Jump to content
DarklyDreamingDexter

How much will having anti mainstream views affect hiring likelihood and career in general?

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, providence said:

If you mean me: I did say that I would have concerns about someone who strongly agreed with most of what Peterson says. So being intrigued by a few things he may have said isn’t a big deal to me. If “tell the truth” and “be humble” is what you get from what Peterson says: yeah, him, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Martin Luther King Jr, my dad and many others say the same. 

I also said I wouldn’t be close BFFs with a Peterson supporter. I could be friends/acquaintances with one. And at this stage in my life, I am unlikely to be befriending or employing 20 year olds, so I am talking about professional mature adults.

 I do agree that there are shades of grey and I am not saying that Peterson supporters are all monsters. But at this time in my life, my workplace is my sanctuary and my friendships are an important source of support and I need those to be drama-free and not stressful or disruptive. Very probably, this is because of my issues but it’s the way it is. 

It was partially directed at you, but also others.

Fair explanation regarding your workplace. 

I may have preached to the choir, considering you've stated there are shades of grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, providence said:

my friendships are an important source of support and I need those to be drama-free and not stressful or disruptive.

And yet, despite all our differences, you and I are internet friends 😛 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, providence said:

....except it isn't "regardless of the abuser's skin colour." Race unfortunately is a huge part of the context and has to be a huge part of the solution. To ignore it and pretend this is a colour blind issue is not helpful. And also brushes over a lot of conscious and unconscious bias in our society, whether it is the justice system, sports, or elsewhere.

edit: also a more nuanced approach can have compassion for both perpetrator and victim - it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

Except it is. Reread what I posted. I was talking about my personal experience with abused women. Please don't accuse me of ignoring or pretending anything,  related to this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be tough being conservative in today's climate. Given the militancy of the Left, you're best keeping your views to yourself and never discussing any social issues which come up in class. You'll eventually find a group of like minded conservatives who you feel free expressing yourself around.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, harveyspecter993 said:

It can be tough being conservative in today's climate. Given the militancy of the Left, you're best keeping your views to yourself and never discussing any social issues which come up in class. You'll eventually find a group of like minded conservatives who you feel free expressing yourself around.

lmao

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's risky expressing views that aren't politically correct. The left is addicted to their manufactured outrage. Which is sad, but it's the world we live in. I don't discuss politics with anyone at work except my close friends.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao yet again. What snowflakes and perpetual victims conservatives are. The gall of a conservative to decry manufactured outrage when that is literally the only thing that feeds conservatives. I suppose I am being a bit uncharitable there - complete fear of everything as well.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, erinl2 said:

Except it is. Reread what I posted. I was talking about my personal experience with abused women. Please don't accuse me of ignoring or pretending anything,  related to this issue.

I'm not accusing you personally of anything. Your perspective is valid and I am sharing mine. 😊 I am also not speaking from ignorance or lack of experience, as I too have had personal encounters with domestic abuse in a variety of ways, from living in a household with domestic abuse (not my dad, he would never) to experiencing it from a family member (which caused me to leave home in high school) to having close male relatives face charges related to it to representing individuals accused of it, and also representing individuals who have experienced it, and some who both experienced and perpetrated it. To me, it is a nuanced issue. I recognize to some it is black and white, and that does seem to be the prevailing viewpoint today that finds lots of support.

To me, race is a part of the equation, as is class, because men who are domestic abusers are also victims of violence, and this aspect of mens' mental health is often ignored in the rush to be judgmental (again this is not a personal comment about you but has to do more with the justice system, media etc.) Men experience and internalize and express violent trauma differently than women do. And lower status and/or racialized men experience more violence. I see how it affected my brothers differently than it did me. This is not to excuse taking it out on others, but it is a critical part of changing behaviours. All-or-nothing responses like taking the healthy outlet of a sport away from a perpetrator and shaming them out of saying what they are feeling as they work through this don't change behaviours in my view - they make others (again, in general) feel self-righteous.

@DarklyDreamingDexter, this is an example of how different female lawyers who I believe would call themselves feminists (at least I would - I can't speak for @erinl2 ) or at the least are concerned about womens' issues, feel very differently and very strongly about a "feminist" issue. So you can't "disagree with feminism" and disagree with  both of us, going to the point that that is a pretty useless blanket statement.

Edited by providence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harveyspecter993 said:

It can be tough being conservative in today's climate. Given the militancy of the Left, you're best keeping your views to yourself and never discussing any social issues which come up in class. You'll eventually find a group of like minded conservatives who you feel free expressing yourself around.

I don't know if you're being serious, but if so, that strikes me as a very bad idea. People - left, right, particular groups otherwise - already tend to associate so much with like-minded people they don't get exposed to other views. Exposed to doesn't necessarily mean agree. There are intolerant leftists and rightists everywhere, including this board as @Diplock adverted to.

If one is expressing one's views that are controversial, one can be truthful without being unduly confrontational. OP has a serial killer name and image, and says feminism is bad. Of course that's going to be a problem. Maybe he has concerns about what the word "feminist" means, e.g. if someone is concerned about the standard of proof in US college sexual misconduct hearings, does that mean they're not "feminist"? Who knows. They're so confrontational, who wants to figure out what they actually mean, assuming they're serious?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rashabon said:

lmao yet again. What snowflakes and perpetual victims conservatives are. The gall of a conservative to decry manufactured outrage when that is literally the only thing that feeds conservatives. I suppose I am being a bit uncharitable there - complete fear of everything as well.

But this is exactly my point. You can see the problem on the other side of the spectrum but not the mirror problem that you inhabit. Just a page ago, you simultaneously acknowledged that certain viewpoints were entirely within mainstream political discourse but at the same time insisted they are intolerable. So how are you not, in different words, saying exactly the same thing? That you consider your views (in this case liberal as opposed to conservative) to be under attack from all sides - including from what most people who do not inhabit the extreme on either side consider the relative centre?

See, to you, when any conservative says they are under attack, you consider that to be insane - because from your perspective 80-90% of the total spectrum is conservative. An extreme conservative also views your sense of oppression as insane, since they perceive 80-90% of the total spectrum as liberal. To me, you are both equally ridiculous - so convinced of your own definitions that you can confidently state that what's accepted in the mainstream is simply wrong. In other words, you are rejecting the rights of the people around you to participate in establishing norms, and you prefer to believe that only you and like-minded people are entitled to do that.

It's fine to have opinions - even strong opinions. It's when you stop accepting that the people around you are equally entitled to a voice in the sort of society they want - that's when you become intolerable to be around. And rightly so.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my point is that the Overton window (which suggests which opinions are acceptable discourse) skews conservatives because conservatives have no shame and weak-willed, so-called "moderates" believe in a fallacy that the truth is always in the middle. This is such continually rehashed grounds that you can just google and satisfy yourself.

The truth isn't always in the middle, but "moderates" will continually try to position themselves in a fictional centre. A conservative will say that LGBT people should not have rights. A leftist will say they should. What's the middle there? What's the answer? There's only one morally correct view and only one view a good person would have. But because people want to hear debate and will constantly bend over backwards to claim people can always contribute to a conversation, that conservative will continue to be invited into the debate (shifting the Overton window to the conservatives) because there's nothing moderates like more than deferring to conservatives.

I really don't have to accept that white supremacists, vicious anti-LGBT bigots, etc. are "equally entitled to a voice in the sort of society they want". They are bad people, full stop, period. You'd just say that their views are welcome parts of a healthy society and to that I say get fucking real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I really don't have to accept that white supremacists, vicious anti-LGBT bigots, etc. are "equally entitled to a voice in the sort of society they want". They are bad people, full stop, period. You'd just say that their views are welcome parts of a healthy society and to that I say get fucking real.

I agree with you, but this isn’t what we’re talking about. These are rather definitive moral and ethical questions. These debates don’t happen in law school. The kinds of debates that do tend to be much more gray and I think OP was questioning whether taking a non-liberal perspective, say, that mandatory minimums in sentencing are necessary and we should have more of them, could lead to social consequences. 

My thoughts are it wouldn’t. I’m left but not as left as most of my classmates were. There were lots of strong opinions voiced in debates on both sides, though to be fair Osgoode does tend to sway more left generally. Not once was there ever a real issue holding opinions that ran counter to said left mainstream. In fact, depending on the class you were in, some of the accepted opinions were quite moderate, and conservative even. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ryn said:

I agree with you, but this isn’t what we’re talking about. These are rather definitive moral and ethical questions. These debates don’t happen in law school. The kinds of debates that do tend to be much more gray and I think OP was questioning whether taking a non-liberal perspective, say, that mandatory minimums in sentencing are necessary and we should have more of them, could lead to social consequences. 

My thoughts are it wouldn’t. I’m left but not as left as most of my classmates were. There were lots of strong opinions voiced in debates on both sides, though to be fair Osgoode does tend to sway more left generally. Not once was there ever a real issue holding opinions that ran counter to said left mainstream. In fact, depending on the class you were in, some of the accepted opinions were quite moderate, and conservative even. 

I mean, you can read the quoted text from what remains of the OP. You're giving the OP a benefit of the doubt that they aren't really entitled to. I found law school fairly moderate on the whole, partly because the people with regressive views on social issues hid it or kept it to themselves, with good reason. It's one thing to argue about the allocation of tax funds or what programs deserve funding, etc. Economic conservatism isn't my bag but has a different tinge to it than the social regressivism , which is far less accepted, as should be the case. I'd be surprised if you told me that there were people vocally anti-LGBT or likewise in your classes. To the extent someone finds themselves uncomfortable expressing those views, I can't say anything of value will have been lost.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ryn said:

I agree with you, but this isn’t what we’re talking about. These are rather definitive moral and ethical questions. These debates don’t happen in law school. The kinds of debates that do tend to be much more gray and I think OP was questioning whether taking a non-liberal perspective, say, that mandatory minimums in sentencing are necessary and we should have more of them, could lead to social consequences. 

My thoughts are it wouldn’t. I’m left but not as left as most of my classmates were. There were lots of strong opinions voiced in debates on both sides, though to be fair Osgoode does tend to sway more left generally. Not once was there ever a real issue holding opinions that ran counter to said left mainstream. In fact, depending on the class you were in, some of the accepted opinions were quite moderate, and conservative even. 

I wish things like this wouldn't be politicized. There is plenty of jurisprudence, and social science evidence, that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to deter crime and cause more problems in the justice system and are at odds with the general principles of sentencing and judicial decision-making. It is ineffective and bad policy. People advocating for minimums are essentially trying to disrupt the work of judges to score political points. I don't know how this became a "conservative" issue or why someone would advocate for this in law school or elsewhere because they are "conservative." If someone can show an evidence-based approach that an MMS actually does anything good beyond make people feel a certain way, that would be persuasive regardless of ideology. There is a reason the judges Harper appointed still struck down minimums.

Edited by providence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

A conservative will say that LGBT people should not have rights. A leftist will say they should.

You know, it's possible to have a debate in good faith and to make the mistake of assuming that any discussion about rights is somehow as simplistic as "rights" vs. "no rights." I mean, not everyone is familiar enough with the idea of rights to appreciate that there's always a question of how far rights do or do not extend, and that it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. But quite honestly, it's impossible to make that mistake in good faith if you attended law school.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, providence said:

I wish things like this wouldn't be politicized. There is plenty of jurisprudence, and social science evidence, that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to deter crime and cause more problems in the justice system and are at odds with the general principles of sentencing and judicial decision-making. It is ineffective and bad policy. People advocating for minimums are essentially trying to disrupt the work of judges to score political points. I don't know how this became a "conservative" issue or why someone would advocate for this in law school or elsewhere because they are "conservative." If someone can show an evidence-based approach that an MMS actually does anything good beyond make people feel a certain way, that would be persuasive regardless of ideology. There is a reason the judges Harper appointed still struck down minimums.

I agree with you. But I think that a lot of conservatives think that sentencing is too light generally, hence the push for mandatory minimums. I know the evidence very clearly points that it doesn’t help, but that hasn’t ever meant that people cannot point to certain examples where our existing sentencing system has “failed” and use it as a means to justify their position. 

In any event it’s a complex issue and certainly not one that draws the same universal scorn as Rashabon’s examples, which is why I even mentioned it. I don’t want to get side tracked debating mandatory minimums because that wasn’t my intention in bringing it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ryn said:

I agree with you. But I think that a lot of conservatives think that sentencing is too light generally, hence the push for mandatory minimums. I know the evidence very clearly points that it doesn’t help, but that hasn’t ever meant that people cannot point to certain examples where our existing sentencing system has “failed” and use it as a means to justify their position. 

In any event it’s a complex issue and certainly not one that draws the same universal scorn as Rashabon’s examples, which is why I even mentioned it. I don’t want to get side tracked debating mandatory minimums because that wasn’t my intention in bringing it up. 

No, I’m not trying to debate minimums. What I’m trying to say is that if someone is strongly criticizing what someone else is saying, it may not be because they are “liberal” or “conservative” but because they are endorsing bad ideas and bad policy for lazy reasons. If you come to law school saying there’s no such thing as climate change or Iraq had WMD or mandatory minimums or the death penalty are great or Trudeau is a fascist or you should always believe survivors, someone is going to take you to task and it won’t be because of your politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "I firmly believe men and women have sexually dimorphic brain regions" code for "I think men are just smarter than women"? 

I'm 100% serious. Is that the argument here, or is there something else that could mean?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, easttowest said:

Is "I firmly believe men and women have sexually dimorphic brain regions" code for "I think men are just smarter than women"? 

I'm 100% serious. Is that the argument here, or is there something else that could mean?

Something something women shouldn't be CEOs or leaders because of PMS.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, providence said:

I wish things like this wouldn't be politicized. There is plenty of jurisprudence, and social science evidence, that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to deter crime and cause more problems in the justice system and are at odds with the general principles of sentencing and judicial decision-making. It is ineffective and bad policy. People advocating for minimums are essentially trying to disrupt the work of judges to score political points. I don't know how this became a "conservative" issue or why someone would advocate for this in law school or elsewhere because they are "conservative." If someone can show an evidence-based approach that an MMS actually does anything good beyond make people feel a certain way, that would be persuasive regardless of ideology. There is a reason the judges Harper appointed still struck down minimums.

People advocating for e.g. Louis C.K. should never work again, are advocating minimum sentences - lifelong minimum sentences. Not criminal, but it's the same sort of attitude. Similarly with so-called liberals seeing nothing wrong with permanently being unable to attend college because of a college determination of fault (and that's even aside from the issue of the fairness of such proceedings). And there are liberals who are fine with lifelong sex offender registries, civil commitment after criminal sentence served, etc., without nuance as to what the underlying crime was.

That's not you, it's just the examples that spring to mind about it's not just those who vote conservative who have matters on which they advocate minimum punishments, mandatory lifelong consequences, etc. Those who insist on all liberal = good and all conservative = evil are as much a problem as the reverse. Worse, sometimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • @easttowest Do you know if there is any advantage (scrutiny-wise) between the two categories? I've applied access and am one year out from being able to apply mature as well (as I was enrolled "full-time" in grad studies while working my first few years full-time, so it delayed that 5 year out of school period). I'm not asking to try and cheat the system in any way--just trying to assess whether I have a better shot this year or next with the mature box checked off. 
    • I'm fairly certain that nothing but press statements have come out. Nothing substantive for colleges and universities to work with.  
    • They're still processing since it seems the bulk of the people Doug Ford consulted with on this are racists and alt-right members.
    • I was accepted around Jan 9/10 and neglected to post until now! cGPA: 3.85 according to OLSAS L2: 3.89 LSAT: 162 ECs: so weak someone told me not to apply to law school 🤷‍♀️ Entirely undecided about what to do about accepting offers as of right now
    • Accepted Dec 19, couldn't believe how early I heard back since I wrote November LSAT! I've no idea what this queue is. cGPA: 3.85 according to OLSAS L2: 3.89 LSAT: 162 LORs: 1 likely very good, 1.. not so great ECs: honestly so bad that someone told me to not even apply to law school, but they include: working part time during school, coaching, an international summer course, and 1 year of school cheerleading .. yikes.    High odds I'm not accepting because of how expensive this will be, but I'm pretty proud of myself anyways, and proud of all the people who worked hard to get in so far!!!      
×