Anti-Free Speech Arguments Don’t Get Any Weaker Than This

Baiting The Left Freespeechers 68 Comments

Jordan Peterson has drawn attention to a recent blog post that chastises the Ontario provincial government for insisting on free speech on university campuses.

Would SDA readers please try to translate the author’s gibberish into some semblance of a logical argument? I’ve read the her post twice but truly don’t understand what her actual objection is.

68 Replies to “Anti-Free Speech Arguments Don’t Get Any Weaker Than This”

    1. Its quite simple, the left defines free speech, and only leftist speech and thoughts are allowed.

      If you do not support this position you are a Nazi, and the socialist stormtroopers (SS also called Antifa) will come visit your house. If you are lucky they will just beat you up. Alternatively the socialist secret police (a la Castro, Chavez et al) will come to your place of work and get you fired for anti-socialist agitation. You may be sent to a re-education camp.

      It seems like we’ve been here before…

    2. Shouldn’t that be PROLAXITY? As in, being prolax, the result of imbibing a verbal laxative.

  2. I believe her argument is that institutes of higher learning should be able to do whatever they want, and not have to take orders from those paying their bills. In other words, taxpayers should pay up and shut up.

    1. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Academic independence and institutional autonomy apparently mean full access to the taxpayer’s wallet with no accountability.
      Never mind that these institutions have been abusing their autonomy for decades by violating or allowing the violation of the free speech rights of faculty students and citizens. Never mind that they are failing their primary mission of real education in spite of the massive taxpayer support they receive.

      The Ford government legislation is definitely directed at a real problem. I suspect however that it won’t be given sufficient enforcement chops to effectively deal with it.

      1. Academic independence and institutional autonomy apparently mean full access to the taxpayer’s wallet with no accountability.

        Yup. I was made aware of that by my Ph. D. supervisor nearly 20 years ago. He felt that he, a tenured professor, had a right to investigate whatever he wanted and that someone else had the duty and obligation to pay for it with no questions asked.

        He didn’t like it when I told him that if the taxpayer was footing the bill for his research, the taxpayer also had a say in how that money was spent.

        Comments like his slowly convinced me that most academics are over-educated freeloaders.

        1. It’s longer ago than that, but remember well the problems an Australian friend had with his supervisor. He and his family came to Canada to pursue that elusive PhD (piled higher and deeper) in education. Supervisor with whom this was all arranged promptly disappeared on leave or sabbatical or some such excuse, so my friend had to find another supervisor under whom he could do the work. All went well until the time came for our friend to defend his thesis. The original supervisor had just returned and tried to insist there had to be major changes in the thesis. Gather there was a ding-dong battle between supervisors which – fortunately for our friend – the “take-over” supervisor won.

  3. It’s quite simple really … up is down … and … down is up.

    Actual Free Speech is … uh … not … “collegial”
    therefore
    “Collegial Speech” will set you FREE

    FREE to STOP thinking. FREE to cede all thinking to your college diversity Officers
    You shall know the (college), and the college shall set you FREE

  4. She’s using this to fight every other battle the progs are waging. Very little – if any – actual reasoning for her objections.

  5. I think I’ve identified what the problem is:

    “I’m on vacation, and should be enjoying the seashore with my significant-other right now. (Seriously. He is right now drinking a beer and watching seals play outside our hotel window. I, on the other hand, am typing this.)”

  6. I clicked on About the Author and aside from a horrid photo of a confused person standing in a field, I could “be the First to like” her. Not sure what that means so I ventured no further.

    2. I went even further and clicked on the link to her university webpage. One of her publications is entitled Beyond the Binary: Thinking About Sex and Gender. She was also the recipient of the Province of Ontario’s Leading Women Building Communities Award. Oh, and she’s a member of the Women’s Studies Program.

      ‘Nuff said.

  7. Her position seems quite clear to me.

    This legislation will open the door to all sorts of undesirables showing up on campus and saying… stuff. This seems unfair. Saying stuff should be left to our intellectual superiors.

    1. She is also becoming concerned that competence will be a criterion for hiring and/or advancement, as opposed to victim status.

  8. If we don’t fight this we will have to allow conservative speakers on campus or lose some of our funding. We can’t just ban them or ban conservative clubs and we are special. More kittens and colouring books.

  9. Okay, Robert, my attempt:
    Academic Freedom: Schools should have freedom to define what they mean by academics. And define what they reject as not academics, such as global warming denialism, or fluid sex denialism.
    Collegial Governance: Collegial means echo chamber, with no voice of dissent. Obviously everyone in positions of power in the university should be in locked step.
    Institutional Autonomy: Obviously schools should have the right to do whatever they want, independent of who pays the bill, or what the laws of the land are. It includes, but is not restricted to, not allowing those they don’t like to speak on campus.,

    Obviously, freedom of speech is a ploy by outside powers to force different definitions of academics on the school, to introduce dissenting voices, and even outside speakers not in tune with the school.

    Once upon a time, universities were the bastions of true enlightenment, not hindered by restrictive governments. Things have turned 180 degrees. Now it’s the universities who are the restrictive governments within their bubbles, where no dissenting thoughts are allowed. And the outside government, if led by enlightened leaders as in Ontario and the U.S., is carrying the flame to force enlightenment inside the bubble of the restrictive university goverments.

  10. Her demands are quite simple. Colleges and Universities should always have the right to ban any and all Conservative speech and communications in the name of Liberal ‘Free Speech’. Got it now? Tenured Professors really need to roll up their sleeves to continue the honourable tradition of silencing anyone who dares give any point of view not in the Marxist vein.

  11. Oh God, it is so simple. They do not want their leftist PC narrative challenged by free speech. They want to be able to eliminate free speech so only approved speech is used. They want to be able to threaten and intimidate people like Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad into silence and eventually be able to destroy their careers altogether like they have done it Rick Mehta. They want Mattress Girl to be able to slander innocent people. They want white men to live in fear of loathsome creatures like Crystal Gail Mangum. But they cannot say it out loud (yet). Hence they produce convoluted arguments dressed into meaningless phrases like “collegial governance and institutional autonomy”. There is no further argument, none, zero, zip, zilch, bupkis, just a tantrum of petulant, narcissistic, self-entitled, whining, spoiled, tyrant wannabes.

  12. Her actual objection is…
    That leftist Collegial Governance, and Institutional Autonomy should be allowed to live by the rules and laws that they write for themselves, and not have rules and laws foisted upon them by lawfully elected representatives of the electorate.
    Or maybe she’s just (pi$$ed)insulted that her dictatorial powers are being curtailed by a higher authority!

  13. So she thinks that Universities should decide on their own if the Chicago principles are right on their own, and be free to reject them. I believe the subtext is that her Marxist philosophy requires authoritarian institutions and oppressive behaviour to thrive, but is unwilling to respect the authority of any who oppose them.

    Curious that the policy Doug Ford is putting forward is based on the same reasoning that was used for the tenure system. I wonder how she would feel about Universities being free to decide on their own whose employment continued. Clearly her argument is based on a worldview of “Free Speech for me, but not for thee.”

    1. Clearly her argument is based on a worldview of “Free Speech for me, but not for thee.”

      The definition of “free speech” by leftists also includes being free to be forced to listen to only their drivel, free to not switch it switch it off and go do something else, and free to not make up one’s own mind about issues.

  14. This woman is an emotionally and mentally weak, dull person. To want to shut down free speech in order to have a greater ‘collegiality’ among students and staff screams, Marxist horse shit! What she wants is total control over pretty much everyone on campus, what they can say or do. How dull a place would that make?

    I do not believe there is anything of value that can be said about this silly twat. She a hater.

  15. It is ironic to note that the author’s field is the history of philosophy, with a particular focus on classic pragmatism. It should follow that she would welcome free speech of whatever school of thought as an opportunity to exercise her expertise and, say, take on a conservative perspective by formulating a pragmatic leftist rebuttal or two….
    But then again, it isn’t pragmatic to use leftist ideology in a real debate….etc….

    1. It’s the particular focus on classic pragmatism that gets me. Now if she had focused on modern pragmatism I would have given her some slack…

  16. I’m no fan of Noam Chomsky, but I suspect she might be. Here is one of his quotes she should chew on for a while…“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”. Yummy.

  17. I think she has trouble deciding if her school should be public or private. She wants it to be public so she can grab some of those of gobs of money from the government and her students can pay lower tuition. She wants it to be private so that the funding has no strings attached.
    Unfortunately she cannot have it both ways. If the government is providing the cash then they have the right to dictate that the school does not discriminate amongst students, that all members of the public are given the same rights to attend the school and to make use of the school’s facilities. It is taxpayer money, after all.

  18. “That existing student discipline measures apply to students whose actions are contrary to the policy (e.g., ongoing disruptive protesting that significantly interferes with the ability of an event to proceed).”

    This.

    Lefties hate this.

  19. ” I’ve read the her post twice but truly don’t understand what her actual objection is.”

    Simple – she’s speaking 2-year old: “Idontwanna-Idontwanna-Idontwanna-Idontwanna-Idontwanna!!!!!”
    (normally followed by holding one’s breath until one turns blue).

    You’re welcome.

  20. She’s a stupid Kunt. She hates people who disagree with her. She’s never had a real job and her better half would prefer to phuck a seal while drinking beer than listen to the idiocy spewing from her pie-hole.

  21. It’s not complicated, and it’s embodied right here:

    “A definition of freedom of speech
    Principles based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression:
    Universities and colleges should be places for open discussion and free inquiry.
    The university/college should not attempt to shield students from ideas or opinions that they disagree with or find offensive.
    While members of the university/college are free to criticize and contest views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct or interfere with the freedom of others to express their views.
    Speech that violates the law is not allowed.”

    First, how dare the government, particularly one she loathes, define free speech, regardless of who they took it from?
    Second, It is the business of universities to shield students from opinions they find offensive.
    Third, it is part of free speech to obstruct the views of others with whom they disagree.
    Fourth, universities should not be places for open discussion.
    Fifth, the notion that violations of the code would be punishable. The notion of linking financial support to organizations which violate the proposed policy is abhorrent. All right-thinking persons deserve their free lunch, you see.

    She disagrees with the entire proposed policy. Typical snowflake who perceives university as her ‘safe space’ where she doesn’t have to hear things which might upset her.

  23. Her definition: Freedom to say only what I agree with. Which should be immediately followed by this quotation: The whole world is crazy except you and me and I am not so sure about you.

  25. So, I hit the contact button:

    Your column about free speech on campus – you were being deliberately obtuse, right?

  26. She has no point. She is a fill-in-the-blank Derangement Syndrome sufferer. In this case, she demonstrates FDS (Ford Derangement Syndrome). She is against anything introduced by a conservative whether she agrees with it or not.

  27. There was another professor in Winnipeg who received a traffic ticket for running a stop sign. He went to court to argue that “stop” does not mean “stop”, and was not a definitive instruction. Same level of debating skills. Intellectuals function in the ethereal world and require other people to tie their shoe laces, or put air in their tire.

  28. I believe she is a complainer in search of something to complain about. Her arguments against this are very shallow indeed.

  29. I went to her other blogs and found her rant against Hungary. They banned Gender studies over there apparently. Good for them. Stupid waste of resources.

  30. The message from her, and all progressives, is this : we spent decades infiltrating these institutions (education, journalism, law, bureaucracy) to ensure they would preserve, protect and promote our leftist agenda. Any attemp by non-leftists to claim basic rights or fair treatment within our domains will be considered an act of aggression. We hate all and treat you like dirt but don’t you dare threaten to withhold money from our taxpayer funded organizations.

    1. That is one cringe inducing video, from the switching to french from English to the inane high school girl cheerleading speech from Freidland.
      Painful.

      1. Exactly. Every time I hear her speak, I cringe. Her empty-headed prattle makes me wonder if Clown Prince Dummkopf might actually be the smartest one in the government. Now that’s a scary thought!

        (Democracy isn’t a noun, but a verb? Yikes!)

  33. She wants to allow individual universities to enforce academic freedom as they wish. Freedom for the things of their chosing.

  34. The author is a looter and thug who is lashing out against her (actual) employer for inferring such by taking the first bit of action aimed at ending the tyranny she lavishes upon her students along with her tenured comrades and cowering administrators. She has no argument but defers to smothering her incensed blather with the requisite topping of anti-Americanism. Her only apparent use for freedom is the freedom to maintain the campus as one giant cauldron in which students must marinate exclusively in progressive gruel. She has obviously never been exposed to critical thinking and wants to ensure her students never are as well.

  35. I am incapable of providing a translation. However, what I can offer is a partial diagnosis.
    What you have here is an individual suffering the onset of grief resulting from the election of the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario under Doug Ford. As I recollect there are stages one goes through to the point of acceptance of reality. This condition has been further aggravated from the change to an environment where the individual in question must live by rules they constructed specifically to keep people like Doug Ford from having any political power whatever. This has brought on symptoms such as lying in a fetal position, screaming uncontrollably in visibly prominent locations, and writing terse blog entries filled with newly created verbage and hashtags to vent the rage they now experience.
    I believe its been called derangement syndrome self-atttributed to prominent conservatives.

  36. Here’s a rough translation:

    “Waah, now I might have to hear things that are not politically correct or Marxist dogma, and at a university of all places. Not only that, but some American concept of free speech is being imposed on me and my fellow communists. This is a shocking example of interference from a foreign country. What? Can’t quite hear you. Oh, I see, you’re saying having a bunch of communist universities is rather like interference from a now defunct foreign country, the Soviet Union. Well, I don’t know anything about that, I graduated from an Ontario high school.”

  37. Ontario Government Blocks Academic Totalitarianism, Collegial Dictatorships, and Institutional Fascism in the Name of Free Speech.
    -Or-
    Ontario government blocks Shannon Dea. Whichever.

    I think I’ve seen her before…. no,,, that was The Far Side.. never mind.

  38. She has very different ideas on what free speech entails.

    To her, free speech is the right to distribute pornography and to call for the destruction of Israel, of the Jewish people, and ultimately of western civilization.

    To us, free speech is the right to say two plus two equals four, to call a spade a spade, and to expose globalism, liberalism and socialism as the insanity they are and their preachers as enemies of all that’s good and decent.

  39. Her only objection is to “white supremacist” speaking on campus. So, if communists or black racists want to speak on campus, they’re welcome?
    Jeremiah Wright, Yasser Arafat, Castro, Che, Mao, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Farrakhan would all be okay? (if they were all living,that is)

    Apparently.

  40. “Would SDA readers please try to translate the author’s gibberish into some semblance of a logical argument?”

    She’s very, very angry that after a lifetime of getting away with it, somebody is finally calling her and her little friends on their bullsh1t. Worse, doing it in a way which she can’t ignore or bluster her way out of.

    Ford is going to do what no one else has had the stones to, he’s going to hit them in the wallet. That’s where it hurts.

  41. To repeat what Joe said at 6:14 at the beginning of the thread, “Its quite simple, the left defines free speech, and only leftist speech and thoughts are allowed”.

  42. Just looked up and re-read the “Chicago Principles”. I would be concerned about any post-secondary institution that did not support them. Whether that school is private or publicly funded seems like a red herring, but it seems to part of what bothers Ms. Dea. Telling?

    1. Yep Turtle! violation of US Civil rights will get little Jeff hot on the trail… Canada: She calls for the Lawyers to defend the Status quo, but now Ford has discovered the Hammer in his tool kit….Waste of time & money dear….Toe the line, or re- join the pole dancers…

  43. You truly don’t understand what her actual objection is? Seems blatantly obvious to me, she objects to the idea of freedom of speech.

  45. (translation begins)
    Free speech is American (unspoken – anything American is bad).

    Leftist free speech (shouting down those with whom you disagree, physical assault) will no longer be the preferred model, and that’s chilling. The idea that everyone gets to speak is dangerous.

    I care so much about this that I put my beer down while vacationing out-of-the-country to type this. Universities belong to Us. How dare government try to tell Us how to run Our house.

    Contact your union or association of entitled scholars to battle this horrible attempt to make Universities free speech zone.
    (end)

  46. Im about to do my laundry, and have a filthy filthy sock in hand.
    can sumbuddy point me in the direction of this GO&^&^$#&$MN BYATCH’s mouth?

    migawd, the convoluted train of thought this link represents. is it *really* that bad? yup !!!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation