Why the entire country is still talking about a UC Berkeley professor’s toxic dating advice

[bèlla]

It seems like God did a lot of good work through you!

Your story reminds me of that of a close relative of mine who endured the late 1960s and early 1970s and was not a hippie; she was protected from the counter-culture by her innocence and virtue. And she has since become a fountain of holiness and divine love in our family.

Yes He did.

We were indoctrinated about excess in our formative years in school. We saw films about Woodstock, the hippie movement. Every month we watched a couple and by the end of the year we'd covered a lot. I wasn't attracted to that lifestyle and always felt it would shame my family and compel me to do horrible things. We drank alcohol but that was it. I saw the downside of going beyond it.

I remember visiting an acquaintance in my late teens and they were doing laundry in the bathtub because they spent the money on marijuana. I was so dumbfounded by their stupidity and reminded them they wouldn't dry in time before their mother got home. I didn't offer to help and left.

I learned a long time ago that people rub off on you and there's things I don't want to be around. Character and ethics are really important. I'm not the kind of person who'll befriend someone cheating on their spouse or doing underhanded stuff. I can't co-sign it and it's tainting me.

That restricts my connections to some degree but it reinforces virtue. When people are making a genuine effort to love the Lord and live honorably it makes a difference.

~bella

 

[Estrid]

I’m sorry to hear that.

I didn't like it myself.

But are you ( shrug ) OK with freedom
only for one team?

 

[Michie]

I didn't like it myself.

But are you ( shrug ) OK with freedom
only for one team?

It’s a message board. They own it. They are allowed to set the tone. We have the freedom to participate or not. Seems all groups have their platforms. There is freedom in that and in daily life from my experience. The professor, right or wrong in his opinion or personal experience has every right to say what he did to help a student. Is it true? That’s up to the student to find out.

 

[The Liturgist]

The topic is force and violence used to
prevent free speech.

It's kind of a topic for me, having been
beaten and jailed for ecercizing my " free!Hong
Kong" views.

We look to the USA with hope and anxiety
as freedom evaporates with so many attacking
what remains.

You’ve been beaten and jailed by the CCP regime or one of its many international allies that has( in violation of the treaty by which Britain transferred Hong Kong sovereignity) subjugated Hong Kong, for advocating for the restoration of civil liberties there?

Because if so, I greatly admire your courage and regret what happened to you.

I also understand and sympathize with your concerns about how the Woke Movement in the US is eroding free speech. A professor at a taxpayer-funded university like UC Berkeley ought to be able to say whatever he wants to say, aside from speech not covered by the First Amendment (for example, terroristic threats, statements made in contempt of court, slander and libel, disclosure of classified military information and intelligence that would endanger our soldiers, civilians and the network of foreign espionage agents who risk their lives to provide our intelligence agencies, shouting “fire” in a theater, and a few other very limited restrictions).

Now one can argue that employers like UC Berkeley ought to have the right to discipline or terminate employees who say things that cause them embarassment, but I have concerns about how far this is going, in that obviously, if someone cannot fully enjoy their first amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly, and so on, without risking their livelihood, this has the effect of compromising the first amendment, which is why I am so concerned by it.

My view is that organizations, whether public or private, if they are to be allowed to fire people on the basis of offensive or harmful speech, should be limited to only the most egregious statements, which might otherwise be unlawful, such as disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information, slander and libel, and calling for violence against members of a specific ethnic group or religion or sex (as an example of this, I would refer,llsome recent remarks made by persons on the Far Left that threaten practitioners of Judaism and people of Jewish descent.

 

[Chesterton]

It's kind of a topic for me, having been
beaten and jailed for ecercizing my " free!Hong
Kong" views.

This is off-topic, but I'm really curious because I'm a little confused. I've seen posts of yours where you praise China. I wouldn't have expected you to be a "Free Hong Kong" supporter.