Free speech dies in Canada, Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons (gender pronouns/hatespeech)

[GoodRevrnd]

Seems like the key sticking point on this is the provision for "promoting hatred." That could easily be used as a catchall against anyone expressing an opinion, making a joke, deliberately being an ass, refusing to call someone by their preferred pronoun, whatever. I presume this is how the comedian got fined for making fun of the disabled person--because doing so "promoted hatred" of disabled people.

 

[xthetenth]

The same restrictions they have in the US. Sorry. I had meant to mention that.

Okay. I don't necessarily agree 100% but they're livable and generally philosophically sound enough I don't have any major arguments there.

 

[Blue_Max]

I'm sorry that you're so limited that you can't consider things outside the context of how they make you right. Intellectual dishonesty like that must truly be a curse to you and those unfortunate enough to have to interact with you.

I made a correct statement that you twisted into "incorrect" by adding extra elements not in the original statement. I say 2+2=4, you said "wrong, it's five because you missed variable X!" That makes YOU the intellectually dishonest one.
And that's why I dislike progressives - they do exactly that on a very regular basis. The ends ALWAYS justifies the means to them. Always.
Hence the recent/current riots.

So people should be able to freely advocate for your murder, tell lies about you to your employer that would get you fired, and so on?

Another reason I dislike progressives, they do all that on a regular basis too. More punching than murder, but lies to get fired? You bet'cha!
Defy the politically correct "progressives" - be prepared to face their wrath with every underhanded dirty trick in the book.

 

[umbrella39]

Could the poor oft persecuted class of white male cucks be any more pathetic...

 

[Blue_Max]

Could the poor oft persecuted class of white male cucks be any more pathetic...

Thanks for the example of real-world racism and sexism constantly displayed by the regressive-progressives.
To them white = ALWAYS the oppressor, others are ALWAYS oppressed by them.
Male ALWAYS oppresses female.

The real world doesn't work that way... which is why many BLM black leaders are very, very privileged. Many of the whiteys being attacked are NOT privileged.

Your professors have ruined your entire thought process. Few people ever come back from it.

 

[umbrella39]

Could the poor oft persecuted class of white male cucks be any more pathetic...

I'll answer my own question... YES Case and point one post up...

 

[xthetenth]

I made a correct statement that you twisted into "incorrect" by adding extra elements not in the original statement. I say 2+2=4, you said "wrong, it's five because you missed variable X!" That makes YOU the intellectually dishonest one.

So you concede that you routinely discard variables that are inconvenient to your argument and think that considering things in their proper context to illustrate the bias implicit in which aspects you discard is intellectually dishonest? That's rich. If your only reason for referring to Tranquility Lane was to evoke the aspect of control, then why did you go to pains to include a screenshot of the betty persona right next to Braun's name. That was a deliberate choice, and your backpedaling can't hide the meaning of what you originally said. Also, backpedaling is weaksauce. Defend your opinions, or have the strength to accept their falsity.

The real world doesn't work that way... which is why many BLM black leaders are very, very privileged. Many of the whiteys being attacked are NOT privileged.

What privilege are you going to claim for them? Is it that if they're lucky they can get afforded the same respect on a news outlet that would be afforded someone who's attempting to get people to stop vaccinating their kids?

Your professors have ruined your entire thought process. Few people ever come back from it.

You have claims without proof. It's no wonder that you'd see academia as a foreign thought process. Are you still traumatized by citations?

 

[Victorian Gray]

more or less, yes.

You will get hauled before a HRT (human rights tribunal) where you are always guilty. HRT have a 100% conviction rate. You will have to cover your legal costs while the plaintiff's costs are covered by the government. You will be ordered to pay a fine to offset the emotional harm of not using the correct pronoun.

This should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. Pronouns are not a human right. This is just more PC garbage that needs to go.

That is not true. It's closer to 50/50 by all that I've read

For example check the decisions for BC from last year.

Page 9, final decisions, shows a 50% success rate in favour of the complainant both in areas of discrimination and actual grounds.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/annual_reports/2015-2016.pdf

 

[Blue_Max]

So you concede that you routinely discard variables that are inconvenient to your argument and think that considering things in their proper context to illustrate the bias implicit in which aspects you discard is intellectually dishonest? That's rich. If your only reason for referring to Tranquility Lane was to evoke the aspect of control, then why did you go to pains to include a screenshot of the betty persona right next to Braun's name. That was a deliberate choice, and your backpedaling can't hide the meaning of what you originally said. Also, backpedaling is weaksauce. Defend your opinions, or have the strength to accept their falsity.

No.... gawd... I didn't discard a variable - YOU ADDED ONE.
YOU are the dishonest one here, not me.

and back to your obsession, Betty/Braun is a control freak who will punish you for not playing along (just like the vocal people demanding this law and will be the largest abusers of it.) No backpedaling happening, nor is it required.

To imply that I am is, again, dishonest on your part.

Friggin' progressives can't tell the truth to save their lives. "Everyone's truth is different!" Gawd... I give up.

 

[xthetenth]

That is not true. It's closer to 50/50 by all that I've read

For example check the decisions for BC from last year.

Page 9, final decisions, shows a 50% success rate in favour of the complainant both in areas of discrimination and actual grounds.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/annual_reports/2015-2016.pdf

Wow, that's actually really low if that's cases that go to trial.

 

[xthetenth]

No.... gawd... I didn't discard a variable - YOU ADDED ONE.
YOU are the dishonest one here, not me.

and back to your obsession, Betty/Braun is a control freak who will punish you for not playing along (just like the vocal people demanding this law and will be the largest abusers of it.) No backpedaling happening, nor is it required.

To imply that I am is, again, dishonest on your part.

Friggin' progressives can't tell the truth to save their lives. "Everyone's truth is different!" Gawd... I give up.

This is incoherent garbage. You are the one denying the words and arguments you've already made (also good job totally forgetting trans men exist as well as forgetting that bottom surgery exists with what you added after I saw the post last, but congrats on noticing that sexual orientation doesn't change with hormones. You'll also note that people who were interested in men before transitioning remain interested in men). That is dishonesty in that you cannot settle on something you can represent as the truth, and have to backpedal. You didn't pick Braun as an example for no reason, and you didn't mention Braun's name, give a picture of his persona as Betty and then give literally no other context on the questline for no reason. If you were referring to Tranquility Lane or any of the previous sims Braun ran, you would have described them. You weren't.

You're taking a narrow, distorted view of a fictional story and using it as a touchstone to back up a belief you have about how real life works. The last time I read something that flamboyantly stupid it was one of Scalia's opinions, justifying torture because the script writers of 24 made it work when Jack Bauer does it.

Where do you even get an assertion that the truth is somehow fluid from all that I've been saying, incidentally? You have yet to give me the sense that you're actually understanding and responding to my arguments as a whole rather than stringing together responses to words, phrases and impressions as if you can cargo cult a proper argument.

What insecurity eats at you? What bizzare tranquility lane parody of the old timey West do you see as being so under threat by progressives? I can tell you didn't live through it by the things you represent as unassailable fact, but I really can't get a grasp on what your flimsy rationalizations are trying to shield. Is your masculinity threatened?

 

[Blue_Max]

Ah.... good trolling x. I think...? Nah... you can't so wholly believe that progressive horsepucky.

 

[xthetenth]

Now I feel a bit bad. Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Argue one of the points I made. I don't care which. I'll bet you can't bring yourself to engage with my points enough to accurately represent my words.

 

[soundforbjt]

Now I feel a bit bad. Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Argue one of the points I made. I don't care which. I'll bet you can't bring yourself to engage with my points enough to accurately represent my words.

He'll have a video from YouTube, will that count?

 

[Victorian Gray]

He'll have a video from YouTube, will that count?

1 video, 3 memes and a couple of the usual references to cultural Marxists, 9 millionth wave feminism and nasssssty Muslims.

 

[MajinCry]

1 video, 3 memes and a couple of the usual references to cultural Marxists, 9 millionth wave feminism and nasssssty Muslims.

The narrator better have a beard and long hair. No hair, no fair.

 

[JSt0rm]

I made a correct statement that you twisted into "incorrect" by adding extra elements not in the original statement. I say 2+2=4, you said "wrong, it's five because you missed variable X!" That makes YOU the intellectually dishonest one.
And that's why I dislike progressives - they do exactly that on a very regular basis. The ends ALWAYS justifies the means to them. Always.
Hence the recent/current riots.



Another reason I dislike progressives, they do all that on a regular basis too. More punching than murder, but lies to get fired? You bet'cha!
Defy the politically correct "progressives" - be prepared to face their wrath with every underhanded dirty trick in the book.

 

[jackstar7]

Blue Max

I wish there was a Love button for this.

 

[sdifox]

Well I won't expect the Westboro Baptist Church to be making many cross-border trips then...oh wait they're not government so they can still wear "God Hates ______" t-shirts?

Nope, them banned from entering Canada.

 

[kinev]

The clear distinction here is continue to harass. If you repeatedly do this after being made aware and do so in a manner that is clearly intended to offend then yes you'e accountable.

Let's look at it another way. You go up to someone and ask about their religion. No big deal. Now you keep doing it. Daily. You're told to cease and you still continue to do so. You are intentionally harassing that person.

It's not about getting something wrong once. People keep trying to use this example no matter how many times they've been told it's false. It's about knowing better and continuing to do so explicitly for the purpose of making that person uncomfortable or to offend them. No different than anything else that is defined as harassment in a workplace.

I agree; doing it once would be pretty difficult to claim as harassment. So, how many times before it becomes harassment? Twice? Three? Five? Over what time period? That's why I presented the 3 times over six months example. Is that harassment? Even if there was no intent?

You didn't address the fluid gender people, either. What if they change every month, but I'm always a month behind? 12 times in a year, but each instance was a new gender that they identified with. Is that harassment?

I totally agree that this isn't an issue if a person transitions, tells their employer, and the employer gets it wrong once. But, do you really not see the danger in the other situations presented? What exactly constitutes "repeatedly"? What about "clearly intended" and "explicitly"? Can a person be uncomfortable or offended by a totally innocent mistake?

 

[sdifox]

I agree; doing it once would be pretty difficult to claim as harassment. So, how many times before it becomes harassment? Twice? Three? Five? Over what time period? That's why I presented the 3 times over six months example. Is that harassment? Even if there was no intent?

You didn't address the fluid gender people, either. What if they change every month, but I'm always a month behind? 12 times in a year, but each instance was a new gender that they identified with. Is that harassment?

I totally agree that this isn't an issue if a person transitions, tells their employer, and the employer gets it wrong once. But, do you really not see the danger in the other situations presented? What exactly constitutes "repeatedly"? What about "clearly intended" and "explicitly"? Can a person be uncomfortable or offended by a totally innocent mistake?

this just puts discrimination against gender identity or expression in the same classification as discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, etc. So same standards apply.