• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
The struggle against free speech in Canada continues. Lindsay Shepherd was subjected to a "struggle session" at Laurier University for showing a short video clip in class based on alleged "student complaints". It turns out there were never any complaints, and the "Red Guard", Nathan Rambukkana simply made it up out of whole cloth.

The fallout is an "investigation" which is not being released to the public, a statement which does not fully clear Lindsay Shepherd nor condemn the actions of the Red Guards who caused this and the striking of a "Task Force" for freedom of expression which seems set to be filled by people with anything but pro free speech sentiments:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-investigators-report-into-wilfrid-laurier-universit-vindicates-lindsay-shepherd

and the clip was from this show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

As a side note, when the story first broke, one of my soldiers, who graduated from Laurier, was furious and told their alumni association they would never see another time from him. This is bound to "improve" his mood. And a search of the academic biography of the Red Guard who fabricated the complaint against Lindsay Shepherd reveals he cannot even articulate his area of study, which is doubly ironic since he is supervising Sheherd as she teaches a course in Communications......
 
While I don't necessarily agree with the way you are interpreting between the lines of Christie Blatchford's article to read it based on your personal bias, I admit that I looked at the good "professor"'s write up at the University and looked in particular at this part:

My new research is on the history of digital intimacies. This project investigates the intimate potentials and problematics of social media forms, drawing critical insights from intimacy theory (a subset of queer theory), but extending its ambit to consider multiple forms of digitally mediated togetherness. This project employs discourse analysis in combination with digital humanities methodologies to investigate past, existing, and emerging forms of digitally mediated intimacy. These include such topics as hashtags as technosocial assemblages; MMOs and avatar infidelity; the politics of race-activist hashtags such as #Ferguson; haptics and digital touching; and the emerging sex robot industry. In conjunction with this project I also edited the collection Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks (Digital Formations series, Peter Lang, 2015). This collection investigates the diversity of publics that hashtags address, with politics and positionalities ranging from subcultural and community maintenance; to speaking back to state, corporate and societal power and privilege.

And am left with but one comment:

Why do we even let such people teach our kids instead of leaving them only with serving coffee at Starbuck as a means of earning a living?
 
Good2Golf said:
What the heck is "avatar infidelity?"  ???
Out of all that gibberish, that  is all you had trouble with?  Are you a closet artsy?  :orly:
 
Journeyman said:
Out of all that gibberish, that  is all you had trouble with?  Are you a closet artsy?  :orly:

Well...I did also pause mentally for a short bit at "sex robot industry"...  :nod:

The rest?  I just downloaded my private citizen's GBA+ Training completion Certificate from the DM of the Status of Women Canada, so I'm bound to note to you that I saw no incongruous intersectionality with the Professor's description of their current studies.
 
Good2Golf said:
Well...I did also pause mentally for a short bit at "sex robot industry"...  :nod:

The rest?  I just downloaded my private citizen's GBA+ Training completion Certificate from the DM of the Status of Women Canada, so I'm bound to note to you that I saw no incongruous intersectionality with the Professor's description of their current studies.


You're kidding us, right? Please say it's some kind of pop-culture insider's joke that I wouldn't get because of age or general crochetyness ... please don't make me google something that will give me heartburn or make me even more choleric.
 
Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.

And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.
 
dapaterson said:
Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.

And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.

I've also noticed that since it rolled out, all Op Orders I've seen, even if it was to organize a group of people to go on TD, had a blurb about it.

I haven't been checking into this thread much recently but when I saw "Red Guard", all I thought of was this:

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

I'm no history fan (oh wait, I am) but I remember the RGs not ending up too well in the end...
 
dapaterson said:
Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.

And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.

Our Unit solved that nuance, as with all great ideas, they just made everyone do it.
 
dapaterson said:
Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.

And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.


FML. I thought SHARP training was a ridiculous waste of time.......


Cheers
Larry
 
Strange how the only three letter acronym military people avoid like the plague is the one for Status Of Women.
 
ballz said:
Our Unit solved that nuance, as with all great ideas, they just made everyone do it.

I bet they didn't pass around a sheet with all the answers on it right?
 
Jarnhamar said:
I bet they didn't pass around a sheet with all the answers on it right?

If they did, I didn't learn about it. I trained my troops to stop trying to involve me for top cover after we all got charged with drunkenness.
 
Kat Stevens said:
Strange how the only three letter acronym military people avoid like the plague is the one for Status Of Women.
:rofl:

And now.... I apologize for seeing the humour in that.


~snicker~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top