- Joined
- Nov 14, 2017
She got threatened with getting fired from showing off a point of view in a public university that her professors didn't agree with politically.
Her wanting millions is due to claims of retaliation against her by the department. I can't verify if those are true or not--that will be determined by the courts, and regardless of the truth he would probably lose due to the political leanings of Canadian courts--but the second this came out I knew her career are Wilford-Laurier was going to come to an end because they were going to sabotage her or freeze her out.
The threats against her were not tame. They were trying to coerce 1) her opinion 2) what she taught and 3) were threatening her with disciplinary action. It's already been demonstrated at the little "hearing" or whatever you want to call it did not even adhere to Wilford-Laurier's rules, or at least was not an official one (even though they had someone from the relevant department act like it was, they were trying to avoid getting a light shone on them in the first place).
It's what these people do.
:autism: analogy, but... these people are the dirty HR-department types that are Lawful Evil on the D&D morality scale.
Can't comment on the redpilled story, but in her shoes I would have recorded them with the exact same reason she claimed.
Okay, now you got to be trolling. Higher administration would definitely not have supported her, and they would have tried to keep this swept under the rug, possibly with further threats against her. The ONLY language these people speak is PR. Again, I would have done EXACTLY the same thing in her shoes, and I applauded what she did from the very beginning. These people were actively trying to stack the deck against her, and she masterfully turned the tables on them.
You really think she showed Jordan Peterson videos for a relevant class discussion as some sinister scheme to get fame and money out of the college? Come on man. She probably had some idea she might get in trouble due to how horribly, terribly politically biased university departments are, but I say, good on her for not backing down. I've been through university. I kept my head down and got my degree, and believe me, I've got a lot to say about things they teach in certain departments, especially in Black Studies (Mister Metokur's videos were right on the money!) and the only reason I didn't say anything is because I was too big of a pussy to.
Someone ought to stand up to these fucknuts. I'm very glad she recorded them, these people hide behind their little secret committees and private little kangaroo court witch trials. Recording them and revealing what they're doing and getting them bad press is literally the only language they speak.
You know Alinsky and Rules for Radicals? Yeah, yeah, I know every leftwinger hasn't read that book, despite what Peterson and Sargon, etc, think. I'm sure you agree with that. But even if Rules for Radicals is not really as influential as people are claiming, it does highlight how these people think. These people are awful. You can't let them hide behind their institutional power and arcane rules the way they do. In universities, and elsewhere, these people are literally the status quo. Rules for Radicals provides a great insight into the kind of thinking and internal justifications these people have for their actions.
She showed Jordan Peterson in context as part of a for/against context involving the grammatical usage of gendered pronouns, specifically. Why Peterson? Because he's the only famous person, especially in Canada, to speak on the issue. I believe she showed a video of the opposite side, as well.
You keep focusing on how she shouldn't have risked her career when the only reason we even have a post-enlightenment world (no hyperbole here) is that people were daring to say things that could have gotten them killed. Some times people just hate the censorious, assholish nature of the establishment and want to rebel, dude. That's what motivates Peterson on the C-16 pronoun issue. Telling authority "no, fuck off." I think that's righteous.
Be careful being too skeptical on that front. You have to look at people's messages over a period of time and their consistency. These people aren't suddenly jumping on the Trump train or doing 180s in their belief systems like others are. Peterson hasn't been afraid to say things that have made the alt right and others hate him, and I'd argue that being an edgy atheist is more profitable than being a milquetoast anti-postmodern postmodernist theologian, as an edgy atheist myself.
I think we should generally grant people as being sincere if their perspective has been consistent and coherent for awhile and don't exhibit traits of sociopathy.. Anita Sarkeesian believes what she says, even if she is massively intellectually dishonest in her arguments thinking she's doing it for the greater good; Ben Shapiro is honest and doesn't hop on bandwagons even if the thought of Israel makes him ejaculate, Peterson has been focusing on authoritarianism for a long time now, and people like Lindsey Shepard are moderate liberals that don't like the direction the left is going. Just because they've made a name for themselves because they challenged opportunity doesn't mean dollar signs were in their eyes. Maybe they leverage their fame to make some shekels after the fact because everyone needs to eat, but there's more risk than reward in it, and I think the more immediate motivation is our internal sense of justice in the face of retards bullying us.
And to add to that, Lindsey Shepard and her attorneys don't expect to win a million bucks. It's like a legal highballing, hoping they'll try to settle for less. I think Lindsay probably does have a case, as on the surface of it I know for a fact these people try to sabotage and ruin carreers, but I can't say definitively as I haven't read any updates on it for a long time.
Now, there are individuals whose motives we should consistently doubt. Milo Yiannopolous, Candace Owens ESPECIALLY, or lisping Trump train bandwagoner Mike Cernobitch, these are the kinds of people we should doubt in everything they do and say. Those people are manipulative, crazy-eyed sociopaths seeking limelight. Contrast their behavior with Peterson and Lindsay and you don't see the same persistent patterns of behavior.
