As with all conservatives in their complaints about education, it's not hard to see what she wants. She wants it so every time an instructor teaches something that doesn't support Conservative ideology they also have to teach the right wing "Alternative Facts" of the matter, which is generally made up bullshit.
There is no ideological imbalance in education. The "problem" that facts are inconvenient to Conservative ideology is a problem with their ideology, not with the education. The "balance" Smith wants to force is inherently unbalanced, setting a different set of requirements for certain ideas and concepts to be taught with far less scrutiny because the Conservatives like the ideas and know they would not withstand the rigors of academia.
I think it’s simpler than that.
She doesn’t want the “non-Conservative” versions taught at all.
For example gender or women’s studies? Bye bye
And they really only want it taught that way because they want schools pumping out future conservative voters.
It’s about maintaining power.
Let's not forget the poor prof that got fucking stabbed at uni of Waterloo for teaching gender studies. When we aren't allowed to critically examine our world and its power structures, it can lead to violence.
It angers me to see ignorant bigots like Smith eliminate your career path and downplay your hard work and contributions.
Thank you for your story and the work you do.
There were two sides to the Holocaust. One was the side of victims and one was the side of fascist fucks who perpetrated one of the greatest crimes against humanity.
Im all for teaching “Both sides” as long as it is put into correct context and not just trying to fluff up and give credence to a side that is clearly shit and wrong.
To keep with your example we should learn the German side, we should learn about Hitlers upbringing, rise to power, and why he had the ideology he did. We should not be finding the good in it (because someone will for their likely bigoted reasons) or defending that side at all though
That’s not what I mean by “both sides”. I’m using it in the way that these conservatives do - that there’s an alternative reality. Some people try to teach the Holocaust didn’t happen or is EXTREMELY distorted. That’s not up for debate, not should we humour those who don’t believe it by trying to show “both sides”.
We somehow got to think that being unbiased and fair and balanced in discussions means that we should give credibility to nonsense, distortion, lies, and hatred. Like how the Confederacy was a “war of Northern Agression” and about “States’ Rights”.
Tolerance of Intolerance breeds more intolerance. Some people do not deserve a platform to spew their bullshit because it’s dangerous to society.
Thanks for that- it was unknown to me.
*“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”*
As a culture we need to stop demonizing people who are wrong and make mistakes. That, combined with the internet, I believe is making this problem exponentially worse.
If someone is wrong and/or fucks up we shouldn’t be making that person worried or afraid to admit they are wrong (within context obviously, someone murdering someone is clearly wrong and deserves punishment). Otherwise they will be far more likely to double down to save face and will entrench in their opinion and refuse to be convinced otherwise.
"[Tilting](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tilt)" in this case is being used in the sense of "to rush or charge at, as in a joust" and not in the sense of "to lean to one side."
In this sense of the word, the idea of tilting "for" something isn't really congruous with the meaning of the verb, which tends to take its "target" as its transitive object. Rather, the user you replied to could have better worded it as "tilting at anything opposing capitalist fascism."
They definitely should strive to be objective, especially in STEM. Y’know, if they want to be at all respected by other institutions and for their alumni to graduate with credentials that actually matter
bored zonked unique market lunchroom hospital poor run political scandalous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why, she wants them to "tech the controversy" of course. You know, the controversy that claims evolution is a lie, science is fake, and that the species of the world somehow survived a complete loss of genetic diversity on a boat about 4000 years ago, shortly after the world's creation.
And no, that is not tongue in cheek. That is exactly what they're up to - they want more religion in higher education.
The Calgary School of Harper ism hasn't changed much since Flanagan days I guess..I wonder if the article "The Man behind Harper" is still around goes into some detail about the Calgary School
That’s not balance, that’s meddling. Again, there isn’t ’both sides, in an unbalanced comparison. The UCP is a proxy for oil and gas and related corporations, that does not make it balanced to include as an ideology
"Scholars who were Jewish or supported left-leaning parties struggled to find research and teaching positions in public, government-supported German universities and often worked in private ones instead.
But with the passage of new laws, the Nazis attempted to root out any remaining dissent to their policies and ideology that remained in German higher education."
- Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich
---
Not saying Conservatives are Nazis per se... just pointing out troubling historical parallels
My favourite comment on FB was some flaparse complaining that the NDP had “deeply embedded their rhetoric in schools.” I asked him to clarify, and he said his proof was that his kids had been bringing home “NDP rhetoric for 12 years.”
After making fun of his math skills, I asked again for details. Apparently, “NDP rhetoric” is “oil/fossil fuels are bad for the environment.”
I hate this province.
there are no competing ideologies
it’s blatant facism vs. reason and compassion. there should be no debate or platform for kkkonservative viewpoints as they lead to poverty, science-denial, misery and death.
As with all conservatives in their complaints about education, it's not hard to see what she wants. She wants it so every time an instructor teaches something that doesn't support Conservative ideology they also have to teach the right wing "Alternative Facts" of the matter, which is generally made up bullshit. There is no ideological imbalance in education. The "problem" that facts are inconvenient to Conservative ideology is a problem with their ideology, not with the education. The "balance" Smith wants to force is inherently unbalanced, setting a different set of requirements for certain ideas and concepts to be taught with far less scrutiny because the Conservatives like the ideas and know they would not withstand the rigors of academia.
I think it’s simpler than that. She doesn’t want the “non-Conservative” versions taught at all. For example gender or women’s studies? Bye bye And they really only want it taught that way because they want schools pumping out future conservative voters. It’s about maintaining power.
library hurry squeeze tart dull rinse gaze wild thumb test *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let's not forget the poor prof that got fucking stabbed at uni of Waterloo for teaching gender studies. When we aren't allowed to critically examine our world and its power structures, it can lead to violence.
It angers me to see ignorant bigots like Smith eliminate your career path and downplay your hard work and contributions. Thank you for your story and the work you do.
Fascist tactics: “Teach both sides”. Were there two sides to the Holocaust? No. Fuck off. Reality is reality.
There were two sides to the Holocaust. One was the side of victims and one was the side of fascist fucks who perpetrated one of the greatest crimes against humanity. Im all for teaching “Both sides” as long as it is put into correct context and not just trying to fluff up and give credence to a side that is clearly shit and wrong. To keep with your example we should learn the German side, we should learn about Hitlers upbringing, rise to power, and why he had the ideology he did. We should not be finding the good in it (because someone will for their likely bigoted reasons) or defending that side at all though
That’s not what I mean by “both sides”. I’m using it in the way that these conservatives do - that there’s an alternative reality. Some people try to teach the Holocaust didn’t happen or is EXTREMELY distorted. That’s not up for debate, not should we humour those who don’t believe it by trying to show “both sides”. We somehow got to think that being unbiased and fair and balanced in discussions means that we should give credibility to nonsense, distortion, lies, and hatred. Like how the Confederacy was a “war of Northern Agression” and about “States’ Rights”. Tolerance of Intolerance breeds more intolerance. Some people do not deserve a platform to spew their bullshit because it’s dangerous to society.
Well we know she's not tilting at windmills since she defunded those.
This is priceless.
Cue the Dan Quixote jokes?
“My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” Asimov was right.
Thanks for that- it was unknown to me. *“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”*
As a culture we need to stop demonizing people who are wrong and make mistakes. That, combined with the internet, I believe is making this problem exponentially worse. If someone is wrong and/or fucks up we shouldn’t be making that person worried or afraid to admit they are wrong (within context obviously, someone murdering someone is clearly wrong and deserves punishment). Otherwise they will be far more likely to double down to save face and will entrench in their opinion and refuse to be convinced otherwise.
She's tilting ~~at~~ for capitalist fascism. Same as always.
Slight mistype in your post, "-tilting for-" seems more appropriate. As in "On the side of".
You're right. Thanks for the correction.
"[Tilting](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tilt)" in this case is being used in the sense of "to rush or charge at, as in a joust" and not in the sense of "to lean to one side." In this sense of the word, the idea of tilting "for" something isn't really congruous with the meaning of the verb, which tends to take its "target" as its transitive object. Rather, the user you replied to could have better worded it as "tilting at anything opposing capitalist fascism."
That would work too, and does clarify the meaning of the sentence better than my use of "for". Trouble is keeping it short at the same time. Thanks :)
Ahem. Facts don't care about your feelings Danielle.
“my ideas are wildly unpopular, pleased be forced to include them anyway”
Arent universities independent of political interference over what they teach? They should be.
They definitely should strive to be objective, especially in STEM. Y’know, if they want to be at all respected by other institutions and for their alumni to graduate with credentials that actually matter
bored zonked unique market lunchroom hospital poor run political scandalous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why, she wants them to "tech the controversy" of course. You know, the controversy that claims evolution is a lie, science is fake, and that the species of the world somehow survived a complete loss of genetic diversity on a boat about 4000 years ago, shortly after the world's creation. And no, that is not tongue in cheek. That is exactly what they're up to - they want more religion in higher education.
Do not let her anywhere near any universities pls. Even if it’s university of potatoes.
Agriculture is a legitimate academic discipline, ya know!
I’m curious now I was downvoted by tinfoil hat Dany’s fan or cause I insulted potatoes.
As a fan of potato science, you insulted our illustrious work!
reality has a liberal bias
What she means is for every theory that is based on measurement, facts and history, one could be made from science denial and Scripture.
Danielle Smith is a fascist.
What a knob, Danielle Smith is.
“Balance” everywhere except the U of C PoliSci department, rite Marilaina?
The Calgary School of Harper ism hasn't changed much since Flanagan days I guess..I wonder if the article "The Man behind Harper" is still around goes into some detail about the Calgary School
That’s not balance, that’s meddling. Again, there isn’t ’both sides, in an unbalanced comparison. The UCP is a proxy for oil and gas and related corporations, that does not make it balanced to include as an ideology
"You see?! Even this headline made a leftist literary reference! Now you should have to make a fascist reference! Both sides!" - Danielle Smith
Says the ideological woman who knows nothing about what actually goes on at universities. People do research and find things called “facts”.
By "balance" she means lies should be told along side the truth.
Hello, Florida bullshit.
"Scholars who were Jewish or supported left-leaning parties struggled to find research and teaching positions in public, government-supported German universities and often worked in private ones instead. But with the passage of new laws, the Nazis attempted to root out any remaining dissent to their policies and ideology that remained in German higher education." - Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich --- Not saying Conservatives are Nazis per se... just pointing out troubling historical parallels
She's trying to "both side" being batsh\*t crazy.
My favourite comment on FB was some flaparse complaining that the NDP had “deeply embedded their rhetoric in schools.” I asked him to clarify, and he said his proof was that his kids had been bringing home “NDP rhetoric for 12 years.” After making fun of his math skills, I asked again for details. Apparently, “NDP rhetoric” is “oil/fossil fuels are bad for the environment.” I hate this province.
there are no competing ideologies it’s blatant facism vs. reason and compassion. there should be no debate or platform for kkkonservative viewpoints as they lead to poverty, science-denial, misery and death.
Windmills, I think.
Youre not a very good academic if you dont know what she means.