would have been easy to verify.
Pipe down! Don’t want the fragile mind of the mollusk to explode at the sight of us not being a hive! 
:does bee dance of submission:
Of course the educator is wrong and is being a jerk by showing art in college…
It also demonstrates why such standards are idiotic because they accomplish nothing of value and only empower the mentally weak.
Well, nice to see the octopus in favor of defending academics from the freak-outs that arch-conservatives direct to inconvenient education.
Octo, I would debate you and do counter examples and yadda yadda yadda if there were any chance in Hell I could genuinely change your mind.
But I’m not.
However, to make my position clear for the peanut gallery, imho there is quite a difference between exposing students to challenging ideas and forcing them to violate a (popularly believed) tenet of their faith. After all, I would not be interested in a math class which requires me to be baptized as a… shudder… Lutheran.
Dude, if you’re capable of understanding and acknowledging that this is indeed a difficult and complex question, then why do you immediately lapse back into your default anti-liberal ranting that the solution is simple and obvious?
If you are actually aware that “drawing the line” in situations like Peterson’s involves a lot of conflicting factors on which reasonable people can disagree, then why are you still bleating that the only reason everybody isn’t already agreeing with you about it is that liberals “have abandoned any pretext at the promotion of liberty” and are “censorious” and “idiotic” and so forth?
You really need to make up your goddamn mind whether you’re trying to have an intelligent discussion about a controversial and non-trivial issue or just lazily blaming Liberal Badthink for causing all the problems.
Of course, the other reason to debate and present counterarguments would be that there might be more open-minded lurkers reading the exchange. But his arguments are so transparently stupid it’s hard to see the point in that, either. Really, what is the probability that he is convincing anyone with this nonsense?
Bravo
I agree with octopus on a lot of things in the abstract, for my part. I don’t think professional licensing organizations should have the power to censor licensees who criticize current professional standards without a very good reason. I also don’t think emotional distress qualifies as a good reason. A clinician may argue against a standard in public while still adhering to it in practice. Many clinicians double as researchers: heterodox opinions may lead to valuable contributions in the field. In my opinion professional organizations exist to regulate practice (hence the license to practice psychology, medicine, etc.). I do not think professional organizations should regulate character or public appearance, nor should professional accredation be interpreted as anything other than competency to practice in the relevant field.
I can’t he arsed to spend a hundred hours watching Jordan Peterson’s videos. I scrubbed through one video where he argued, rather convincingly, against institutional standards of care that mandate automatic gender-affirming care. Automatic meaning the clinician must make certain transitional treatments like hormone therapy and surgery available without an independent judgement of medical necessity. Whether such standards are actually imposed on clinicians, I don’t take his word but also can’t be bothered to research it.
That being said if he violates any mandatory standards of care in practice, I would want him fired from that institution. Don’t like the rules? Don’t play the game.
I don’t know enough about Canada’s laws on freedom of speech to opine on their interaction with Jordan Peterson. In the U.S., medical regulatory boards serve a governmental purpose and are considered ‘quasi-governmental’ arms of the state, subject to limits on government power despite being independently operated. For the same reason the legislature can’t bypass constitutional rights against government censorship with a mandatory national homeowner’s association, they can’t bypass constitutional rights against government censorship with a medical board. The legislature may only delegate authority it already possesses: any regulation promulgated by a medical board must be of the nature that the legislature could have passed by statute. This limitation is incident to the statute which binds practitioners of medicine to the regulations of the independent board.
The OP may also agree with octopus about things specific to Jordan Peterson and Canadian freedom of speech. But the OP is prohibited from discussing Jordan Peterson ever again.
~Max