How not to get hired on Bay Street

[BlockedQuebecois]

I’m actually fairly certain you haven’t made your point.

Or at least, it’s incredibly unclear how you propose to use violence between different Islamic sects as evidence that jihadi violence occurs in places where there are no Muslims. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Yogurt Baron]

8 minutes ago, myth000 said:

I'm not interested in you.  I've made my point.  Go away.  

Wait, does this work? I've been on the internet since the days of dial-up modems and I've never tried it before.

I've got to say - your post kind of lost me at the point about where "systemic racism and bullying" is a problem. Systemic racism goes a little beyond someone saying you can't join their study group. I've made my point. Go away. (Now is when we see if it works.)

[myth000]

2 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Wait, does this work? I've been on the internet since the days of dial-up modems and I've never tried it before.

I've got to say - your post kind of lost me at the point about where "systemic racism and bullying" is a problem. Systemic racism goes a little beyond someone saying you can't join their study group. I've made my point. Go away. (Now is when we see if it works.)

I'm done with your god Blocked.  I'm also done responding to you, lackie.

[BHC1]

1 hour ago, Forever Curious said:

I mean it’s very telling that you read it that way. Sigh, honestly interacting with you some of you is exhausting and at times soul crushing.

I think you add to the conversation on here. I appreciate that you have been generally respectful despite others on here including me disagreeing with you. Your perspective is not being shared in vain. 

The fact of the matter is, even if I don’t agree with your views, I believe that a good portion of Gen Z share your perspective. I appreciate reading your take. It’s good that this place isn’t just an echo chamber.

[Yogurt Baron]

1 minute ago, myth000 said:

I'm done with your god Blocked.  I'm also done responding to you, lackie.

This is an...interesting read of interpersonal dynamics.

Blocked and I disliked each other for, like, ten years or something. There were fights. I called him stupid hundreds of times. Then I was away from the board for a while because I almost died a bunch of times. Then I came back and was like, "Hey, wait, has this guy evolved? Good for him. I wish him the best." I don't think we've ever exchanged a PM.

In fairness, this is my exact relationship with God, too. That guy never PMs me. 😞

[Chewy]

4 hours ago, Yogurt Baron said:

 There were fights...I almost died a bunch of times. 

Block, you need to calm down. 

[Hegdis]

2 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Block, you need to calm down. 

I was getting all ready to hit pause on this one but THIS is genuinely hilarious. 

[Mountebank]

The House of Anjou will be remade and the Latin Kingdom shall rise again!

[theycancallyouhoju]

It’s kind of confusing. If someone supports all acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis - murdering civilians, taking hostages, rape, etc. - why would they even want to work for any of the firms that consider that support heinous? Reading the letter, the signatories take the view that the existing order is justifiably met by indiscriminate killing. I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who believes in that kind of analytical framework but wants to work for the forces they see as in a camp with the deserving subjects of mass murder.

I’ve never been an Israel-Palestine expert or ever felt deeply informed enough to have very strong feelings. Nonetheless, it seems pretty obvious to me that Hamas’ actions here had zero chance of advancing the cause of Palestinian liberation, much as it seems pretty clear to me that Israel’s actions have zero chance of advancing any long-term peaceful existence for Israel. So I guess I’m in the milquetoast middle ground of having no sympathy for people who fuck up their career by thinking what happened constitutes “resistance” or is to be supported, and am fairly aghast when I read comments that think Israel has some sort of justified carte blanche. But I’m also old enough to remember when there were college kids who thought 9/11 was an act of resistance against American empire instead of - pretty obviously - an act that would enlarge American empire and bring violence to more people. (Or, uh, old enough to remember when a bunch of Chomskyite leftists suddenly got super into Mearsheimer and bought into the imperialist notion that Russia would somehow become more secure, rather than less, by invading Ukraine.) 

Anyway, back to my point. Israel-Palestine has never been the topic that I went into with real depth. There were others, largely driven by the languages I speak, the places I’ve lived, the people I’ve known, etc. They aren’t particularly hot button in the West, for a host of reasons. The oppressed, colonized peoples in those conflicts have never turned to the kind of terrorism Hamas is fond of and I - obviously, it ought to go without saying - would have no hesitation in condemning that if they did. For two main reasons. One is that it won’t work. As with Hamas, it would really only serve to initiate mass violence against them. It would not constitute resistance because it would not resist the oppression but enflame it. Two is that I cannot uphold the idea that the only value worth pursuing is the victory of the people presently oppressed and all costs are justified costs. That is essentially the recipe for maximum violence and death in the world. That being said, I would never want to work for the benefit of forces that I believe aid the continued harm of those people. I’m not about to doxx myself anymore than I used to do on this forum, but I also have taken steps that threaten my career where I felt the position I had enabled a valuable contribution to actual resistance. If it had ended my career path, I would not have viewed that as ‘silencing’ - quite the opposite, it would be me being loud enough to make my voice consequential. So I can’t reconcile the idea that these folks are both more extreme in their support of those they seek to protest in favor of, and less satisfied in the prospect that their voice is loud enough to have consequences.

The only other point I have here is that there is one very important thing Hamas, I think, understands. Which is that the Western spectator adores bloodshed. There are many peoples around the world who live under modern colonial enterprise. Not so many of them kill 1,000 of their adversary in a day. The one that does has been very effective in mobilizing the Western supporters of their people. If you’re the kind of person who thinks mass civilian murder is an unqualified bad - so, not the TMU folks I guess, but others - it’s probably worth reflecting on that dynamic. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by theycancallyouhoju

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, theycancallyouhoju said:

I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who believes in that kind of analytical framework but wants to work for the forces they see as in a camp with the deserving subjects of mass murder.

Simple. They want the zionists killed, but until that happens they aren't above taking their money.

Not really all that different than the average "progressive" law student turned BigLaw employee.

[epeeist]

Not about a lawyer, but thought it fit here:

"...In a terse statement posted on its website Tuesday, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) announced that its president, Camille Awada, resigned from the top job on Monday. The union represents 23,000 members, including civilian employees of the RCMP, and employees at Statistics Canada and in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s department.

The statement made no mention of the reason for Awada’s resignation, but Le Droit newspaper reported Tuesday that it happened after antisemitic social media posts dating back to 2018 and 2019 began circulating among union membership...." [emphasis added; goes on to quote some of the Facebook posts he allegedly made, and they're bad]

Oh, and you have to laugh: "...Awada’s resignation comes as CAPE is in the midst of selecting a new president. Awada had taken over after former president Greg Phillips resigned earlier this year followed by allegations of impropriety...." [emphasis added]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/public-service-union-president-antisemitic-posts

Hmm. I tend to assume some people in the union knew about these posts for years, and had no problem with them, until now...they were made on Facebook, not some secret website.

[BHC1]

16 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Not about a lawyer, but thought it fit here:

"...In a terse statement posted on its website Tuesday, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) announced that its president, Camille Awada, resigned from the top job on Monday. The union represents 23,000 members, including civilian employees of the RCMP, and employees at Statistics Canada and in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s department.

The statement made no mention of the reason for Awada’s resignation, but Le Droit newspaper reported Tuesday that it happened after antisemitic social media posts dating back to 2018 and 2019 began circulating among union membership...." [emphasis added; goes on to quote some of the Facebook posts he allegedly made, and they're bad]

Oh, and you have to laugh: "...Awada’s resignation comes as CAPE is in the midst of selecting a new president. Awada had taken over after former president Greg Phillips resigned earlier this year followed by allegations of impropriety...." [emphasis added]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/public-service-union-president-antisemitic-posts

Hmm. I tend to assume some people in the union knew about these posts for years, and had no problem with them, until now...they were made on Facebook, not some secret website.

Probably collecting dust in someone’s saved folder waiting for this moment. Not a good look. 

Has anyone else had a chance to read the letter from Rothbart to the LSO? I can’t upload it here since PDF is not an accepted file type, but it is circling around LinkedIn. I was a bit surprised to see that Justice Perell signed onto it given that he is still a pretty active supernumerary judge and some of the political statements in the letter.

It doesn’t look like this back and forth in the legal community is coming to an end anytime soon.  
 

 

[Beelzebub]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:01 PM, Forever Curious said:

I’m sorry but this is such a strange response to that comment. It’s such an abstracted way of reducing the systemic racism the comment is speaking about. This isn’t about jewish or muslim cohorts, though i’m sure a larger muslim population would help in brining muslim issues to light and reducing islamophobia. That is, this issue isn’t really about diversity but rather the corporate/white culture and systems that leads to the profession and people to ignore/not see the difficulties, racism, and issues facing POC and muslims. 

The issue is front and centre. You see how these firms have reacted to the cohort of mostly POC students who signed the TMU letter and so many others. How vultures have been targeting such students at campuses. How our advocacy on these issues is completely ignored and on top of that, is actually manipulated and demonized. So many muslims and POC have been putting themselves in harms way (whether economically, physically, mentally etc) to advocate and show those in the West who still support Israel and zionism to see the devastation of the Israeli occupation, ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide, etc. 

Its been so disheartening to see how completely racist our society, government, and systems still can be over the last month. It’s been even worse to see that, even today, POC issues and voices can be so widely disregarded and penalized. 

They signed their name to a letter that explicitly condoned the gleeful murder, torture and rape of innocent civilians. Anti-Semitic acts are up hundreds of percent, Jews are fearful of going to certain parts of London, Paris etc. and telling their kids to hide any sign of being a Jew when they go to school. 

It's stunning in light of this flagrant display of abject evil, which should be revolting to any thinking person, progressives will STILL injecting their victimhood narrative. What exactly about our society did you perceive as being "completely racist" in the last month? That people don't like or want to work with murder advocates? 

[Forever Curious]

2 hours ago, Beelzebub said:

They signed their name to a letter that explicitly condoned the gleeful murder, torture and rape of innocent civilians. Anti-Semitic acts are up hundreds of percent, Jews are fearful of going to certain parts of London, Paris etc. and telling their kids to hide any sign of being a Jew when they go to school. 

It's stunning in light of this flagrant display of abject evil, which should be revolting to any thinking person, progressives will STILL injecting their victimhood narrative. What exactly about our society did you perceive as being "completely racist" in the last month? That people don't like or want to work with murder advocates? 

I’m not going to respond to the same point for the 4th time. You can go through this thread and look at my responses. We clearly have different views on what the letters are saying and on the entire conflict and history of it. 

There is lots of information and resources out there, this is a good starting point if you would like to learn more (including links to many other key resources): https://decolonizepalestine.com/. 

I would implore everyone and anyone that is looking to learn more to go read some of the sources linked on that website. We agree, the killing and targeting of innocent civilians is horrific. That is why I advocate for the things I do. This is not a complicated situation. The moment you even pear into the scholarship, that much is very clear. Few conflicts have this much academic and scholarly consensus but seem so controversial. 

Every single consequential progressive movement has been controversial. The mainstream/majority have always initially been against those movements. The leaders and advocates of those movements have always been targeted by law enforcement and demonized by the media. And yet every time, we require the many sacrifices of those few of us brave enough to make change happen. The one reassuring difference is that this time, globally, the vast majority of people do see the truth and it seems that even in the west, far more people are aware of these issues. 

In my view, especially for those who lived through the post 9/11 world, the excuses and apologies decades from now for these atrocities will never be enough. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Forever Curious

[Jaggers]

24 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

We agree, the killing and targeting of innocent civilians is horrific.

The signatories to the letter did not agree with this. They expressly disavowed it. That's the thing everyone is reacting to.

[Forever Curious]

26 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

The signatories to the letter did not agree with this. They expressly disavowed it. That's the thing everyone is reacting to.

It’s my opinion? I’m not talking about any letter there. If you’re talking about the York one - while I am of this view, I do believe that their position is a completely legitimate one (or atleast that it should be). While I disagree, I surely am not against others’ right to believe in and advocate for the position (without reprieve) that such horrific oppression may justify violent strong acts of resistance. Further, I also think that there are worse, oppressive situations where I might even agree that such acts of resistance could be justified, such as the Haitian Revolution and Slave Rebellion. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Forever Curious

[Beelzebub]

In no circumstances is the murder, torture or rape of innocent civilian human beings justified. It is not an act of resistance. It is an act of reprehensible vile barbarism. 

[CleanHands]

22 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

It’s my opinion? I’m not talking about any letter there. If you’re talking about the York one - while I am of this view, I do believe that their position is a completely legitimate one (or atleast that it should be). While I disagree, I surely am not against others’ right to believe in and advocate for the position (without reprieve) that such horrific oppression may justify violent strong acts of resistance. Further, I also think that there are worse, oppressive situations where I might even agree that such acts of resistance could be justified, such as the Haitian Revolution and Slave Rebellion. 

"I disagree that the literal targeted murder of babies is justified in this specific instance, but it could be in some circumstances and it's still a completely legitimate position to express in this specific instance."

Get a grip, man. We're not talking about Hamas attacking Israeli military targets, here.

Edited November 9, 2023 by CleanHands

[Forever Curious]

20 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

"I disagree that the literal targeted murder of babies is justified in this specific instance, but it could be in some circumstances and it's still a completely legitimate position to express in this specific instance."

Get a grip, man. We're not talking about Hamas attacking Israeli military targets, here.

I would actually try to learn more about these things you have such visceral feelings about. If you really struggle that hard to see how violence could be justified in such situations (of course while you have nothing to say about whats happening in Gaza and the West Bank as we speak), clearly you need to learn more about the history of the West/Britain/Israel's occupation of Palestine and the study of oppression, résistance, and both violent and non-violent resistance movements: https://decolonizepalestine.com/.

Considering that we are just back to misinterpreting my comments, or blatantly twisting and misappropriating them, I think that's about enough of this thread for me today. 

I will just leave this one question for you: do you think that the Haitian Slaves were unjustified in their revolt? 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Forever Curious

[myth000]

 

29 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

It’s my opinion? I’m not talking about any letter there. If you’re talking about the York one - while I am of this view, I do believe that their position is a completely legitimate one (or atleast that it should be). While I disagree, I surely am not against others’ right to believe in and advocate for the position (without reprieve) that such horrific oppression may justify violent strong acts of resistance. Further, I also think that there are worse, oppressive situations where I might even agree that such acts of resistance could be justified, such as the Haitian Revolution and Slave Rebellion. 

Using the line of reasoning, you could even justify the Holocaust because Hitler believed his Aryan people were being repressed by the international Jewish conspiracy.   

I think it's best to draw the line at the direct intentional targeting of civilians, nobody should ever try to justify it.  

[Wraith]

4 minutes ago, myth000 said:

Using the line of reasoning, you could even justify the Holocaust because Hitler believed his Aryan people were being repressed by the international Jewish conspiracy.   

I think it's best to draw the line at the direct intentional targeting of civilians, nobody should ever try to justify it.  

I've been waiting for this.

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches

[CleanHands]

13 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

I would actually try to learn more about these things you have such visceral feelings about. If you really struggle that hard to see how violence could be justified in such situations (of course while you have nothing to say about whats happening in Gaza and the West Bank as we speak), clearly you need to learn more about the history of the West/Britain/Israel's occupation of Palestine and the study of oppression, résistance, and both violent and non-violent resistance movements: https://decolonizepalestine.com/.

Considering that we are just back to misinterpreting my comments, or blatantly twisting and misappropriating them, I think that's about enough of this thread for me today. 

You're just continually engaging in a motte-and-bailey fallacy though, conflating pointing out that a party has a legitimate grievance and is entitled to respond in some way (the "motte") with that justifying any and all conduct by said party (the "bailey"). You aren't being strawmanned. You are repeatedly resisting explicit reference to the most unsavory implications of what is clearly your position, and attempting to divert the conversation back to the existence of grievances that aren't a point of dispute.

13 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

I will just leave this one question for you: do you think that the Haitian Slaves were unjustified in their revolt?

You're continuing the same rhetorical trick by not phrasing this as whether the 1804 Haitian massacre was completely justified in a moral sense.

I don't think it's a particularly difficult concept to grasp that armed resistance and violence can be justified in some instances but targeted and deliberate rape, torture, beheadings, etc, against civilian populations is never morally justified (even if it can be understood and contextualized as the misdirected result of legitimate grievances and brutalization).

Edited November 9, 2023 by CleanHands

[myth000]

14 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I've been waiting for this.

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches

I just read Godwin's Law, and apparently, because I referred to Hitler,  it means that I've lost the argument that targeting civilians is wrong.   Seems like bad law.  

[Forever Curious]

28 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

You're just continually engaging in a motte-and-bailey fallacy though, conflating pointing out that a party has a legitimate grievance and is entitled to respond in some way (the "motte") with that justifying any and all conduct by said party (the "bailey"). You aren't being strawmanned. You are repeatedly resisting explicit reference to the most unsavory implications of what is clearly your position, and attempting to divert the conversation back to the existence of grievances that aren't a point of dispute.

You're continuing the same rhetorical trick by not phrasing this as whether the 1804 Haitian massacre was completely justified in a moral sense.

I don't think it's a particularly difficult concept to grasp that armed resistance and violence can be justified in some instances but targeted and deliberate rape, torture, beheadings, etc, against civilian populations is never morally justified (even if it can be understood and contextualized as the misdirected result of legitimate grievances and brutalization).

There's really not much more to say. I have been quite careful with my words so as to be clear about what is my view and not, of which I was also careful to distinguish between. On top of trying to be clear, I am also specifically using the academic terms rather than emotive terms so as to not play the rhetorical game that you clearly are playing. Guess giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier was a mistake on my part. 

[CleanHands]

6 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

There's really not much more to say. I have been quite careful with my words so as to be clear about what is my view and not, of which I was also careful to distinguish between. On top of trying to be clear, I am also specifically using the academic terms rather than emotive terms so as to not play the rhetorical game that you clearly are playing. Guess giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier was a mistake on my part. 

Right, you're an educated intellectual and I'm just an emotional idiot, and you're advocating for targeted mass violence against civilian populations in a manner that is clearly too sophisticated for me to comprehend. QED I guess.

We do agree about there being not much more to say, at least.