How not to get hired on Bay Street

[Yogurt Baron]

5 minutes ago, Forever Curious said:

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. 

Come on---CH's comment to you was next-level generous, fair, and clear-headed, not at all "emotive".

I think you've made some interesting and thoughtful points, particularly about how norms and social acceptability shift. You simply are coming from a perspective so different from anyone else's here that meaningful dialogue is impossible. Like, if you think the way an uninformed person can best learn objective facts about what's going on is via a website called "decolonize Palestine", your sense of what's objectively true is diametrically opposed to those of most people here.

And that's fine! I'm not even saying that you disagreeing with others automatically makes you wrong. There are times when 99 people think something, one person thinks another thing, and the one voice is right. There are lots of things I think are objectively true that many people think are just my opinions and some people think are shitty opinions, and that doesn't make me wrong, but it doesn't lead to much constructive discussion, either.

[Beelzebub]

24 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. 

I reckon "beheading babies is justified in some circumstances" is not being "careful with words", but maybe I'm just not academic enough to digest intersectional piffle.

[CleanHands]

3 minutes ago, Beelzebub said:

I reckon "beheading babies is justified in some circumstances" is not being "careful with words", but maybe I'm just not academic enough to digest intersectional piffle.

No, I agree with him that he's been very careful with his words. He's been careful to only imply these things (note that at most he only broadly refers to "resistance" or "violence") and then attempt to direct the conversation back to Israel being an apartheid state, shut down the conversation and refuse to engage, and accuse others of misrepresenting him or being too uneducated to understand him, whenever they tried to address this point in explicit terms. While continuing to not actually explicitly reject that position and in fact continuing to imply it.

[epeeist]

Moral relativity only stretches so far; there are absolutes. Even if someone can torture logic into a pretzel to argue that deliberately hacking infants to death is justified, how can they morally justify rape?

Saying that taking actions that will result in deaths of civilians, including infants and childrens, are justified, can be discussed though not in this thread I think. Countries like the US do this all the time (e.g. antiterrorism drone strikes) and have done it in the past and will do it in the future (bombing cities or military targets with known civilian populations nearby who will be killed). The deaths of innocent civilians including children are accidental, but it is foreseeable/knowable that some number will occur based on faulty intelligence, people surrounding the target, etc. But as terrible as it is, and one might argue there is no excuse or insufficient care is taken, at least it is not deliberately targeting individual innocents and gleefully enjoying the massacre of the innocents.

[CleanHands]

25 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Moral relativity only stretches so far; there are absolutes. Even if someone can torture logic into a pretzel to argue that deliberately hacking infants to death is justified, how can they morally justify rape?

What the hell are you going on about?

Nobody in this discussion has expressed moral relativist view. The people defending the Hamas attack (explicitly or obliquely) have all argued that Israel has engaged in conduct that is morally wrong in a universalist sense and that the conduct of Hamas can at least arguably be justified in a universalist sense.

If they were moral relativists, they would be literally unable to argue than any position on these issues is objectively right or wrong.

EDIT - To be clear, the morality of conduct being contingent upon context has nothing to do with "moral relativism."

Edited November 10, 2023 by CleanHands

[epeeist]

Given the tragic loss of deaths by everyone, put away your reflexive need to disagree with me like a bot.

For the benefit of others: if someone argues that "violence could be justified under such situations", that's moral relativism. They're arguing that the circumstances alter the morality of the acts.

[Ben]

4 minutes ago, epeeist said:

For the benefit of others: if someone argues that "violence could be justified under such situations", that's moral relativism. They're arguing that the circumstances alter the morality of the acts.

lol

[CleanHands]

@epeeist:

 

[Apple]

11 hours ago, epeeist said:

For the benefit of others: if someone argues that "violence could be justified under such situations", that's moral relativism. They're arguing that the circumstances alter the morality of the acts.

No, that’s moral justification which is ultimately an argument from absolute morality. Moral relativism would say there is no such thing as a morally justified position because there’s no such thing as absolute morality. 

[CleanHands]

As a criminal defence lawyer I can sincerely and unironically say this to @epeeist:

 

[BHC1]

Toronto Indigo vandalized with red paint and posters, citing founder’s support for IDF

"Indigo, founded by Reisman and her husband, Gerry Schwartz, has been subject to a boycott campaign for more than a decade centred around the founders’ charity, the HESEG Foundation for Lone Soldiers. The foundation provides scholarships to former “lone soldiers” — those without family in Israel, who served in the Israel Defense Forces. These scholarships cover living expenses and tuition for ex-soldiers who wish to remain and study in Israel after their service.

An information sheet from advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, a non-profit that supports “justice, development and peace in the Middle East,” according to its website, claims this foundation encourages and rewards foreign soldiers to join the Israeli army and study in Israel.

“By supporting and rewarding the « Lone Soldiers », Reisman and Schwartz by means of Indigo Books and Music Inc., indirectly support Israel military efforts in the occupation of the Palestinian territories,” the sheet reads. Around 45 per cent of the 7,000 lone soldiers in the IDF are new immigrants, according to Israeli non-profit the Lone Soldier Center."

I appreciate reasonable people might wanting to protest or boycott Indigo, but I have some serious misgivings about this act of vandalism. Because Heather Reisman is a Zionist, does it make this action a legitimate act of "all forms of Palestinian resistance" (despite it being criminal mischief) and not an act of anti-Semitism? If someone with a more pro-Palestinian view than my own wants to give their take, I would appreciate hearing your views. 

[easttowest]

It’s anti-Semitism. It all is. 

[epeeist]

@BHC1 And why merely charged with "mischief"? Hmm, vandalism of a building based upon connection with a Jewish woman - hate oops mere mischief... EDIT: and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, at least for one, so that is a more serious charge.

More generally, many on the left have argued for years that it is legitimate to vandalize statues you don't like, punch speakers you don't like, punish people non-physically for speech that you don't like, etc. Then all of a sudden people are throwing Molotov cocktails at a Jewish community centre (and prior shots fired at schools) and deeming it to be "legitimate" protest because that's what for years they've learned is acceptable. If you want a safe civil society, you got to draw lines no matter how much you dislike something or someone or what they say.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/molotov-cocktail-building-decarie-1.7040789

I'm also reminded someone on here a while ago was saying it was okay - or at least should be no punishment - to burn down Indigenous religious buildings (because it was a church, so the fact that it was on a reserve and used by Indigenous people didn't matter, they were substituting their own paternalistic non-Indigenous opinion as more important, which kind of reminds me of a colonialist attititude...).

Aside: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Edited November 27, 2023 by epeeist

[BlockedQuebecois]

It strikes me as a bit silly to suggest that because people have taken the position that it’s fine to protest speakers on campus and throw paint on statues of slaveholders they have been teaching others that it’s okay to firebomb and shoot at Jewish community centres. 

[epeeist]

3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It strikes me as a bit silly to suggest that because people have taken the position that it’s fine to protest speakers on campus and throw paint on statues of slaveholders they have been teaching others that it’s okay to firebomb and shoot at Jewish community centres. 

I was referring not to protesting speech but to what's become more common, preventing speech, which is far more serious. And if you want to say vandalizing statues of e.g. Macdonald are okay and there should be no consequences, say so. If you want to say they're symbolic of repression, okay. But don't falsely call him a slaveholder.

I hadn't realized the date at first but the vandalism of the store windows at Indigo (police called early morning Nov. 10) was on the anniversary of Kristallnacht (Nov. 9-10 1938)...deliberate or an ironic semi-confirmation of Santayana's maxim?

[BlockedQuebecois]

Come on mate. It’s obviously absurd for you to pick an example of someone whose statue has been defaced with paint (“e.g. Macdonald”) and then falsely accuse me of falsely calling them a slaveholder. 

I have to assume that’s just bad faith on your part, given the significant number of statues of slaveholders that have been covered in paint in recent years (including, notably, Canadian statues such as the statue of James McGill). 

Edited November 27, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Dinsdale]

The fun continues at TMU.  From Twitter:

 

 

[BHC1]

1 hour ago, Dinsdale said:

The fun continues at TMU.  From Twitter:

 

 

Guess there’s a reason why Sociology Departments are not known for their rigorous academic standards. The writers of the Protocols would be proud…

 

Edited April 4 by BHC1

[Turtles]

There is no need to clown Ryerson's law school, it keeps proving itself more than capable of doing the clowning itself.

[CleanHands]

2 minutes ago, Turtles said:

There is no need to clown Ryerson's law school, it keeps proving itself more than capable of doing the clowning itself.

I still love how they started off their inaugural class by giving a spot to an obvious racial politics huckster without a degree and giving him their second-largest scholarship and offering him a free dorm room, only for him to inevitably fail out because he's uninterested in honest work and for him to still turn around, incoherently accuse them of being racist against and unfair towards him somehow and go after them legally.

They've really been sowing what they reap. It's both ironic and unsurprising that being more concerned with being perceived as being social justice-oriented than being genuinely social justice-oriented has actually resulted in terrible optics for them.

[LMP]

25 minutes ago, Turtles said:

There is no need to clown Ryerson's law school, it keeps proving itself more than capable of doing the clowning itself.

That's never stopped you before! 

16 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I still love how they started off their inaugural class by giving a spot to an obvious racial politics huckster without a degree and giving him their second-largest scholarship and offering him a free dorm room, only for him to inevitably fail out because he's uninterested in honest work and for him to still turn around, incoherently accuse them of being racist against and unfair towards him somehow and go after them legally.

They've really been sowing what they reap. It's both ironic and unsurprising that being more concerned with being perceived as being social justice-oriented than being genuinely social justice-oriented has actually resulted in terrible optics for them.

I think this hits the mark. Everything about the TMU strategy strikes me as calculated and somewhat performative. I attended one of there first admited student events when the school was just starting and couldn't shake the same feeling you are describing. 

Which is a shame because they may well be doing great things there! But you'd never know it because a percentage of the admin and student body seem determined to be as publicly silly as possible. 

[Turtles]

19 minutes ago, LMP said:

That's never stopped you before! 

I think this hits the mark. Everything about the TMU strategy strikes me as calculated and somewhat performative. I attended one of there first admited student events when the school was just starting and couldn't shake the same feeling you are describing. 

Which is a shame because they may well be doing great things there! But you'd never know it because a percentage of the admin and student body seem determined to be as publicly silly as possible. 

It makes complete sense why 1Ls are drafting complete wills as daily homework. The law school needs a good one before it dies.

37 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I still love how they started off their inaugural class by giving a spot to an obvious racial politics huckster without a degree and giving him their second-largest scholarship and offering him a free dorm room, only for him to inevitably fail out because he's uninterested in honest work and for him to still turn around, incoherently accuse them of being racist against and unfair towards him somehow and go after them legally.

They've really been sowing what they reap. It's both ironic and unsurprising that being more concerned with being perceived as being social justice-oriented than being genuinely social justice-oriented has actually resulted in terrible optics for them.

Agreed. The law school could do great things in theory. But in practice, their students sabotage themselves -- and the rest of the school -- every chance they get. Worse, they don't even realize it, or else they'd have cut it out by now.

I was happy to get the acceptance to the inaugral 2020 incoming class. I seriously considered it. At the time, there was some concern how a new school would ultimately be perceived by employers, but I didn't weigh that too seriously. I think I was right: its greatest drawback isn't that it's new, it's how many clowns have defined its nascent reputation. Other schools definitely have clowns, but they're certainly not as loud.

[BHC1]

33 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I still love how they started off their inaugural class by giving a spot to an obvious racial politics huckster without a degree and giving him their second-largest scholarship and offering him a free dorm room, only for him to inevitably fail out because he's uninterested in honest work and for him to still turn around, incoherently accuse them of being racist against and unfair towards him somehow and go after them legally.

They've really been sowing what they reap. It's both ironic and unsurprising that being more concerned with being perceived as being social justice-oriented than being genuinely social justice-oriented has actually resulted in terrible optics for them.

Aren’t you a defence lawyer? I am surprised Aderonmu‘s views aren’t up your alley. 

To be honest I struggle with my take on him. He’s obviously suffered a lot of racism in his life and I think he’s a good speaker, but his approach once he got into law school was scorched Earth, with no distinction for allies or foes. 

[CleanHands]

51 minutes ago, BHC1 said:

Aren’t you a defence lawyer? I am surprised Aderonmu‘s views aren’t up your alley. 

To be honest I struggle with my take on him. He’s obviously suffered a lot of racism in his life and I think he’s a good speaker, but his approach once he got into law school was scorched Earth, with no distinction for allies or foes. 

He's the kind of guy who discredits and delegitimizes legitimate positions/movements even when he's on the right side of them. And he certainly hasn't consistently been on the right side of things.

[Dinsdale]

14 hours ago, Turtles said:

I was happy to get the acceptance to the inaugral 2020 incoming class. I seriously considered it. At the time, there was some concern how a new school would ultimately be perceived by employers, but I didn't weigh that too seriously. I think I was right: its greatest drawback isn't that it's new, it's how many clowns have defined its nascent reputation.

Yes, that was my point too, and I think it's sad for anyone attending TMU law and hoping to be taken seriously in the marketplace when they graduate.  Are firms going to give up on TMU entirely?