Opinions on Political/O&G Messaging at UofC?

[Yogurt Baron]

Oh, for crying out loud.

I phrased my comment imprecisely, yes. I should have said, "You calling a couple of people trolls reminds me of when I used to say everyone I fought with was a troll." I should not have said that you call "everybody" a troll. You do not. You are consistently respectful when you feel respected, which is, like, a third of the time. (Please don't do the math and come back and say, "No, I feel respected 43% of the time. Understating how often I feel respected is very disrespectful and you're a troll." I beg you.) Okay?

Sorry to keep playing the "I've been around the block" card, but...I've been around the block. I've known BQ (on here) for more years than I want to think about. Half of his comments are him trying to joke with you and you not getting the jokes because you're in a shitty mood and not inclined to give anyone the benefit of the doubt on here right now. Half of them are him constructively telling you, "You need thicker skin if you want to succeed." Which you simply do. Do you have any idea how much bullshit a lawyer has to deal with that is exponentially more annoying than anything you're getting from anyone here?

Look. This is the internet. Right now, the senior lawyer you're talking to (that's Blocked, not me) is just words on a screen. And just as I've said to you that we don't owe you Logic in this setting, it cuts both ways; you don't owe us Civility, in this context. (It'd be a good idea, but you don't owe it to us.) But when the day comes ten years from now that you're a lawyer and Blocked is a judge and you're in his courtroom and he says something you don't like, you will not be able to say, "Shut up, judge, you're a troll." That just won't be on the table for you. Develop some coping mechanisms for when you feel angry. Please.

I've invested enough of my week in this, and I'm going to step away from the keyboard now. Best of luck.

[Naj]

3 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

You are consistently respectful when you feel respected, which is, like, a third of the time. (Please don't do the math and come back and say, "No, I feel respected 43% of the time.

 

[CleanHands]

16 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

the senior lawyer you're talking to (that's Blocked, not me)

LOL; I am 100% positive that @BlockedQuebecois would absolutely disagree with this characterization.

Also why the hell are you and @Diplock still trying to constructively engage with this nitwit? I thought that the post you're responding to now, after he had just before managed to barely act conciliatory for about 5 seconds, would have finally clued you in about the futility of this.

[Yogurt Baron]

25 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

LOL; I am 100% positive that @BlockedQuebecois would absolutely disagree with this characterization.

On what grounds? My apologies to BQ and to the community if I've misstated something - if he isn't practicing, or if he's already on the Supreme Court, or whatever. Or would he just not call himself "senior"? He's sure as hell more senior than the guy calling him a troll.

I'm done, for now, engaging with the Viking, though I'm sure they'll say something at some point that will bug me and I'll want to jump back in. But I agree, it's futile. There are things they need to learn that they simply aren't going to learn from a message board.

[thrill]

OP you gotta relax and stop getting into long, pointless drawn out fights every other thread. its a waste of everyones time

[CndnViking]

27 minutes ago, thrill said:

OP you gotta relax and stop getting into long, pointless drawn out fights every other thread. its a waste of everyones time

1. Not to state the obvious, but one person can't unilaterally "get into fights" and "waste other people's time." 

2. I've got enough people on my ass already, thanks. If you don't have anything constructive or on-topic to say, feel free to stay out of it, lest *I* waste *your* time. 😆

Edited October 4, 2023 by CndnViking

[theycancallyouhoju]

17 hours ago, Yogurt Baron said:

On what grounds? My apologies to BQ and to the community if I've misstated something - if he isn't practicing, or if he's already on the Supreme Court, or whatever. Or would he just not call himself "senior"? He's sure as hell more senior than the guy calling him a troll.

I'm done, for now, engaging with the Viking, though I'm sure they'll say something at some point that will bug me and I'll want to jump back in. But I agree, it's futile. There are things they need to learn that they simply aren't going to learn from a message board.

“Senior” lawyer just means everyone older than me. I’m not going grey! Get new glasses! 

[Pantalaimon]

23 hours ago, CndnViking said:

On a related note: this site needs a block button.

There's a mute button, which doesn't prevent the person from seeing your posts but I've found it does tend to help. In the top right (on desktop, anyways) one of the menu options is "ignored users".

I just fundamentally disagree with your acquaintance's impression that the faculty is right wing. For example:

1. There's a professor who ran for the NDP in the last provincial election (https://www.airdriecityview.com/rocky-view-news/ndp-candidate-fluker-wants-to-rein-in-big-hill-springs-gravel-pit-project-5580700)
2. Another picks fights with the UCP on basically anything in her field (health), e.g.: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/opinion-albertas-bill-30-is-a-gateway-to-privatization-and-cronyism
3. Another presented on behalf of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society against the Benga coal mine in its regulatory proceedings: https://www.iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/136737

That's from just a cursory Google of what some of the professors I had are up to; I'm sure most of the faculty have similar activities on behalf of generally left-wing causes.

Anyways - go to UCalgary if you want to work in Calgary. My classmates that remained in Calgary work in insurance/PI, tax, corporate, litigation, family, criminal, and the public sector. Of those, only the corporate & tax folks deal with O&G regularly, and that's simply due to the client base - Calgary has a lot of O&G companies, and they need legal work done. I wouldn't, for instance, call myself an "Oil & Gas tax lawyer", even if on any given day a lot of my clients are in the resource sector.

[Ryn]

Let's try to keep this thing more or less on the rails, pls.

Thx

[Diplock]

1 hour ago, Ryn said:

Let's try to keep this thing more or less on the rails, pls.

Thx

I'm pretty sure the only rail this is on is the classic route that has one of two ultimate destinations. Either (a) break in the newbie until he or she recognizes the significant limits of their perspective, and turns into a productive member of the community, or else (b) give them grief until they leave. Naj is a great example of how well it can work, and this place is better for it. The counter-examples fucked off long ago, and this place is better for that, also.

I mean, sure, you can read the subject heading and think this was about something else. But really, it never was. This is about as much about Calgary as the vacant Speaker's Chair in the U.S. House of Representatives is about the budget.

[CndnViking]

On 10/3/2023 at 4:40 PM, Yogurt Baron said:

You are consistently respectful when you feel respected, which is, like, a third of the time. (Please don't do the math and come back and say, "No, I feel respected 43% of the time. Understating how often I feel respected is very disrespectful and you're a troll." I beg you.) Okay?

Ah yeah, cause nothing says honest and respectful discourse like "...and please don't dispute my demeaning exaggerations of your behavior." That sort of pre-emptive shoot-down is right up there with "the only way I can lose this election is if it's rigged." 😆

Not to mention this being immediately followed by gifs laughing at it. Yeah, where would I ever get the impression this place has a troll problem? I must be imagining things.  🙄 

It's pretty simple. Don't troll, I won't call you a troll. 

Fuck, I guess this is what I get for thinking a couple weeks away might have made this shark tank of snark and condescension a little easier to handle. My mistake. Here's an idea: Why not just turn off new account registrations, or post a big "Newbies not wanted" banner, cause the attitude here is about as hostile to newcomers as any online community I've ever encountered (which is saying a lot.)

Edited October 18, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

7 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

Ah yeah, cause nothing says honest and respectful discourse like "...and please don't dispute my demeaning exaggerations of your behavior." That sort of pre-emptive shoot-down is right up there with "the only way I can lose this election is if it's rigged." 😆

Not to mention this being immediately followed by gifs laughing at it. Yeah, where would I ever get the impression this place has a troll problem? I must be imagining things.  🙄 

It's pretty simple. Don't troll, I won't call you a troll. 

Fuck, I guess this is what I get for thinking a couple weeks away might have made this shark tank of snark and condescension a little easier to handle. My mistake. Here's an idea: Why not just turn off new account registrations, or post a big "Newbies not wanted" banner, cause the attitude here is about as hostile to newcomers as any online community I've ever encountered (which is saying a lot.)

If you went away for two weeks to try to clear your head a bit, and come back with more perspective, that was probably a good idea. But you came back and immediately responded to something that's over two weeks old and was dead until you revived it. Were you hoping someone had sanitized the place in your absence, out of concern for your psychological well-being?

I believe in giving people a lot of rope. But you're not doing yourself any favors here. And while there are entry issues here, for any newbie, your problems go beyond that. They just...do.

[Wraith]

I spoke to my professor at TMU about his experience at UofC (before this thread started), especially regarding any right-wing bias or racism from the faculty, since he's a social justice focused lawyer/professor (I'd read a story about Lincoln Alexander's racist experience at Oz, so I thought I'd ask). He said he didn't really notice any strong biases. While some professors had certain leanings, he chose to interact with those he was comfortable with. He mentioned that law school doesn't have the issues you're suggesting. When I asked about Oz, because of a rumour that their professors are stuck in their old ways/racist (a deleted thread here recently by one of the students), he told me many of his friends at Oz are actively involved in social justice work. It seems the problem isn't specific to a school but more about maintaining a balanced view. Anyway, that's at least one example of someone who attended there, enjoyed it, and doesn't fit the criteria of oil/gas/conservative.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Wraith

[Yogurt Baron]

On 10/18/2023 at 5:27 PM, CndnViking said:

Ah yeah, cause nothing says honest and respectful discourse like "...and please don't dispute my demeaning exaggerations of your behavior." That sort of pre-emptive shoot-down is right up there with "the only way I can lose this election is if it's rigged." 😆

Not to mention this being immediately followed by gifs laughing at it. Yeah, where would I ever get the impression this place has a troll problem? I must be imagining things.  🙄 

It's pretty simple. Don't troll, I won't call you a troll. 

Fuck, I guess this is what I get for thinking a couple weeks away might have made this shark tank of snark and condescension a little easier to handle. My mistake. Here's an idea: Why not just turn off new account registrations, or post a big "Newbies not wanted" banner, cause the attitude here is about as hostile to newcomers as any online community I've ever encountered (which is saying a lot.)

All right, we've reached the point now where I don't think arguing with you is worth my energy.

[Naj]

On 10/18/2023 at 5:27 PM, CndnViking said:

Fuck, I guess this is what I get for thinking a couple weeks away might have made this shark tank of snark and condescension a little easier to handle. My mistake. Here's an idea: Why not just turn off new account registrations, or post a big "Newbies not wanted" banner, cause the attitude here is about as hostile to newcomers as any online community I've ever encountered (which is saying a lot.)

Maybe once an applicant has exhausted the value of this forum, by virtue of having come close to submitting their applications, and begins entering a limbo awaiting admission decisions, in some excitable state they find that the only valuable thing left for them to do here is argue over some minute matter. Maybe that explains why the senior users, practicing lawyers, on this forum so far have refused to engage in your arguments that inherently seek a technical winner. It’s not about the probably logical propositions you’re making in relation to some trivial discrepancy, but rather about the end goal of imparting some wisdom related to your initial concerns, which you repeatedly seem to use as a trojan horse in order to bring about a virtual courtroom for your satisfaction. Maybe my characterization of your conduct so far is unfairly cynical, but I believe you’re capable enough to look past that for a moment and notice the end result here, which is that others have threatened to no longer engage with you. I personally don’t think they’ll resort to permanently doing so; it doesn’t seem inappropriate to liken what’s happening here to a parent who attempts to emotionally discipline their child by threatening to ignore them. The users here thankfully seem to have a short memory, they won’t hold things against you and that probably has something to do with their goodwill and the close-knit nature of the profession, one that you are anticipating to join.  

So, you can protest the harsh nature of the way you’ve been treated, and I don't think it would be inappropriate for a “new-comer” to momentarily do so before grasping the reality of the circumstance – which is that you know nothing about the subject you’re engaged in discussing, and therefore you’d be well served if you practiced some humility. I say all this because there’s more value for you in this forum should you return in 10 months when you hopefully begin your first academic semester, when the reality of legal practice first begins to slowly unveil itself and you finally realize that the apparent collective disregard for your technical arguments was not done deliberately and maliciously to make you look like a fool, but rather to prevent you from inadvertently blurring what is actually important for you to know.

You shouldn’t preclude yourself from returning to this forum in the near future, and other potential users by way of your statement above that not only arguably dissuades newcomers more so than the harsh manner often deemed to be necessary in providing certain advice, but also probably bruises those long-time users (perhaps more than they're willing to admit) who have devoted an impressive amount of time to serving applicants and students.

Hope to continue to see you around my friend.  

[SNAILS]

On 10/2/2023 at 7:55 PM, Renerik said:

You're unlikely to find a Canadian school where students espouse right-wing cultural views without ridicule from the majority of the student body, even in Alberta. What you're likely to find (irrespective of where you attend) is people who feign an interest in left-wing principles (societal equity, minority rights, climate change) only to become capitalist boot-lickers as soon as the big law bell tolls. 

In Alberta that might look like defending an O&G company from regulatory offences. In Ontario, that might be helping Telcos merge. 

I think this post is the actual gem of this thread so far.

While I agree with this post, I have also found that it is quite possible to hold your own at any law school no matter how right wing you are (you might just have a lot of people not agreeing!) Another thing is that having financially right wing positions gets no push back at all (i.e. how to help corporations avoid taxes) whereas socially conservative positions might get a lot of pushback (i.e. some women make false domestic assault allegations against men to gain an advantage in family law).

[123]

1 hour ago, SNAILS said:

whereas socially conservative positions might get a lot of pushback (i.e. some women make false domestic assault allegations against men to gain an advantage in family law).

Man, your examples are always surprising. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Man, your examples are always surprising. 

It’s a long-held tenet of social conservatism that women are liars. 

[Diplock]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:55 AM, realpseudonym said:

Man, your examples are always surprising. 

 

23 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s a long-held tenet of social conservatism that women are liars. 

It happens. You can't practice criminal law and not know that it happens. Just because it's inconvenient as a social position doesn't mean the experiential reality of criminal defence lawyers should be ignored to maintain your philosophical cohesion.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Diplock

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 hour ago, Diplock said:

It happens. You can't practice criminal law and not know that it happens. Just because it's inconvenient as a social position doesn't mean the experiential reality of criminal defence lawyers should be ignored to maintain your philosophical cohesion.

Nobody is suggesting that people* do not falsely accuse other people of crimes, including sex crimes. 

I am using the rhetorical device of hyperbole to mock the fact that social conservatives are such vile swine that they think "women are liars" is core to their political identity. 

 

*ETA: For the avoidance of doubt, since I know some social conservatives will read this, the term "people" includes "women": see e.g. Edwards v Attorney General (Canada), [1929] UKPC 86.

Edited October 23, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Pantalaimon]

1 hour ago, Diplock said:

 

It happens. You can't practice criminal law and not know that it happens. Just because it's inconvenient as a social position doesn't mean the experiential reality of criminal defence lawyers should be ignored to maintain your philosophical cohesion.

I think the weird thing is more about identifying that position as a "social conservative" view. I would not say, for instance, that criminal defence lawyers are social conservatives despite assuming that most of them take the position that the court should not automatically believe complainants. Rather, I'd probably say most of them lean left if only for their views on prison abolition!

[123]

1 hour ago, Diplock said:

 

It happens. You can't practice criminal law and not know that it happens. Just because it's inconvenient as a social position doesn't mean the experiential reality of criminal defence lawyers should be ignored to maintain your philosophical cohesion.

I meant that it was a surprising example of social conservatism, not that it's surprising that complainant testimony in sexual assault allegations is sometimes untrue. A lot of the social conservatives I know have tough-on-crime bents. I know that there is overlap between defence and libertarianism. But using a very defence-side position as an example of social conservativism surprised me, because I would've expected dozens of other right-leaning but unpopular examples before that particular one.

[CleanHands]

I don't consider "some allegations of sexual assault made by women are untrue" to be a social conservative position.

I have seen the inverse of that--"women never lie about rape" (literally)--be espoused exclusively by far-left lunatics.

And in this context I am deliberately using gendered language because the same people don't care about anything that happens to men.

[SNAILS]

I'm going to suggest that if @Diplock had not injected some common sense into this discussion, that many people on this forum would have been somehow triggered by the statement that some women make up allegations.

Just for fun I'll throw out some other conservative ideas that I have seen get backlash in law school:

• That a landlord's efforts to evict prostitutes from his building is understandable since sex work attracts criminal activity and gives the building an unsavory reputation
• That large cash settlements between the provincial government and Indigenous people should be viewed as the taxpayer (especially high income earners like lawyers) paying Indigenous people
• That police ought to focus street patrol on area of the city with empirically proven  higher levels of street crime even if it does affect certain demographics (including black people) differently 

These three above are ones that did not merely spark healthy debate (which would be great) but instead a disproportionate angry response that did not consider the nuances of the issues. 

 

[Whist]

I'm still half-convinced that SNAILS is my conservative dad secretly attending law school in another province.