Printable View
I don't think some guy in the street refusing to call people by their prefered pronouns will get fined or arrested, but what about in the workforce or anywhere academic? Now that gender is a protected identifier in regards to discrimination in the human rights act and added to the criminal code in regards to hate speech and hate crimes I can see a refusal of using prefered pronouns being a contentious issue in the future. Time will tell.
It's been about 3 years since the bill passed, and there hasn't been a single case of anyone being arrested or charged under it. The only effect is that it extends existing protections to gender identity. So, for example, you can't refuse to serve someone because they're trans, and you can't go around saying that trans people should be exterminated. Misgendering isn't an issue, I agree that would be quite absurd and overreaching, though I also think people who go around intentionally misgendering others are assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
I do agree people should not be discriminated against for their gender identity, just want that to be clear.
Personally I wouldn't use those pronouns like zim/zhe/ver. I think that's getting a bit carried away, I'd personally just use them/they. I also do think it's a fair statement that ideologues have or are trying to weaponize this law to compel speech to fit their narrative of how society should interact with each other.
Oh my fucking god I didn't even read this post. If you're so blatantly uninformed about the world that you think communism was unpopular in Germany after the war (leftist parties got about 40% of the vote in Germany in the 1933 election, in 1932 their combined support was greater than the Nazi party) or that Hitler rebranded the Nazi party as 'socialist' because communism was banned (Hitler banned the Communist Party of Germany after he won in 1933) then I please ask you to read and learn more about what you're talking about before you continue posting nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
The German army was conservative. Hitler already tried the revolutionary tactic once and it failed. He very promptly changed his worldview to appeal to the nationalists and the conservative government, who were distrustful of left-wingers in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Communism hadn’t been banned, but the government was NOT in love with it by any means.
You can can find examples; it is illegal in Canada to refuse to refer to someone by the pronoun they request. We’re at the point where a professor was persuaded by faculty members to do something about what he said vis-a-vis Bill C-16. This is not normal. I don’t think it’s okay to discriminate either, and personally if asked to, as long as the person didn’t have an ideological reason to ask me to refer to them by non-standard pronouns, I would probably do as they wished.
Lastly, I haven’t watched much of Lauren Southern videos but as far as I can tell, she is not alt-right. She seemed to be a relatively normal person to me. But the main point was, the fact that you can intimidate doctors and clerks to legally change your gender is not ok...
You seem to be having a purely emotional response to these facts.
It doesn’t remove the legitimacy of ADHD, but I wasn’t arguing for or against the legitimacy of transgenderism. That’s beside the point. My problem is that you shouldn’t be FORCED to say something. As I’ve said, I’ve no problem with transgender people... putting myself in a transgender pwrson’s shoes I would personally be quite disgusted by the legislation they attempted to enforce because it:
a) implies transgender people are snowflakes who get triggered if someone ‘misgenders’ them
b) implies that transgender people should feel bad about being misgendered, which is only the case if the ‘gender’ identity they had was fake.
For example, I have severe social issues in real life. Does that mean we should pass legislation to force others to be nice to me? Of course not. That’s absurd. I would be the first to protest if that happened.
Also, not sure why you’re characterizing me as alt-right. I’m actually rather centre-right and somewhat liberal in my social (but not economic) viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
The criminal code doesn't mention pronouns so not using/misusing them should not result in any arrests by itself. Discrimination is where it would get murky. Like oops said you can't refuse service to someone because they identify as a certain gender, but in the work and academic landscapes where everyone knows shit gets twisted and contorted simply refusing to use pronouns can very well lead to a defamation case imo. Basically any professional, leader, whatever that doesn't want to risk trouble now should alter their speech.
Really? It doesnt? I assumed it did. But you’re right the average person probably won’t be arrested or fines for refusing to use pronouns.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
This is entirely false. It's based on a misinterpretation of the law which has been debunked by all sorts of people including constitutional lawyers. It isn't even a grey area, it's a complete falsehood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
No it isn't. The problem lies on the individuals intimidating doctors and clerks, not on the laws or otherwise. I bring you back to the example of any person being able to lie about medical/mental conditions to manipulate doctors into getting specific diagnoses. That is not okay either. Otherwise, I don't understand your greater point you were trying to make with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Oh no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...n-dog-whistler
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/q...-genocide-meme
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...nues-phil-goff
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...d-from-britain
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...19-p515cc.html
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...9cc568e51523e0
https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-s...14-p4zrgq.html
If you aren't alt-right then you're fairly deep down the path of becoming full blown alt-right. It's better to stop that in its tracks, and why I'm responding to you in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Try watching this series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY
Lmao I just googled Lauren Southern.
FeelsAmazingManQuote:
Shortly before a planned speaking tour of Australia in July 2018, Australia's Department of Home Affairs denied Lauren Southern an Electronic Travel Authority visa, saying it was "not a working visa". She intended to charge $79 for a basic ticket and up to $749 for an "intimate dinner". The Australian government allowed her to enter the country once she had the correct visa.
Lmao
I could swear I replied to this, but I guess I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall
I was saying that it's not a matter of figuring out where to draw the line to reach that balance; the line draws itself when you tackle the causes of bigotry; lack of education, poverty, disenfranchisement, violence, social exclusion, a media and politics apparatus that does nothing but throw half of the population against the other half all day long... you can't have a society that breeds intolerance and then try to force some arbitrary line that people must conform with against their entire upbringing. It's never going to work.
As for this very specific example, I'd feel safer in a room full of Sikhs with kirpans (the "knife") which are all about compassion, mercy, and protecting those who can't defend themselves from the intolerant, than in a room with a couple of unarmed bigots unable to engage in rational argument.
I just want to point out that the conversation above is off-topic and that Ganelon is not alt-right lol, I'm a leftist myself and what he said that was wrong factually was just due to misinformation about other countries' politics or history, not to some extreme-right ideology bias. Also, politics are a hot topic for sure, but please try to limit your posts to rational arguments and not ad hominems, since that brings nothing useful in a debate where people only seek truth and not to convince others.
This implies that everyone is able, with the proper conditions external to themselves, to think logically and to think the same way on topics that are subject to bigotry... and that is doubtful, although you could argue it is true. It is however not provable, because removing all causes of bigotry in a society is purely utopic; the results of such an action can therefore not be proved. Because bigotry cannot be completely eradicated, it has to be handled, notably via laws and, arguably, censorship (the latter being the thread's point).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen
As for the Sikh knife, it was just an example of something that is subject to debate concerning tolerance. I don't mind it personally, but I find it understandable and reasonable that a kippa and a kirpan aren't treated the same way legally (for strict security purposes), for example.
Unless there's brain damage or some condition that affects that capacity, yes, everyone should be able to think logically, as it's a part of being human. People incapable of logical thought aren't fit to live in any sort of society, tolerant or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall
But that's not the issue at hand; the vast majority of intolerant people are very capable of logical thought, but the logical process of different people will vary wildly depending on their circumstances. After all, we haven't changed much since the days when people would see lightning in the skies thousands of years ago and think that some god was punishing or rewarding them for something; it's not that they were idiots or unable of thinking logically; they didn't have access to factual information that showed the real cause for it and were just repeating the same thing that everyone around them had been saying since the moment they were born.
Not at all. It's the pizza example all over again. I can't stand pineapple pizza, but I'm not going to go to the pineapple pizza place and shoot everyone to death because of it. That's the whole point of tolerance; having the basic ability of holding different opinions and wanting different things without trying to impose them onto others by force. In fact, one could argue that one of the key components of a tolerant society would be that anyone is free to challenge its ideas, just not with guns and bombs. If everyone thought and wanted the same, there would be nothing to tolerate.Quote:
and to think the same way on topics that are subject to bigotry...
Yes, of course. A fully tolerant society is utopian by definition and we'll never live to see anything remotely close to one outside of small communes of like-minded individuals. And yes, it is handled, but then again, unless its causes are addressed, any laws and censorship will be nothing but band-aids.Quote:
and that is doubtful, although you could argue it is true. It is however not provable, because removing all causes of bigotry in a society is purely utopic; the results of such an action can therefore not be proved. Because bigotry cannot be completely eradicated, it has to be handled, notably via laws and, arguably, censorship (the latter being the thread's point).
This is subject to debate. One could argue that only a few people are able to use original logical thinking, and that the rest of the people are only able to sheep the thoughts of the "thinking minority"; the voice of the majority would then be an expression of the "common voice", and not of the individuals themselves, for the most part.
As for the lightning example, what you said is true, but it doesn't mean everyone back then used what seemed logical at that time to explain the phenomena. Just like in modern days, a few people (namely people who had some mystic role at that time, probably) would have thought about it. They would then have concluded that gods must have been doing something for such an impressive and loud event to happen.
My bad, that was unclear. I meant "to think the same way about the reality of bigotry", not that everyone would think the same about everything; I completely agree with the second paragraph (not that there's much to disagree on lol, that's the basis of the need for tolerance).
Indeed, such measures will merely be patches, and addressing the causes of intolerance is optimal. However, it's not always possible to do so; most modern western countries have been trying to do that to different extents for reasons that go beyond simple tolerance (for example, education has a lot of purposes), yet not many, if any, have succeeded. That's why the "band-aids" are needed, as long as they actually help and do not destroy what they seek to protect.
I mean.. She is cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
I am not into transactional sex but if I was......
I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.
The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'
I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.
Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.
I feel that this is true evil.
On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.
In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.
I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.
Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.
This is flawed logic in a lot of ways, and indicative of very little life experience; considering you're more or less arguing with a slippery-slope fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
What's the point of a law if it's not to be used?
The whole premise of the law is to incite a type of self-censorship, and to intimidate those via force to use said pronouns.
Answer me this: What's the point of said law, if it's not intended to be used eventually?
Sure no one may have been arrested over it yet, but if the whole point is it's not meant to be used to arrest anyone anyway, then it shouldn't exist in the first place.
An example demonstrating my point is 'The Patriot Act'.
No one was against the idea initially because they didn't think it would actually be used against those domestically; however after it existed for some time, no one was arrested under it, and people forgot that it was something passed relatively recently, that they resigned it as being a new reality.
The whole point I'm making here is that humans are very susceptible to normalization of new horrific realities, given enough exposure, repetition, and conditioning.
Hence what underlines the whole concept of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.
Because there literally is an organized effort to shame europeans out of a culture, and heritage.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
See the statues of famous Europeans being torn down, the revision of history, and current guilt-complex being thrusted unto current-day "white" people, shaming them for "colonizing" and "slavery" that they had no part or benefit from in current day.
Even the concept of "white privilege" is indicative of this very fact, that "white" people are being shamed for a contrived 'original sin' to otherwise erode cohesion, and promote race-mixing agendas.
I'm curious (((shill))), how many shekels were you paid for this post?
Oh it's "your" country now?Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
It's ironic and hypocritical that you take this stance.
You seem to imply disdain those that claim ownership of something, yet do the same yourself.
Furthermore; stop acting like such a victim, and misrepresenting the state of affairs in the grand scheme of things.
Objectively speaking: Canada is considered (as a whole) a very leftist country, with laws pertaining to taxation, gun control, social issues, etc...
You know this just as well as anyone else, but you're attempting to gaslight, and make a mountain over a mole-hole because you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on to make such a haphazard argument.
With all due respect, you're a disgrace; you claim to morally grand-stand about "muh objectivity" or "muh critical thinking skills" yet you then betray your emotional stake, and confirmation bias by the hostile connotations therein.
The cognitive dissonance is so real within your post, if only you took a second to re-read the nonsense you're spewing, you would see you contradict yourself in the very same paragraph.
I could continue to list the rife hypocrisies within your crude attempt at a point, however I believe I've already made it rather clear how you come off as a triggered, bleeding-heart leftist; as it's already rather apparent without my comments detailing such.
./thread