Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cambridge deserves better than Stephen Toope
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Julian
Jun 17, 2021, 5:44:44 PM6/17/21
to
Regular readers may be aware that in recent months I have been having a
running-spat with a Canadian lawyer called Stephen Toope. I am rarely
exercised by Canadian lawyers, but this particular one is the current
Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, and he seems intent on running
that crown jewel of an institution into the ground.
Since taking over as Vice-Chancellor, Mr Toope has been responsible for
a wide array of anti-free speech initiatives through which, as I
recently remarked in the Daily Telegraph, he appears to want to
transform Cambridge University into something like the Canadian bar
association, but without the thrills, or the pay.
Anyhow – our spat came to a head after Mr Toope last month published his
new guidance for informers in Cambridge.
The purpose of his new initiative was to allow students and faculty to
anonymously inform on each other and report 'micro-aggressions'.
As I accurately wrote in the Telegraph, one of the examples of a
micro-aggression offered by Mr Toope's website for informers was a
member of the university raising an eyebrow while any member of a
minority was speaking. In the wake of the negative publicity, Toope took
down his website for informers, claiming that it had gone off early,
that the dog had eaten it, or some such lame excuse.
Anyhow, to my great amusement, Mr Toope has finally found some friends
at Cambridge, or at least some suckers-up willing to write a half-arsed
defence of him. Thus this letter appeared in the letters pages of the
paper at the weekend. Here is the text in full:
Sir -
Douglas Murray has twice made unwarranted and highly personal attacks on
the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Stephen J
Toope (Comment, May 22 and June 8).
As heads of the University’s six academic schools, we are independent of
the central administration, but we cannot stand by as Professor Toope is
subject to such gross misrepresentation.
Cambridge is a democratic institution with roots stretching back 800
years. This means that no vice-chancellor can impose their will on the
university, and all policy decisions proceed through an intricate and
finely balanced committee structure. While we are sure generations of
vice-chancellors have found this frustrating, it is a fact of life at
Cambridge.
Mr Murray makes the absurd suggestion that Professor Toope wants to
limit free speech and push an agenda in which academics can be punished
for raising an eyebrow at a student. The reality is more mundane. Errors
were made during the launch of a campaign to introduce new policies and
procedures covering conduct in the workplace. The campaign website was
taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted and the policy and
procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.
Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced
university leader. He has made clear his commitment both to championing
freedom of expression and to making the university a welcoming place for
our students and staff, who hail from all over the world. The two aims
are complementary, not incompatible. As a leader, he commands respect
from across the University and as senior academics we offer him our
unwavering support.
Professor John Dennis, Head of the School of Technology
Professor Tim Harper. Head of the School of the Humanities and Social
Sciences
Professor Patrick Maxwell, Regius Professor of Physic and Head of the
School of Clinical Medicine
Professor Nigel Peake, Head of the School of the Physical Sciences
Professor Anna Philpott, Head of the School of the Biological Sciences
Professor Chris Young, Head of the School of Arts and Humanities
I much enjoyed reading this attempt to defend Toope. Because if this is
the best that the case for the defence has, then the defence is indeed
what we used to call 'piss-poor'.
Let me take these academics' points one at a time:
First, they say that 'Cambridge is a democratic institution…with a
finely balanced committee structure'. But if this is so, why did Toope
not seek formal approval from the General Board and Council of the
university for all parts of his recent initiative? The reason that Toope
himself gave for taking the website down was that it had not received
proper scrutiny.
And if the structure of accountability at the university works so well,
why did he not seek approval via the proper democratic mechanism? That
would have been done by issuing a 'Publication' in the Cambridge
Reporter, which would have to be followed by a 'Discussion' for scrutiny
from Regent House before the final 'Grace' (that is, democratic
authorisation) was formulated.
These procedures may well be a 'frustrating fact of life' at Cambridge,
and it is perfectly possible that VCs have had to suffer through them
for centuries. But then why did Toope ignore them completely?
Next the loyal Toopians (or Toopites) claim that my suggestion that
Toope wants to limit free speech at Cambridge is 'absurd'. And they add
that:
'The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were
spotted, and the policy and procedures are now subject to further
democratic scrutiny’.
This is completely ill-informed, and rather surprising from academics of
such distinction. For their edification, here is the timeline:
Toope's campaign website went live on 17 May. The first Telegraph report
on micro-aggressions material was published on 20 May. Yet the Vice
Chancellor’s senior official overseeing the campaign (Pro Vice
Chancellor Eilis Ferran) defended the campaign website in its entirety
and in its original form in a letter to the Telegraph which was
published on 24 May.
It was only after this defence that a part of the website was taken
down. So Ferran, on Toope's behalf (that's what the 'pro' bit is for),
should have known about the disgraceful material because it was what she
was responding to in her letter.
The website to encourage snitches and informers in Cambridge University
then went back up on 27 May.
Only after that was the entire campaign website taken down – on 7 June,
three weeks after it went live, and two weeks after concerns were
expressed in public. All this for a campaign that had been in the works
for more than two years. Was that not time enough for proper scrutiny by
all the relevant university bodies?
A further claim of the Toopians did make me laugh. They say:
'Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced
university leader’.
Of course 'eminent' and 'experienced' are terms much open to
eye-of-the-beholder-ism. But if Toope is so very eminent and
experienced, why has he demonstrated such monumental incompetence, not
least in the most basic tools of university governance?
Toope permitted the ridiculous materials to be published. Toope failed
to respect the democratic mechanisms of Cambridge by ignoring the need
for approval from Regent House, the General Board, and the Council. And
so, Toope has not only attempted to impose woke and other anti-free
speech ideologies on Cambridge University, but he has done so via
successive acts of extraordinary incompetence. Where exactly is the
experience or eminence on display here?
It goes on. For if Toope is such a very great lawyer, why did he permit
what could amount to unlawful changes to the disciplinary regime for all
students and staff at the university?
Perhaps the eminent Canadian is simply ignorant of the fact that, for a
full week, the university he presides over defined racism in a way that
a court might have ruled, not just as unlawful, but as actually, in
itself, an act of systemic discrimination against white students and
staff on the basis of skin colour.
The definition of racism with which the Cambridge 'Report + Support'
begins says that
‘Racism...is a system of advantage that sets whiteness as the norm’.
This definition – by suggesting that racism is a white phenomenon –
would surely have fallen foul of section nine of the Equality Act, which
Toope could have realised by reading the act. But perhaps it is too much
to ask for him to have done so.
The Toope-ites claim that Toope himself 'is committed to championing
freedom of expression…As a leader, he commands respect from across the
university and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support.’
But that just reads like the effusions of a few sycophants. If Toope
commands such respect and is such a champion of free speech, why did he
lose three major votes on his statement on freedom of speech last year?
And by some of the biggest margins recorded at Regent House since the
Second World War.
Finally, the Toopians claim that defending free expression and being a
welcoming place to people from all over the world are 'complementary,
not incompatible' aims.
But putting aside for a moment why these dons think Cambridge was ever
such an un-welcoming place, their assertion is clearly flat-out wrong.
There plainly are contradictions between the two aims and it is stupid
to suggest otherwise.
In talking of making a 'welcome environment' and much more, the
Toope-ians keep treading on the right to free speech of all members of
the university. Only last month, they proposed measures that could
regulate the facial movements of Cambridge professors and effectively
forbid any challenge of anyone speaking if they are from a particular
minority group.
Say that men can't become women and you would absolutely discover the
tension that the Toopians claim does not exist. The realm of academia
really ought to be able to understand a contradiction such as this.
Anyway, it is worth pointing out how inept the Toope-ites are. Perhaps
Toope is glad to have finally found a handful of dons willing to stick
up for him. But it is a worthy defence of him, because it is as poor as
anything he might have written himself.
If this is the best the case for the defence can do, then Toope is, at
some point soon, going to be toast. Rarely has the top brass of any
major university been in such total and utter disarray, where every time
an academic is sent out to defend their Vice Chancellor they
demonstrate, in turn, equal levels of Toope-ian incompetence.
Perhaps it won't last much longer. And I hope that alumni are still
withholding their donations for as long as Toope is in charge.
It would be good if this crown jewel of an institution could once again
be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and know
how to protect it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
running-spat with a Canadian lawyer called Stephen Toope. I am rarely
exercised by Canadian lawyers, but this particular one is the current
Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, and he seems intent on running
that crown jewel of an institution into the ground.
Since taking over as Vice-Chancellor, Mr Toope has been responsible for
a wide array of anti-free speech initiatives through which, as I
recently remarked in the Daily Telegraph, he appears to want to
transform Cambridge University into something like the Canadian bar
association, but without the thrills, or the pay.
Anyhow – our spat came to a head after Mr Toope last month published his
new guidance for informers in Cambridge.
The purpose of his new initiative was to allow students and faculty to
anonymously inform on each other and report 'micro-aggressions'.
As I accurately wrote in the Telegraph, one of the examples of a
micro-aggression offered by Mr Toope's website for informers was a
member of the university raising an eyebrow while any member of a
minority was speaking. In the wake of the negative publicity, Toope took
down his website for informers, claiming that it had gone off early,
that the dog had eaten it, or some such lame excuse.
Anyhow, to my great amusement, Mr Toope has finally found some friends
at Cambridge, or at least some suckers-up willing to write a half-arsed
defence of him. Thus this letter appeared in the letters pages of the
paper at the weekend. Here is the text in full:
Sir -
Douglas Murray has twice made unwarranted and highly personal attacks on
the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Stephen J
Toope (Comment, May 22 and June 8).
As heads of the University’s six academic schools, we are independent of
the central administration, but we cannot stand by as Professor Toope is
subject to such gross misrepresentation.
Cambridge is a democratic institution with roots stretching back 800
years. This means that no vice-chancellor can impose their will on the
university, and all policy decisions proceed through an intricate and
finely balanced committee structure. While we are sure generations of
vice-chancellors have found this frustrating, it is a fact of life at
Cambridge.
Mr Murray makes the absurd suggestion that Professor Toope wants to
limit free speech and push an agenda in which academics can be punished
for raising an eyebrow at a student. The reality is more mundane. Errors
were made during the launch of a campaign to introduce new policies and
procedures covering conduct in the workplace. The campaign website was
taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted and the policy and
procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.
Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced
university leader. He has made clear his commitment both to championing
freedom of expression and to making the university a welcoming place for
our students and staff, who hail from all over the world. The two aims
are complementary, not incompatible. As a leader, he commands respect
from across the University and as senior academics we offer him our
unwavering support.
Professor John Dennis, Head of the School of Technology
Professor Tim Harper. Head of the School of the Humanities and Social
Sciences
Professor Patrick Maxwell, Regius Professor of Physic and Head of the
School of Clinical Medicine
Professor Nigel Peake, Head of the School of the Physical Sciences
Professor Anna Philpott, Head of the School of the Biological Sciences
Professor Chris Young, Head of the School of Arts and Humanities
I much enjoyed reading this attempt to defend Toope. Because if this is
the best that the case for the defence has, then the defence is indeed
what we used to call 'piss-poor'.
Let me take these academics' points one at a time:
First, they say that 'Cambridge is a democratic institution…with a
finely balanced committee structure'. But if this is so, why did Toope
not seek formal approval from the General Board and Council of the
university for all parts of his recent initiative? The reason that Toope
himself gave for taking the website down was that it had not received
proper scrutiny.
And if the structure of accountability at the university works so well,
why did he not seek approval via the proper democratic mechanism? That
would have been done by issuing a 'Publication' in the Cambridge
Reporter, which would have to be followed by a 'Discussion' for scrutiny
from Regent House before the final 'Grace' (that is, democratic
authorisation) was formulated.
These procedures may well be a 'frustrating fact of life' at Cambridge,
and it is perfectly possible that VCs have had to suffer through them
for centuries. But then why did Toope ignore them completely?
Next the loyal Toopians (or Toopites) claim that my suggestion that
Toope wants to limit free speech at Cambridge is 'absurd'. And they add
that:
'The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were
spotted, and the policy and procedures are now subject to further
democratic scrutiny’.
This is completely ill-informed, and rather surprising from academics of
such distinction. For their edification, here is the timeline:
Toope's campaign website went live on 17 May. The first Telegraph report
on micro-aggressions material was published on 20 May. Yet the Vice
Chancellor’s senior official overseeing the campaign (Pro Vice
Chancellor Eilis Ferran) defended the campaign website in its entirety
and in its original form in a letter to the Telegraph which was
published on 24 May.
It was only after this defence that a part of the website was taken
down. So Ferran, on Toope's behalf (that's what the 'pro' bit is for),
should have known about the disgraceful material because it was what she
was responding to in her letter.
The website to encourage snitches and informers in Cambridge University
then went back up on 27 May.
Only after that was the entire campaign website taken down – on 7 June,
three weeks after it went live, and two weeks after concerns were
expressed in public. All this for a campaign that had been in the works
for more than two years. Was that not time enough for proper scrutiny by
all the relevant university bodies?
A further claim of the Toopians did make me laugh. They say:
'Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced
university leader’.
Of course 'eminent' and 'experienced' are terms much open to
eye-of-the-beholder-ism. But if Toope is so very eminent and
experienced, why has he demonstrated such monumental incompetence, not
least in the most basic tools of university governance?
Toope permitted the ridiculous materials to be published. Toope failed
to respect the democratic mechanisms of Cambridge by ignoring the need
for approval from Regent House, the General Board, and the Council. And
so, Toope has not only attempted to impose woke and other anti-free
speech ideologies on Cambridge University, but he has done so via
successive acts of extraordinary incompetence. Where exactly is the
experience or eminence on display here?
It goes on. For if Toope is such a very great lawyer, why did he permit
what could amount to unlawful changes to the disciplinary regime for all
students and staff at the university?
Perhaps the eminent Canadian is simply ignorant of the fact that, for a
full week, the university he presides over defined racism in a way that
a court might have ruled, not just as unlawful, but as actually, in
itself, an act of systemic discrimination against white students and
staff on the basis of skin colour.
The definition of racism with which the Cambridge 'Report + Support'
begins says that
‘Racism...is a system of advantage that sets whiteness as the norm’.
This definition – by suggesting that racism is a white phenomenon –
would surely have fallen foul of section nine of the Equality Act, which
Toope could have realised by reading the act. But perhaps it is too much
to ask for him to have done so.
The Toope-ites claim that Toope himself 'is committed to championing
freedom of expression…As a leader, he commands respect from across the
university and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support.’
But that just reads like the effusions of a few sycophants. If Toope
commands such respect and is such a champion of free speech, why did he
lose three major votes on his statement on freedom of speech last year?
And by some of the biggest margins recorded at Regent House since the
Second World War.
Finally, the Toopians claim that defending free expression and being a
welcoming place to people from all over the world are 'complementary,
not incompatible' aims.
But putting aside for a moment why these dons think Cambridge was ever
such an un-welcoming place, their assertion is clearly flat-out wrong.
There plainly are contradictions between the two aims and it is stupid
to suggest otherwise.
In talking of making a 'welcome environment' and much more, the
Toope-ians keep treading on the right to free speech of all members of
the university. Only last month, they proposed measures that could
regulate the facial movements of Cambridge professors and effectively
forbid any challenge of anyone speaking if they are from a particular
minority group.
Say that men can't become women and you would absolutely discover the
tension that the Toopians claim does not exist. The realm of academia
really ought to be able to understand a contradiction such as this.
Anyway, it is worth pointing out how inept the Toope-ites are. Perhaps
Toope is glad to have finally found a handful of dons willing to stick
up for him. But it is a worthy defence of him, because it is as poor as
anything he might have written himself.
If this is the best the case for the defence can do, then Toope is, at
some point soon, going to be toast. Rarely has the top brass of any
major university been in such total and utter disarray, where every time
an academic is sent out to defend their Vice Chancellor they
demonstrate, in turn, equal levels of Toope-ian incompetence.
Perhaps it won't last much longer. And I hope that alumni are still
withholding their donations for as long as Toope is in charge.
It would be good if this crown jewel of an institution could once again
be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and know
how to protect it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
Love
Jun 18, 2021, 2:29:32 AM6/18/21
to
In article <sagfoa$15l$1...@dont-email.me>, julia...@gmail.com says...
I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
keep him over there after he is terminated).
'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
on bog rolls.
Oh man, I just found a product...
--
Love
AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
keep him over there after he is terminated).
'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
on bog rolls.
Oh man, I just found a product...
--
Love
liaM
Jun 18, 2021, 9:28:17 AM6/18/21
to
On 6/18/2021 8:29 AM, Love wrote:
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
>
> Oh man, I just found a product...
>
A friend from Georgia had a roll with Putin's face and flag at the ready
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
>
> Oh man, I just found a product...
>
on his desk.
%
Jun 18, 2021, 10:02:32 AM6/18/21
to
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 10:03:43 AM6/18/21
to
https://i.postimg.cc/j2f35cw5/BUBCO-Brexit-Toilet-Paper.jpg
Probably time to start thinking about the BUBCO Christmas
Catalog 2021...
https://i.postimg.cc/BQq56FYN/BUBCO-Cover.jpg
Ned
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 10:13:29 AM6/18/21
to
On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:29:32 PM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> In article <sagfoa$15l$1...@dont-email.me>, julia...@gmail.com says...
> >...
> In article <sagfoa$15l$1...@dont-email.me>, julia...@gmail.com says...
> >It would be good if this crown jewel of an institution could once again
> >be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and
> >know how to protect it.
> >https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
>
> Oh man, I just found a product...
>
> --
> Love
>
But seriously, this is the published list of behaviors that
> >be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and
> >know how to protect it.
> >https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
>
> Oh man, I just found a product...
>
> --
> Love
>
the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge Fucking University
posted for students and staff to use to narc on each
other to an anonymous hot-line...
- Behaviors such as a change in body language when
responding to those of a particular characteristic, such
as by raising eyebrows when black staff or students
are speaking.
- Mistaking a fellow member of staff from a racial minority
group as a PA of a white person with whom they share
an office.
- Backhanded compliments.
- Avoiding or turning one’s back on certain people.
- Mis-gendering individuals, especially if they have already
shared their pronouns.
- Referring to a woman as a girl.
Are we there yet?
Ned
P.S. I think we should 'share pronouns'. Have we done that?
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 11:23:45 AM6/18/21
to
Or maybe 'suchlike'.
Ned
Here is the complete list of English pronouns...
all
another
any
anybody
anyone
anything
aught (archaic)
both
each
each other
either
enough
everybody
everyone
everything
few
he
her
hers
herself
him
himself
his
I
it
itself
many
me
mine
most
myself
naught
neither
no one
nobody
none
nothing
nought
one
one another
other
others
ought (archaic)
ours
ourself
ourselves
several
she
some
somebody
someone
something
such
suchlike
that
thee (archaic)
theirs
theirself
theirselves
them
themself
themselves
there
these
they
thine (archaic)
this
those
thou (archaic)
thy (archaic)
thyself (archaic)
us
we
what
whatever
whatsoever (archaic)
whether
which
whichever
whichsoever (archaic)
who
whoever
whom
whomever
whomso (archaic)
whomsoever
whose
whosever (rare)
whosesoever (formal)
whoso (archaic)
whosoever
ye (archaic)
yon (literary/dialect)
you
yours
yourself
yourselves
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 1:57:24 PM6/18/21
to
own nefarious uses!
--
The most polite way to imply that someone
may be lying according to Elizabeth II:
"recollections may vary" EPIC!
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 2:01:13 PM6/18/21
to
On 6/18/2021 10:13 AM, Ned wrote:
> P.S. I think we should 'share pronouns'. Have we done that?
"It," "That," or "Thingy"
> P.S. I think we should 'share pronouns'. Have we done that?
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 2:05:10 PM6/18/21
to
ansaman <ans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 10:03 AM, Ned wrote:
>> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:28:17 AM UTC-7, liaM wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2021 8:29 AM, Love wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
>>>> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
>>>> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>>>>
>>>> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
>>>> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
>>>> on bog rolls.
>>>>
>>>> Oh man, I just found a product...
>>>>
>>> A friend from Georgia had a roll with Putin's face and flag at the ready
>>> on his desk.
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget our BUBCO Brexit Toilet Paper...
>> https://i.postimg.cc/j2f35cw5/BUBCO-Brexit-Toilet-Paper.jpg
>>
>> Probably time to start thinking about the BUBCO Christmas
>> Catalog 2021...
>> https://i.postimg.cc/BQq56FYN/BUBCO-Cover.jpg
>>
>> Ned
>>
>
> I am so going to steal that BUBCO Buddha for my
> own nefarious uses!
>
Help! Help! Cultural appropriation!
> On 6/18/2021 10:03 AM, Ned wrote:
>> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:28:17 AM UTC-7, liaM wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2021 8:29 AM, Love wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
>>>> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
>>>> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>>>>
>>>> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
>>>> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
>>>> on bog rolls.
>>>>
>>>> Oh man, I just found a product...
>>>>
>>> A friend from Georgia had a roll with Putin's face and flag at the ready
>>> on his desk.
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget our BUBCO Brexit Toilet Paper...
>> https://i.postimg.cc/j2f35cw5/BUBCO-Brexit-Toilet-Paper.jpg
>>
>> Probably time to start thinking about the BUBCO Christmas
>> Catalog 2021...
>> https://i.postimg.cc/BQq56FYN/BUBCO-Cover.jpg
>>
>> Ned
>>
>
> I am so going to steal that BUBCO Buddha for my
> own nefarious uses!
>
Ned
whomso/himself/suchlike
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 2:16:51 PM6/18/21
to
Ho Boi!
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 2:55:02 PM6/18/21
to
Ned
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 4:03:05 PM6/18/21
to
https://twitter.com/UncleWilberfor1/status/1405976358703054855
Look what you started. I want help writing for him. I can
either make him animated and/or a cartoon strip. If you
write for him, indicate what he is doing in addition to
words and captions
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 4:26:56 PM6/18/21
to
Maybe have him change into a really vengeful Tibetan deity.
Then into a demure Quan Yin.
Ned
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 5:14:34 PM6/18/21
to
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 6:49:11 PM6/18/21
to
On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:29:32 PM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> >Perhaps it won't last much longer. And I hope that alumni are still
> >withholding their donations for as long as Toope is in charge.
> >It would be good if this crown jewel of an institution could once again
> >be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and know
> >how to protect it.
> >https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
> Oh man, I just found a product...
> --
> Love
>
So, a friend in Chicago, discussing the Cambridge
> >withholding their donations for as long as Toope is in charge.
> >It would be good if this crown jewel of an institution could once again
> >be run by competent adults, who know about academic freedom, and know
> >how to protect it.
> >https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridge-deserves-better-than-stephen-toope
>
> I'm certainly withholding donations to Cambridge for
> AT LEAST as long as Toope is in charge (but please
> keep him over there after he is terminated).
>
> 'Racism...is a system of advantage that sets
> whiteness as the norm' deserves to be printed
> on bog rolls.
> Oh man, I just found a product...
> --
> Love
>
Prohibited Behaviors list, took the time for a point-by-
point discussion and personal exculpation, as follows...
---
In a statement promising to investigate the website, Professor Toup said: “It became clear that certain supplementary materials were mistakenly included.”
Supplementary materials? Mistakenly included? Something as important as this and some information was "mistakenly included?" You mean the final product had not gone through multiple versions which had been vetted repeatedly throughout the process by the appropriate persons responsible for the content, including the legal department of the university?
It's always an underling. Some clueless member of the staff. It begs the question, if it had been mistakenly posted, why had it existed in the first place? I could maybe see it on a first draft, put there by some (insert bad word here), but surely it would not have made it past that stage. Their explanation doesn't hold water. How dumb do they think people are?
They were faced with legal action. So, they folded.
Full Disclosure:
My statements above should not be construed in any way to mean I endorse the mistakenly listed behaviours.
I do not think it's ok to refer to women as girls. If I want to say the term, "You go girl,!" I would say, "You go woman!"
My statements are also not an endorsement to treat any racial, or ethnic minority in a condescending, insensitive manner. I would treat them in the same condescending, insensitive manner with which I view and treat everyone.
I also wouldn't dare "roll my eyes" in the workplace in response to anything a co-worker would have said, unless it's clear I'm doing so in a fun-loving manner that will be clearly perceived by said recipients as such, though I reserve the right to roll my eyes while I use the men's lavatory. (Fuller Disclosure: I do not mean to insult any gendered, or non-gendered individuals by using the term "men's lavatory.")
I don't think it's appropriate in the workplace to give a backhanded compliment, though I would sometimes reserve the right to desire to deliver a backhand, when I feel it is appropriate. (Even Fuller Disclosure: I do not mean to endorse the use of violence by saying I might "desire" to deliver a backhand. I would never actually hit someone, unless they triggered me by calling me a girl. Even then, I would not deliver a backhand, because, really, who cares if you call me a girl?)
Gender wrong is wrong, period, except when I don't know your gender. I will not though, ask you how you identify, since I don't want you to ask me either, because you really don't want to know, or care now, do you. Anyway, my list of how I identify would be too long and you would forget what I had said the next time you see me. If there was a next time.
Given the current state of affairs, I have my eyebrows raised at all times, in order to avoid anyone thinking I'm raising my eyebrows in an insensitive manner, which somehow means I mean to trigger them, instead of me being shocked at the latest "mistakenly given" "supplementary materials."
However, I do reserve the right to avoid certain people. I've got to draw the line somewhere.
https://eminetra.co.uk/cambridge-celebrates-the-removal-of-the-microaggression-reporting-website-which-challenges-free-speech/492557/
---
Ned
ansaman
Jun 18, 2021, 7:11:31 PM6/18/21
to
https://twitter.com/UncleWilberfor1/status/1406025086948237312
AND
https://twitter.com/UncleWilberfor1/status/1406025733198204929
Ned
Jun 18, 2021, 9:27:51 PM6/18/21
to
Hotei was used for the BUBCO Buddha punching bag...
https://i.postimg.cc/JnmdHJt6/BUBCO-Buddha-Punching-Bag.jpg
But after seeing your first transformation of Ho Boi, I think
we should definitely use yours for the bag.
Ned
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 12:00:03 AM6/19/21
to
In article <sai71f$211$1...@dont-email.me>, cud...@mindless.com says...
Ah, the finest tradition of political discourse.
--
Love
--
Love
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 12:04:30 AM6/19/21
to
In article <63636d11-56b7-449d...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
Indeed. We already have the U.S. cover for it!
Shall it be a woke Christmas?
--
Love
Shall it be a woke Christmas?
--
Love
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 12:27:50 AM6/19/21
to
In article <4e0a09ea-4c20-40ef...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
Oh yes.
>P.S. I think we should 'share pronouns'. Have we done that?
I don't think so. Here is how I plan to
respond if I ever get asked.
Love
(traditional terms for my sex)
--
Love
>P.S. I think we should 'share pronouns'. Have we done that?
respond if I ever get asked.
Love
(traditional terms for my sex)
--
Love
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 12:58:17 AM6/19/21
to
In article <98debef1-0395-4c73...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
I don't think pronoun shares are generally
meant for titles or honorifics, just things
like he/him/his, she/her/hers, and (barf)
they/them/their.
> Here is the complete list of English pronouns...
Heh, could cause a lot of trouble with just
that even without adding fake words like "zi"
to the list. Insist on being referred to as
you/yourself/yours, or it/itself/its. And
change it hourly or daily, as is your right.
In fact, there's a line of t-shirts waiting
right there.
Today my pronouns are "he/her/their".
Unless notified otherwise, my pronouns
for tomorrow will be "she/him/its".
Note that the above are only for people
too lazy to figure out what my sex is
then employ standard English grammar.
--
Love
meant for titles or honorifics, just things
like he/him/his, she/her/hers, and (barf)
they/them/their.
> Here is the complete list of English pronouns...
that even without adding fake words like "zi"
to the list. Insist on being referred to as
you/yourself/yours, or it/itself/its. And
change it hourly or daily, as is your right.
In fact, there's a line of t-shirts waiting
right there.
Today my pronouns are "he/her/their".
Unless notified otherwise, my pronouns
for tomorrow will be "she/him/its".
Note that the above are only for people
too lazy to figure out what my sex is
then employ standard English grammar.
--
Love
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 1:46:24 AM6/19/21
to
In article <af9a1364-6478-4fa4...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
Excellent. Except the women and girls thing. No one,
not even women, says "women's night out" or "I'm going
to play poker with the men" (unless that person is a
woman).
Is friend in Chicago bald?
--
Love
(On even-numbered days, he/her/its.
On odd-numbered days, she/him/thems.
Alternatively, use normal English
terms appropriate to my sex.)
not even women, says "women's night out" or "I'm going
to play poker with the men" (unless that person is a
woman).
Is friend in Chicago bald?
--
Love
(On even-numbered days, he/her/its.
On odd-numbered days, she/him/thems.
Alternatively, use normal English
terms appropriate to my sex.)
ansaman
Jun 19, 2021, 3:46:04 AM6/19/21
to
https://popeye.fandom.com/wiki/Alice_the_Goon
(Please note female and male goons are
indistinguishable!)
Ned
Jun 19, 2021, 9:33:26 AM6/19/21
to
---
Ned
whomso/himself/suchlike
---
ansaman
It/That/Thingy
---
Love
(On even-numbered days, he/her/its.
On odd-numbered days, she/him/thems.
Alternatively, use normal English
terms appropriate to my sex.)
---
(On even-numbered days, he/her/its.
On odd-numbered days, she/him/thems.
Alternatively, use normal English
terms appropriate to my sex.)
Ned
Jun 19, 2021, 9:40:38 AM6/19/21
to
Playboy in their photo department. Then for 15 more as
a fact checker, there and later in another large company.
He's the one I had in mind when I created the Seal for
the Fact Checker Licensing Board...
https://i.postimg.cc/zf2YfrWV/FCLB-Seal.jpg
Ned
whomso/himself/suchlike
ansaman
Jun 19, 2021, 10:42:46 AM6/19/21
to
On 6/19/2021 9:40 AM, Ned wrote:
> No. He's a drummer. And he worked for 20 years at
> Playboy in their photo department.
I bet they handed out company branded bottles
> No. He's a drummer. And he worked for 20 years at
> Playboy in their photo department.
of hand lotion.
"That's a three session picture!"
Love
Jun 19, 2021, 9:53:42 PM6/19/21
to
In article <sak7bq$80p$4...@dont-email.me>, ans...@gmail.com says...
Which is why we need a neutral (and non-plural)
set of pronouns. Not just for goons, but for
everyone.
set of pronouns. Not just for goons, but for
everyone.
Wilson
Jun 20, 2021, 9:33:04 AM6/20/21
to
On 6/19/2021 9:53 PM, Love wrote:
> In article <sak7bq$80p$4...@dont-email.me>, ans...@gmail.com says...
>>
> In article <sak7bq$80p$4...@dont-email.me>, ans...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> What are the pronouns for a goon (LOL) !
>>
>> https://popeye.fandom.com/wiki/Alice_the_Goon
>>
>> (Please note female and male goons are
>> indistinguishable!)
>
> Which is why we need a neutral (and non-plural)
> set of pronouns. Not just for goons, but for
> everyone.
Did you just made an argument for xi / xir?
>>
>> https://popeye.fandom.com/wiki/Alice_the_Goon
>>
>> (Please note female and male goons are
>> indistinguishable!)
>
> Which is why we need a neutral (and non-plural)
> set of pronouns. Not just for goons, but for
> everyone.
Love
Jun 21, 2021, 3:25:17 AM6/21/21
to
In article <sang2e$qvq$1...@dont-email.me>, wil...@nowhere.net says...
Absolutely not. Our need for it is not just
to accomodate POG (people of gender). It is
to provide a uniform formal means of addressing
each other respectfully. It's to get rid of
slashes like "sir/ma'am", "he/she" and so forth
and also to avoid sloppily sacrificing the
already-neutral plural term "they". There is
an actual need in our language for this
regardless of current "gender" issues.
Janeway told her crew to call her "ma'm" not
the Starfleet norm of "sir" for addressing
superior officers. They should have had a
genderless term by that stardate, I would
have thought. Obviously we need to start
working on it today if the future isn't going
to just have it already solved.
to accomodate POG (people of gender). It is
to provide a uniform formal means of addressing
each other respectfully. It's to get rid of
slashes like "sir/ma'am", "he/she" and so forth
and also to avoid sloppily sacrificing the
already-neutral plural term "they". There is
an actual need in our language for this
regardless of current "gender" issues.
Janeway told her crew to call her "ma'm" not
the Starfleet norm of "sir" for addressing
superior officers. They should have had a
genderless term by that stardate, I would
have thought. Obviously we need to start
working on it today if the future isn't going
to just have it already solved.
ansaman
Jun 21, 2021, 4:53:42 AM6/21/21
to
On 6/21/2021 3:25 AM, Love wrote:
> Janeway told her crew to call her "ma'm" not
> the Starfleet norm of "sir" for addressing
> superior officers. They should have had a
> genderless term by that stardate, I would
> have thought. Obviously we need to start
> working on it today if the future isn't going
> to just have it already solved.
"We have achieved a stable orbit Captain MILF!"
> Janeway told her crew to call her "ma'm" not
> the Starfleet norm of "sir" for addressing
> superior officers. They should have had a
> genderless term by that stardate, I would
> have thought. Obviously we need to start
> working on it today if the future isn't going
> to just have it already solved.
Ned
Jun 21, 2021, 11:20:07 AM6/21/21
to
traditional roles (referring to your parents' generation)...
"They still asserted that traditional roles were preferable
but didn't resist teaching both boys and girls useful things."
What if that is still true? What if the huge majority of women
still want to be distinctly delimited in language and life?
Because I think that's true.
And beyond that, you've still got to deal with the whole snake
pit of the German, French, Italian and Spanish languages, where
every damn NOUN in the language has a gender attached to it.
That's NEVER going to change, because everybody knows how
massively stupid it would be to attempt it.
Ned
DMB
Jun 21, 2021, 4:34:21 PM6/21/21
to
On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 10:20:07 UTC-5, Ned wrote:
> Why? You just said, in another thread, that woman 'prefer'
> traditional roles (referring to your parents' generation)...
>
> "They still asserted that traditional roles were preferable
> but didn't resist teaching both boys and girls useful things."
>
> What if that is still true? What if the huge majority of women
> still want to be distinctly delimited in language and life?
>
> Because I think that's true.
Bring your wife into the conversation.
> Why? You just said, in another thread, that woman 'prefer'
> traditional roles (referring to your parents' generation)...
>
> "They still asserted that traditional roles were preferable
> but didn't resist teaching both boys and girls useful things."
>
> What if that is still true? What if the huge majority of women
> still want to be distinctly delimited in language and life?
>
> Because I think that's true.
0 new messages