Comedians running scared over perceived shift to "political correctness"

[Endus]

I don't think anyone is contesting that its the law, just that its a bad law with bad ramifications.

It's right here;

There is no fundamental right to be protected against insults, regardless of your status.

Quebec clearly does respect that right. It's identified in their charter, as well as being identified specifically in the ruling I linked. You don't get to just claim that a legal right doesn't exist because you'd rather it didn't.

[Theodarzna]

It's right here;


Quebec clearly does respect that right. It's identified in their charter, as well as being identified specifically in the ruling I linked. You don't get to just claim that a legal right doesn't exist because you'd rather it didn't.

Thanks for skating around what I said.

[Endus]

Thanks for skating around what I said.

I really don't know what you're saying, then. What you just said was that you didn't think anyone was contesting that it's the law, just saying it was a bad law. I linked Mistame clearly contesting that it was the law. That's a direct response to your claim, no skating.

[Mistame]

I'm not saying you can't take issue with the law. That's not what you were doing. You were claiming it wasn't a right. Well, that's just factually wrong. It is a right, in Quebec. Hence the ruling. You can not like it, and I'm totally in favor of you having whatever opinion you want on it, I was simply pointing out the objective reality of the situation.

Much like how if we were to have an argument over the 2nd Amendment, in the USA, I'd probably argue that it shouldn't be a right, but I'd never try to argue that it wasn't one, in US jurisdictions.

I really don't know what you're saying, then. What you just said was that you didn't think anyone was contesting that it's the law, just saying it was a bad law. I linked Mistame clearly contesting that it was the law. That's a direct response to your claim, no skating.

I specifically stated on another page that while Quebec may have law in that regard, it doesn't make it right (Not a right). My point was that calling it a "fundamental right" (like a "basic human right") is absurd, regardless of the laws. Yes, technically, in may be a "right" in Quebec, that doesn't make it a fundamental right in any objective society, as that particular "right" is based on pure subjectivity. To be clear, a fundamental, or human right is something that extends beyond provincial and even national borders.

[Endus]

I specifically stated on another page that while Quebec may have law in that regard, it doesn't make it right (Not a right). My point was that calling it a "fundamental right" (like a "basic human right") is absurd, regardless of the laws. Yes, technically, in may be a "right" in Quebec, that doesn't make it a fundamental right in any objective society, as that particular "right" is based on pure subjectivity.

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is a definitive list of what Quebec recognizes as fundamental human rights. Their words, not mine. The word does not mean they are universally recognized, it only means that they underpin that body of law; the are the fundamentals upon which it is built.

Again, you might not like this, but you don't get to invent what the definition of a fundamental right is.

As a counter example, I'll again point to the USA's 2nd Amendment, which absolutely is a fundamental right in the USA, even if no similar right is recognized in any other developed nation that I'm aware of. Whether it's a fundamental right has to do with its importance within its jurisdictional reach, not how widely it might be recognized outside of that jurisdiction.

Nor am I even making up this definition. Read the Charter. The anti-discrimination clause is in the chapter (Chapter 1) titled "Fundamental Freedoms and Rights".

Edit: You added this after I posted;

To be clear, a fundamental, or human right is something that extends beyond provincial and even national borders.

This is not a correct statement. You're trying to invent a new use that is not how the phrase is used in legislative practice.

[Theodarzna]

I really don't know what you're saying, then. What you just said was that you didn't think anyone was contesting that it's the law, just saying it was a bad law. I linked Mistame clearly contesting that it was the law. That's a direct response to your claim, no skating.

Perhaps he was speaking as a general principle or he was gravely mistaken then.

[Simulacrum]

...

Is political correctness more important than ensuring we live in a decent, caring society?

Well, at least you're admitting that they're incompatible.

[Azgraal]

Daily Reminder, Left-wing people (PC) has no humor sense. They will take anything that slightly offends them, and make a big deal from nothing.

Truly, the Retarded Group of Mankind. Can't take a fucking joke without being triggered. What the fuck is this shit?



Infracted for flaming. Don't refer to people as "retarded".

Case and point?
Wonderful PC world we live in

- - - Updated - - -

Well, at least you're admitting that they're incompatible.

When I was a kid I was told if someone mocked me I should ignore them. Now people are taught to throw themselves to the ground, throw a tantrum and demand compensation for their hurt feelings.

[Mistame]

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is a definitive list of what Quebec recognizes as fundamental human rights. Their words, not mine. The word does not mean they are universally recognized, it only means that they underpin that body of law; the are the fundamentals upon which it is built.

Again, you might not like this, but you don't get to invent what the definition of a fundamental right is.

As a counter example, I'll again point to the USA's 2nd Amendment, which absolutely is a fundamental right in the USA, even if no similar right is recognized in any other developed nation that I'm aware of. Whether it's a fundamental right has to do with its importance within its jurisdictional reach, not how widely it might be recognized outside of that jurisdiction.

Meh. You may have a point with "fundamental" referring to "rights" exclusive to a nation, but generally, the nation itself determines those. I've never seen a case where a province determines its own "rights". /shrug

So I suppose your comparison has its merits. "Not being offended" as a "fundamental" right is no more a human right than the 2nd Amendment.

[Endus]

Meh. You may have a point with "fundamental" referring to "rights" exclusive to a nation, but generally, the nation itself determines those. I've never seen a case where a province determines its own "rights". /shrug So I suppose your comparison has its merits. "Not being offended" as a "fundamental" right is no more a human right than the 2nd Amendment.

Quebec's a bit of an odd duck; most of Canada works with a common law-based system of law, like the USA and Britain, while Quebec uses a partially civil law-based system, like France.

The central point I'm getting at is that "human rights" aren't things that exist outside of jurisdictional definition. And they only exist under those jurisdictions, insofar as that particular force recognizes them as existing. It seems like there's a lot of consistency on things like right to life and property, but there's a lot of fringe cases where really important rights in one country or group of countries is just straight-up not recognized in another.

That doesn't make them somehow less of a right, because their value was only ever within their own jurisdiction, in the first place.

[Mistame]

Quebec's a bit of an odd duck; most of Canada works with a common law-based system of law, like the USA and Britain, while Quebec uses a partially civil law-based system, like France.

That explains so much.

The central point I'm getting at is that "human rights" aren't things that exist outside of jurisdictional definition. And they only exist under those jurisdictions, insofar as that particular force recognizes them as existing. It seems like there's a lot of consistency on things like right to life and property, but there's a lot of fringe cases where really important rights in one country or group of countries is just straight-up not recognized in another.

That doesn't make them somehow less of a right, because their value was only ever within their own jurisdiction, in the first place.

I mean, I suppose you have a point. I just get irritated when people starting claiming random shit is a "basic human right". Especially when it involves subjective garbage like "feelings".

[Mistame]

Physical pain is also subjective, but people don't have nearly the same problem with treating it as actual damage. It's just when we get to feelings and emotional pain people suddenly treat it like it's purely imaginary.

I'm not saying it's "imaginary". Just less relevant.

[Mistame]

And I'm just pointing out an inconsistency common in Western society.

I get that. I just mean physical pain is quite a bit less subjective than emotional pain.

[Mistame]

I don't suppose you have anything other than your personal opinion to support that.

So you think that an equal number of people would suffer emotional pain from say, a break-up as would feel physical pain from say, a hammer to the knee?

[May90]

I'm not saying it's "imaginary". Just less relevant.

I suppose you've never had emotional catastrophes in your life then. They can incapacitate you much more than just, say, getting knocked out in a boxing match.

[Mistame]

I suppose you've never had emotional catastrophes in your life then. They can incapacitate you much more than just, say, getting knocked out in a boxing match.

Sure, I've had things happen that many people would flip out over. I just don't let emotion run my life. Everyone (with the exception of a disorder) feels physical pain. Not everyone experiences emotional pain and certainly not to the same degree as others.

[Hemak]

I mean, if the context of your point is the US, anything to do with Europe is irrelevant. You were talking about the 1st Amendment, which is protection from government. A private entity cannot "violate" your "freedom of speech".

Well you said freedom of speech, which is a concept. A concept I'm finding more and more to be unique to America. (See Germany, Canada, etc.) However can you not see that preventing someone's speech (I'm talking beyond facebook and twitter) can be done by individuals. That was my point in bringing up Eastern Europe under the iron curtain. Mass censorship is not possible without the consent of the people.

A private entity cannot "violate" your "freedom of speech". Are you agreeing with me by saying it would be illegal for a private entity to violate your first amendment rights in the US? Or are you suggesting it is impossible for a private entity to violate your first amendment rights because it is within said private entity's right to violate your rights?

The only way this can happen is if the owner of that platform voluntarily and continuously refuses to exert their right to editorial control over their platform. And really, the closest you get to that is /b/, on 4chan. Not exactly a rousing endorsement of the idea.

That's the reality; those "free spaces" already exist, and people don't focus on them.

You say this like that's not what I said. That it would be entirely on the platform owner.
TOP KEK, if you think 4chan is some bastion of free speech. They are just as bad as reddit when it comes to censorship.
I'm waiting for wikileaks to launch their twitter alternative honestly.

[Mistame]

You realize you're approaching this with as much precision as trying to rewrite Shakespeare by slapping your keyboard repeatedly, right? What's in question here is the degree of variation that would exist in the pain people experience as a result of consistent situations (which, for the record, does not include just any breakup). That is what it means for something to be more or less subjective in this case.

While that was certainly an oversimplification, the point is the same as you're describing. The reaction to emotional stimuli will typically vary more than that of physical stimuli. Fewer people will experience emotional pain from similar events than they would from physical events.

[Mistame]

A private entity cannot "violate" your "freedom of speech". Are you agreeing with me by saying it would be illegal for a private entity to violate your first amendment rights in the US? Or are you suggesting it is impossible for a private entity to violate your first amendment rights because it is within said private entity's right to violate your rights?

A private entity can certainly censor others, and legally so, especially if the medium belongs to them. I'm saying it's impossible for a private entity to violate your freedom of speech (the right, not the "concept") because that protection does not extend to private entities. It's protect from government censorship. Period.

You're just repeating yourself. It is quite clear that we are not unclear about what you claim. What I called into question was your justification for claiming it.

It's a pretty basic deduction using any real-world examples.

[Hemak]

A private entity can certainly censor others, and legally so, especially if the medium belongs to them. I'm saying it's impossible for a private entity to violate your freedom of speech because that protection does not extend to private entities. It's protect from government censorship. Period.

So you're saying a private entity cannot violate someones 1st amendment rights. So let's say a business makes cakes. The owners of the cake shop don't approve of homosexuality and refuse to make a cake for gay weddings. Surely the business cannot be prosecuted for censoring someones beliefs especially since the medium (cakes and baked goods) belongs to them.