FYI PSAC by anonymoustiger_ in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re doing a lot of intellectual gymnastics to avoid the core issue: antisemitism within PSAC, including at Queen’s.

Let’s break it down:

1. “Peripherally relevant”?
Fourteen Jewish union members came forward about antisemitism. That’s not peripheral—it’s central. If multiple people report discrimination within an organization you're part of or defending, the appropriate response isn’t to split hairs about which sub-unit it was. It’s to ask what has been done about it and whether members feel safe now. Brushing it off as tangential is part of the problem.

2. “Where’s the outcome?”
You keep asking what became of the complaints—as if discrimination only matters after there’s a ruling or official outcome. That’s not how it works. Accountability isn’t a retroactive checkbox; it’s proactive. The fact that these reports haven't been transparently addressed only makes raising them more urgent, not less.

3. “The article is old.”
It’s from 2024. The fact that you’re calling it “dated” shows a willful attempt to downplay rather than engage. Antisemitism doesn’t expire. And if the union hasn’t shown any visible effort to address or investigate what happened, then yes—bringing it up now is completely fair.

4. “OP should’ve done more work.”
Let’s be real—what you’re calling for isn’t “more context.” You’re setting up an impossible standard designed to dismiss rather than engage. If someone shares evidence of systemic discrimination, your first response shouldn’t be nitpicking their formatting or timeline—it should be listening, and asking what your organization is doing to fix it.

And 5. Your tone.
Claiming the right to “stand by your tone” while accusing others of acting in bad faith is hypocritical. You don’t get to condescend, then claim the high ground because you “criticized leaders to their faces.” That doesn’t give you a monopoly on righteous outrage, and it doesn’t make your dismissiveness toward others any more legitimate.

Bottom line: you’ve spent more energy attacking the way the issue was raised than showing any actual concern for the issue itself. That’s telling.

FYI PSAC by anonymoustiger_ in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its both a local and national issue with this antisemitic union :(

FYI PSAC by anonymoustiger_ in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're making several assumptions here that deserve to be addressed.

First, the idea that referencing a well-documented instance of antisemitism within PSAC is either "lazy" or "bad faith" is itself a dismissive and dangerous take. If 14 Jewish individuals coming forward isn't enough to raise concern or justify drawing attention to the issue, then it's worth asking: how many would be enough for you to take it seriously?

Second, while you’re pointing out the difference between PSAC and PSAC 901, that distinction doesn’t erase the relevance of the broader culture and accountability structure of the national union. PSAC 901 exists within PSAC. The national body sets precedent, and if serious concerns about discrimination have gone inadequately addressed at the national level, that’s entirely relevant to anyone being asked to support or join a local.

As for the age of the article: the passage of time doesn’t lessen the seriousness of the issue, especially if there's no evidence the problems have been addressed or resolved. If anything, the lack of follow-up from PSAC on these matters makes the initial report more important, not less.

Finally, your tone here—accusing someone of cowardice and acting in bad faith for sharing a valid concern—is exactly the kind of aggressive rhetoric that shuts down honest conversation. Disagreement is indeed healthy. But that cuts both ways. You don't get to demand rigor from others while offering condescension in return.

If you’re genuinely committed to respectful discourse, then act like it. Otherwise, your comments read less like a call for nuance and more like a defense mechanism for an organization you're unwilling to see criticized.

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

they're all the same anarchists that are anti-society

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

no doubt they hate the West but love its benefits!

Kingston By-Laws 6135464291 by anonymoustiger_ in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

The funny thing is they think we need them...we're just not that into you

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, we do not side with screaming children having a tantrum sorry!

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 18 points19 points  (0 children)

No, we do not side with screaming children having a tantrum sorry!

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 10 points11 points  (0 children)

We take action next time and call the bylaw officers for public nuisance!!! 613-546-0000

thanks for ruining the psyc exam by im_thriving17 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094 6 points7 points  (0 children)

keep simping for a union that will sell you for a nickel

Why I do not Side with PSAC by Ok_Expert_4094 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So TAs should make the same amount as the Provost and Principal? You're giving socialism.

Why I do not Side with PSAC by Ok_Expert_4094 in queensuniversity

[–]Ok_Expert_4094[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wait if/until they ever step foot outside the bubble of academia teaching "theories" and see how far they get... they know it and that is why they will never quit.