Free speech.

[bogan]

I'm reminded of the saying that the left and the right are just to sides of the same being.

Maybe we need to start focusing on the middle.

Quite right...^{that'swheretheblowholeis,afterall}

[TheDemonLord]

And you are correct to note they do not source their data. This website is not a study.
Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, I've got to issue a partial retraction - the Studies I was thinking of were for Social Psychology - not HR specifically.

In case you are interested - they are these ones:

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
and
https://journals.cambridge.org/image...8_preprint.pdf

Now, I state a partial retraction - since I've seen a lot of HR departments strongly align with far-left principles (equality of Outcome, Diversity quotas, Unconscious Bias training etc.) and these are principles that are accepted in Leftist circles but mostly dismissed in right-wing circles.

To add to the discussion about Left Wing vs Right Wing - for me - sometimes the Left is right, sometimes the Right is Right.

And once again - Dropping Dr Peterson for some more Truth Bombs:

[Daffyd]

To those critics of parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids, check out this link.

And no, I'm not anti vax per se, but I would like to be sure this couldn't have happened to my kids. Gardasil, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother story.

https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadi...s-vaxxed-story

[yokel]

Really?





Do you mean "missed"?
I didn't mention Walker-Smith, only Wakefield.
If you read the actual ruling from that hearing you will see in what are stated as undisputed facts that: "There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his [Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked. "
Much of the case in Walker-Smith's defence was that he was reluctant to make the connections Wakefield asserted, was not happy with the press briefings Wakefield conducted and the evidence was not conclusive for Wakefield's assertions.
There was also some mileage for the defence of Walker-Smith that what he thought he was doing was not the same as Wakefield was trying to do.

None of this changes the fact that data was fabricated and nothing has been produced since to substantiate Wakefield's claims

Does that mean it never will? How would I know? Its possible. Until then "because I say so" (on the part of Wakefield) is not sufficient evidence to make a decision.

Absolutely, principles can be challenging to uphold. For one I firmly believe Otago made the right decision to allow the showing of Wakefield's film. There is nothing to be feared in getting to the truth.

By the way, you still have not answered my questions.

Free speech is about an individuals right to speak his mind vs the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals is very much a rightwing thing.

I thought your questions where reasonably well answered by others.

I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you get warm fuzzy feeling in the bottom of your stomach whenever you say "equality"?
If we're all equally valued then how come we all don't get paid the same? e.g the gender pay gap.

Hate to break it to you but Alex is mainstream and controlled just like the rest. Maybe he will be better now his jewish wife has left him... But I gave up listening to him about 7 years ago. Whenever someone is going to break some new vital info he cuts them off and goes to an ad break and then changes topic if they still on air.
There are way better sources of alternative news and info...

https://alexjonesexposed.info/

http://adventofdeception.com/deception-alex-jones/

Yes I'm aware that Alex is or might be controlled but still more credible than the PC media.

[R650R]

I put it to you that right wing white nutters are the biggest threat to civil society. They've taken over America for starters. Dont forget that until the World Trade Centre the biggest body count in Mrka was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh - the quintessential right wing white nutbar.

That summary of facts presented by the media is debateable too.... A very well documented flase flag that one....

America has actually been taken over by far left radical neo liberals, the type of people who voted for Obama over their own hipster white priveldge guilt (in their eyes). That's why so many people rebelled and voted in trump for old school no nonsense straight talking business action.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...#axzz4dSSGP7Kl

[R650R]

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

Yes but for some its just the emotions and beliefs part without presenting any factrual data to back up their argument.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I also made no mention of human rights, as you discussed the political left so I referred to the political right.

And of course you didn't believe your comments were socialist dogma, if you recognised that you may asked to recognise the failures such polity entails.

Pragmatic for who? The left want the benefits produced by the right, the right tend to be pretty much self sufficient.

Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification and your comments make more sense now.

Again, no, I do not come from a perspective of socialist dogma. Seeing value in some of the ideas which are categorised as socialist does not make me a socialist. Of course I recognise the failures of socialist thinking, I actually referred to some. I was saying that no political ideology has everything worked out, but you know, if it makes you feel better to tell me how I think then fill your boots.

Pragmatism in so far as if society has an issue that needs a solution then some solutions sit better with me from the right, some from the left. You paint with a very broad brush. Absolutely some left wing ideas create a sense of entitlement or dependence which I do not think is right or healthy. Some right wing ideas encourage independence, certainly smaller government and the creation of wealth and that has many positives. They can however broaden the gap between the haves and the have nots. I would like to see everyone get a fair crack of the whip to change that, that means opportunities, not hand outs in my mind.

Anyway this is getting onto a tangent, the thread was about the erosion of free speech. From different perspectives we all seem keen to preserve it. There is disagreement about the source of the erosion and clearly the way to resolve it, but we have to start somewhere eh?

[Ocean1]

Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification and your comments make more sense now.

Again, no, I do not come from a perspective of socialist dogma. Seeing value in some of the ideas which are categorised as socialist does not make me a socialist. Of course I recognise the failures of socialist thinking, I actually referred to some. I was saying that no political ideology has everything worked out, but you know, if it makes you feel better to tell me how I think then fill your boots.

Pragmatism in so far as if society has an issue that needs a solution then some solutions sit better with me from the right, some from the left. You paint with a very broad brush. Absolutely some left wing ideas create a sense of entitlement or dependence which I do not think is right or healthy. Some right wing ideas encourage independence, certainly smaller government and the creation of wealth and that has many positives. They can however broaden the gap between the haves and the have nots. I would like to see everyone get a fair crack of the whip to change that, that means opportunities, not hand outs in my mind.

Anyway this is getting onto a tangent, the thread was about the erosion of free speech. From different perspectives we all seem keen to preserve it. There is disagreement about the source of the erosion and clearly the way to resolve it, but we have to start somewhere eh?

OK. If you relate to the general concept of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes then perhaps you should think of yourself as somewhat more to the right than you may have thought. More: smaller government is probably into libertarian country.

Oh, and any broadening of the gap between haves and have nots might be a natural consequence of the fact that we none of us are actually equal in terms of productive value, a fact that has little to do with personal opportunities or individual hurdles. Might be, that is if there was actually any such broadening.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Shirley, we can use put it in the water with the Flouride or in the salt with the iodine.

Well we could, but where's the fun in that? And don't call me Shirley.

[HenryDorsetCase]

That summary of facts presented by the media is debateable too.... A very well documented flase flag that one....

America has actually been taken over by far left radical neo liberals, the type of people who voted for Obama over their own hipster white priveldge guilt (in their eyes). That's why so many people rebelled and voted in trump for old school no nonsense straight talking business action.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...#axzz4dSSGP7Kl

This is the thread that keeps on giving. That link is my "risky click of the day" TM

[Ulsterkiwi]

So, I've got to issue a partial retraction - the Studies I was thinking of were for Social Psychology - not HR specifically.

In case you are interested - they are these ones:

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
and
https://journals.cambridge.org/image...8_preprint.pdf

Now, I state a partial retraction - since I've seen a lot of HR departments strongly align with far-left principles (equality of Outcome, Diversity quotas, Unconscious Bias training etc.) and these are principles that are accepted in Leftist circles but mostly dismissed in right-wing circles.

To add to the discussion about Left Wing vs Right Wing - for me - sometimes the Left is right, sometimes the Right is Right.

And once again - Dropping Dr Peterson for some more Truth Bombs:

Thank you, yes I am interested. When I asked for evidence, it was because of curiosity. In one of my replies (to Ocean1 I think) I accepted that many academics held views that would be classed as left wing. What I fail to see is why that is a problem, certainly in the context of preserving free speech. Academics are often the first to defend the concept so it should be no surprise.
What really surprised me was the idea that admin and HR people are predominantly left wing. You have been gracious enough to retract (if only in part) that notion because it cannot be supported by actual evidence. An HR department aligning with far left principles because of the policies it conducts does not actually mean those working there hold to those principles. That is like saying everyone who works in MacDonalds thinks the only way to make a burger is to have a BigMac. Those policies will be set by others higher up, not the staff who operationalise them. How often did Rastuscat bemoan some of the laws he was expected to enforce?

Now, to the studies you linked to. One is an original piece of research the other is what I would call a review, an overview of what the current standing is around a topic of interest. No surprises, social psychologists are predominantly liberal/left wing. I enjoyed reading the papers. I don't read that many in this branch of psych. In the first some of the stats lay out what is classed as a correlation but the numbers do not indicate what I understand to be a strong correlation. Correlation is not an absolute or binary state. The numbers however are presented as being of statistical significance. In other words their evidence makes a pretty good case. What is ironic is that both are trying to address the issue of under-representation of conservative viewpoints in the discipline. Both sets of authors see this as a problem. Does this not speak for the value of constant critique and questioning? Anybody can read them now you have the links up there but here is one quote which to me sums up what both papers are arguing for:
"Even those who fundamentally disagree with conservatism will agree that silencing political opponents will not convert them. By excluding those who
disagree with (most of) us politically, we treat them unfairly, do ourselves a disservice, and ultimately damage the scientific credibility of our field."
I would suggest that is an argument in favour of freedom of speech.

Anyway, cheers, its refreshing to see something other that some random website being presented as supportive evidence to make a point.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Free speech is about an individuals right to speak his mind vs the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals is very much a rightwing thing.

Well I think its evident that there are different definitions being proposed as to what free speech is. Why do minorities have to be the enemy of free speech?
I would say there are quite a few left wing thinkers who would lay claim to ownership of the idea of individual rights. Plenty of right wing regimes have put the squeeze on individual rights.

I thought your questions where reasonably well answered by others.

well not really, you said this:

You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

I want to know what you mean by all that? What exactly is it you think you know about me and what I do?

Do you get warm fuzzy feeling in the bottom of your stomach whenever you say "equality"?
If we're all equally valued then how come we all don't get paid the same? e.g the gender pay gap.

You say that like being equally valued is a bad thing and then identify a negative symptom of the lack of that equality in society. So does that mean you can see a problem with some not being given a status they have earned?
No we are not equal, not everyone has exactly the same abilities, skills, opportunities etc I do think its a noble enough aspiration that we can expect the law and society to afford us equal value irrespective of our occupation, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, upbringing, education or political opinion. That value is not always demonstrated in financial reward for whatever work it is we do.
Knowledge, skillset, qualifications, level of responsibility and market demands are all reasonable ways to establish how much we are paid. However if I need assistance from the police or the justice system or the healthcare system, I do not believe the size of my pay packet should determine the service I receive is what I mean.
If I were a gay women performing a role often fulfilled by straight men, those factors should not be the determinant of my pay packet. Can I do the job as well? Then give me the same pay and conditions as anyone else.
Do I get the job because I am a gay women looking for a job normally done by straight men? Definitely not. Give me the job if I am qualified and have the necessary skills irrespective of those other things.

Warm and fuzzy? No, more like frustration that in the 21st century we are still having these arguments.

[Ulsterkiwi]

OK. If you relate to the general concept of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes then perhaps you should think of yourself as somewhat more to the right than you may have thought. More: smaller government is probably into libertarian country.

Oh, and any broadening of the gap between haves and have nots might be a natural consequence of the fact that we none of us are actually equal in terms of productive value, a fact that has little to do with personal opportunities or individual hurdles. Might be, that is if there was actually any such broadening.

Yes I do. And its amusing to me that you persist in thinking I think of myself as being left wing. Not that its anybody's business but my own but my voting patterns would say quite the opposite.

That may be the case yes, but you do concede its not absolutely clear there is no relationship?
A nurse brings productive value yes? Give her a 1% payrise on her $60k salary. That's an extra $600 a year, less tax. It doesn't even match inflation.
The chief executive of a council will also bring productive value. They earn say $360k. When is the last time you heard of a CEO getting 1%? Usually its more like 10% so that's a rise of $36k, over half the nurses total salary as a rise!
The nurse will likely work the same number of hours, might have to buy their own uniform has a workload that might compromise their physicality in years to come and have the responsibility of an individuals life on a regular basis.
Am I saying nurses should be paid $360k per year, absolutely not. Not everyone has a to drive a Mercedes. I am saying they should not have to worry about paying the rent and the power bill. The gap between the haves and have nots could be as simple as that.

[Voltaire]

I think the OP was really concerned about free speech he would change his User Name to his real name and with a passport photo as an avatar.

[OddDuck]

Late to the thread...

A couple of thoughts:

People instinctively entrench whenever challenged. They have to. The alternative is to spend a lifetime being bossed around, by everybody.

Arguments are not really about the facts. Not for normal people. Arguments are primarily about egos, who's most sure of themselves, who's going to get angriest and who's going to back down first, etc etc... arguments are about sorting out who's in charge. This is why it is so important to not listen to the other guy. If you start agreeing with what he's saying then you look weak. *

* unless the audience to the argument are informed experts. Then the facts actually do matter and anyone throwing an ego around just looks like an idiot.

Free speech, in a western democracy, depends on being repeated, transmitted, broadcast and passed on. We don't have time to question every single person for their experience or opinion on every single issue, plus it doesn't tend to make for good copy. Midfield is boring. Extreme viewpoints, though... these make for news that sells. This is why every debate (in the West at least) rapidly devolves into polarised camps at opposed ends of the spectrum.

If you talked to everyone, you'd get a gaussian bell curve, with most people in the middle somewhere. If you believe the media, it's either one extreme or the other. The issue doesn't matter, this is what always happens and it gets worse the longer it runs. Just look at politics in the USA, it's incredibly binary - it's either one, or the other. Never the twain shall meet. Fight, fight, fight. Etc etc...

(this is purely my opinion here) Free speech works brilliantly, if everyone speaks, and if everyone has the same air time. There are extremists, there are always extremists, but if they're 1% of the population and they get 1% of the air time, then they're highly unlikely to have serious clout in a debate. If they get 50% of the airtime then suddenly a tiny group wields disproportionate power. Problems follow.